Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is a formal appeal against the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by MET Parking Services regarding an alleged parking contravention at McDonald’s Leytonstone.

Your allegation is that the Keepers vehicle was parked at the location and the occupants left the premises. However, MET has provided zero proof that the vehicle’s occupants left the McDonald’s site. The photographs included in your Notice to Keeper show only a parked car, which proves nothing regarding your allegation. Your entire claim is based on pure speculation, and the lack of clarity in your signage further undermines any suggestion that a contract was breached.

The alleged breach appears to be based on occupants "leaving the premises", but your NtK does not specify whether it is only the driver who must remain on-site or whether this supposed obligation extends to all vehicle occupants. If your claim is that all passengers must remain on-site at all times, this is utterly unenforceable and would be considered an unfair and unreasonable contractual term. On the other hand, if the signage refers only to the driver, then your claim is clearly flawed, as you have made no attempt to identify the driver.

Furthermore, given that the photographs were taken by your operative, it is clear that they were physically present at the time of the alleged contravention. For your operative to have concluded that the occupants "left the site," they must have been actively stalking the vehicle’s occupants for an extended period.

Just consider what this actually means:

• Your operative saw the occupants exit the vehicle.

• They waited while the occupants entered the McDonald’s restaurant.

• They continued waiting while the occupants purchased food and consumed their meals.

• They then followed the occupants after they left the restaurant and, at some unspecified point, claimed that the occupants left the site.

This timeline of events raises serious concerns about the conduct of your operative. If your operative was following the occupants around for the duration of their visit, this constitutes targeted surveillance and harassment.

If your operative genuinely believed that a breach was imminent, they had a duty to intervene and prevent it by informing the occupants of the alleged terms. Instead, your operative chose to wait silently, allowing a supposed breach to occur so that they could later issue a charge. This is a blatant example of entrapment and undermines any legitimacy your claim might have had.

Moreover, the occupants of the vehicle did enter the restaurant, purchased food, and consumed their meals inside. The most plausible scenario is that your operative only began following them after they left the restaurant and fabricated a narrative about them "leaving the site" in an attempt to justify issuing this charge.

If MET were to try and litigate over this, it would be laughed out of court. Any reasonable person would conclude that your claims are vague, predatory, and completely unsupported by evidence. MET has not clarified whether it is the driver or all occupants who must remain on-site, your photographs prove nothing, and your case relies entirely on speculative, unproven stalking.

Unless MET can provide clear, time-stamped evidence that the driver and/or all occupants left the McDonald’s site immediately upon arrival — which you cannot — this charge is doomed to fail. If MET are foolish enough to pursue this through litigation, you would be laughed out of court, and your unreasonable behaviour would be dealt with accordingly.

However, if you refuse to cancel this Parking Charge Notice, you must issue a POPLA code so that your absurd claim can be dismantled by the assessor. You have zero prospect of success at POPLA, and your incompetence will serve as entertainment during the appeal process.

MET Parking Services Ltd
PO Box 64168
London
WC1A 9BE

By email: complaints@metparking.com
CC: customerservices@mcdonalds.co.uk

[Date]

Dear MET Parking Services,

I am writing to formally complain about your handling of my appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER], issued in relation to an alleged parking contravention at McDonald’s Leytonstone.

The rejection of my appeal, dated 16th January 2025, is so absurdly deficient in logic and evidence that it calls into question not only the validity of the charge but also the competence of the individual who composed the response. If the author of that letter is representative of your company’s intellectual calibre, one can only hope there is at least one responsible adult within MET Parking Services who might explain the gravity of this complaint to them.

1. The Preposterous "Survey" Claim

You have stated that your parking attendant, in collaboration with a McDonald’s staff member, conducted a “survey” of all customers in the busy restaurant—including those in the toilets—and concluded that there was no one “taking responsibility” for my vehicle.

This claim is so utterly ridiculous that it warrants closer scrutiny:

• Privacy Concerns: Are you seriously suggesting that your attendant was monitoring customers in private areas such as toilets? If so, this raises significant ethical and legal issues regarding the surveillance practices of your staff.

• Feasibility: How, in a busy McDonald’s restaurant, could your attendant feasibly identify every single customer, verify their activities, and ascertain who was “taking responsibility” for any given vehicle? This task is not only impossible but also nonsensical and I suggest the response is mendacious.

• Fabrication: Without any evidence to support this “survey,” it appears this narrative has been fabricated to justify the issuance of the charge. If this “survey” truly occurred, I request you provide time-stamped documentation, signed statements from the parking attendant and McDonald’s staff, and CCTV evidence to support your claim.

2. Lack of Evidence

Your rejection letter contains no evidence to substantiate your claim that the occupants of the vehicle left the premises. The photographs included in your Notice to Keeper merely show a parked vehicle, which proves nothing about the alleged breach. The complete absence of evidence in your response renders your position untenable.

3. Unclear and Unfair Terms

Your signage fails to clearly state whether it is the driver or all occupants of the vehicle who must remain on the premises. If the expectation is that all occupants must remain, this is an unreasonable and unenforceable term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Moreover, if the signage refers only to the driver, your case fails outright, as you have made no effort to identify the driver and cannot transfer liability to the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as your Notice to Keeper is non-compliant.

4. Entrapment and Predatory Practices

If your parking attendant genuinely believed a breach was imminent, their responsibility was to intervene and prevent it, not sit silently while observing what they later deemed to be a contravention. Your approach appears predatory, prioritising revenue generation over fair and reasonable enforcement of parking terms.

5. Conduct of Your Staff

It is difficult to ignore the appalling lack of professionalism and basic reasoning exhibited in your rejection letter. Whoever composed it has demonstrated an extraordinary level of intellectual malnourishment. If the recipient of this complaint is equally incapable of grasping the absurdity of your response, I strongly recommend that they consult a responsible adult within your organisation who can explain it to them.

Resolution Requested

Given the numerous failings outlined above, I request that you:

1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately.

2. Provide a full written explanation addressing the points raised in this complaint.

3. Confirm that you have reviewed and addressed the conduct of the individual responsible for composing the rejection letter.

If you fail to resolve this complaint satisfactorily, I will have no hesitation in escalating the matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and other relevant bodies.

Yours sincerely

[YOUR NAME]

Thanks, will get this sent off today. Do they need to respond within a certain timeframe?