Free Traffic Legal Advice

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]
[Your Email]

[Date]

[MP’s Name]
[MP’s Office Address]
[City, Postcode]

Subject: Urgent Concern Regarding Private Parking Regulation and the BPA’s Failure to Enforce Standards

Dear [MP’s Name],

I am writing to you to raise serious concerns about the British Parking Association (BPA) and its failure to properly regulate its Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) members, despite its Accredited Trade Association (ATA) status under the DVLA. Specifically, the BPA has failed to take action against MET Parking Services, which has refused to engage with a formal complaint I submitted.

Background

• MET Parking issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in circumstances I believe to be unfair.

• I submitted a formal complaint to MET Parking about their conduct and the way they handle enforcement.

• MET Parking wrongly dismissed my formal complaint as an “appeal” and refused to engage with the issues raised.

I then escalated the matter to the BPA, expecting them to enforce their own Code of Practice, which requires operators to handle complaints separately from appeals. The BPA responded with a dismissive reply, refusing to intervene despite clear evidence of MET Parking’s breach of industry standards.

The BPA’s refusal to hold MET Parking accountable raises serious concerns about its suitability as an ATA. Under its agreement with the DVLA, the BPA is expected to ensure its members comply with fair business practices, yet it repeatedly fails to take meaningful action when members engage in unfair and misleading behaviour.

This failure is part of a wider pattern where the BPA consistently shields parking companies from scrutiny, rather than enforcing consumer protections. As you are aware, the private parking industry has been heavily criticised for its predatory and exploitative practices, and this case is yet another example of why urgent reform is needed.

I ask you to:

• Raise this matter directly with the BPA, challenging their failure to enforce their own standards against MET Parking.

• Refer this case to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), which is responsible for regulating private parking and developing a statutory Parking Code of Practice.

• Support a review of the BPA’s suitability as an ATA, given its repeated failures to hold its members accountable.

• Press for stronger regulation of the private parking industry, particularly in ensuring that ATAs are fit for purpose and that motorists are not subjected to unfair enforcement.

I have attached copies of all relevant correspondence, including MET Parking’s refusal to properly process my complaint and the BPA’s dismissive response.

I would appreciate your intervention in this matter and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

Subject: Formal Complaint Against MET Parking – BPA’s Failure to Enforce Standards

Dear Ms Dorans,

I am writing to express my disappointment with your inadequate response regarding my formal complaint against MET Parking Services. Your reply fails to address the central issue—MET Parking did not properly handle my complaint, instead misrepresenting it as an appeal. This is a blatant failure to comply with the requirements of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Key Issues:

1. MET Parking ignored my formal complaint and wrongly treated it as an appeal.

2. Their response did not address any of the concerns I raised, showing a deliberate refusal to engage in complaint resolution.

3. Your response does not hold MET Parking accountable for failing to adhere to the BPA’s standards for complaints handling.

The BPA, as an Accredited Trade Association (ATA), has a duty to ensure its members operate fairly and in accordance with its Code of Practice. By refusing to take action against MET Parking, you are failing to fulfil your role as a regulator. This is particularly concerning given the government’s ongoing scrutiny of private parking firms and the role of ATAs in enforcing industry standards.

Formal Request for Action

I now expect the BPA to confirm:

1. What specific enforcement measures will be taken against MET Parking for their failure to handle complaints properly?

2. Why the BPA considers it acceptable for an AOS member to dismiss a formal complaint by falsely categorising it as an appeal?

3. What steps the BPA will take to ensure members comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in relation to complaint handling?

Your response will determine whether I escalate this matter further to regulatory bodies.

Involvement of My MP and Further Escalation

Due to the BPA’s persistent failure to regulate its members effectively, I am now escalating this issue to my MP and requesting that they raise it with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). It is clear that the BPA is failing in its regulatory responsibilities, and I believe it is necessary for the government to reconsider its suitability as an ATA.

I expect a substantive response outlining what action will be taken against MET Parking. If I receive another dismissive reply, I will take this matter further, including raising it with the DVLA regarding MET Parking’s access to registered keeper data.

I look forward to your urgent response.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Verification Code]
Appellant: [Your Name]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration Number: [Insert Registration]

Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice Issued by MET Parking Services

Grounds for Appeal

1. Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable – PoFA Non-Compliance

2. No Proof of Driver Identity

3. Zero Evidence to Support the Allegation

4. Unlawful and Unenforceable Claim Regarding “Occupants”

5. Demand for Strict Proof of Landowner Authority

---

1. Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable – PoFA Non-Compliance

As the Registered Keeper, I cannot be held liable for this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to MET Parking Services’ failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the mandatory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, particularly:

• Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK does not specify the required “period of parking.” Instead, it vaguely refers to “the period of parking prior to 11:23 on 23rd December 2024.”

• This generic reference does not constitute a defined period of parking, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge held that a failure to specify a clear “period of parking” is non-compliant with PoFA.

• Paragraph 9(2)(e): The NtK fails to properly “invite” the keeper to pay the charge or identify the driver. This failure means that MET cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

The full transcript of the Brennan judgment, for reference: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=5zeipvip&dl=0

As MET Parking has failed to comply with PoFA, they have no lawful basis to hold the Keeper liable for this charge.

2. No Proof of Driver Identity

MET Parking has not provided any evidence that the individual they are pursuing is the driver. Under PoFA, the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated, private parking company like MET Parking Services.

As the Keeper, I have no intention of assisting a predatory company whose practices have earned private parking firms such a poor reputation. Unless MET can provide clear, conclusive evidence that the driver has been identified, their PCN must be cancelled.

3. Zero Evidence to Support the Allegation

MET Parking alleges that the “occupants” of the vehicle left the McDonald’s Leytonstone site. However, they have provided absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The photographs in the NtK show only a parked vehicle and do nothing to substantiate their speculative and baseless allegation.

The so-called "survey" provided by MET is completely unsubstantiated and proves nothing. It lacks:

• Time-stamped photographic or video evidence showing the occupants leaving the site.

• Any signed statements or corroborative evidence from independent witnesses.

This lack of evidence renders MET’s PCN entirely speculative and invalid.

4. Unlawful and Unenforceable Claim Regarding “Occupants”

MET Parking’s allegation that all occupants of the vehicle must remain on-site is utterly preposterous, both legally and practically. No reasonable person could believe that such an absurd and disproportionate obligation could form the basis of a valid contract.

First, MET has provided no evidence to support their claim that the alleged contravention occurred. They have not proven that all occupants left the premises, nor have they provided any indication of how this could possibly be monitored or enforced. The so-called "survey" they have submitted fails to prove anything and raises serious concerns about their methods (addressed further below).

Second, the idea that a driver entering into a contract to park could somehow extend liability to all passengers of the vehicle is legally and contractually nonsensical. For this condition to be enforceable, the signage would need to:

• Explicitly define which “occupants” are covered by this obligation.

• Explain how a motorist is expected to control or monitor the actions of passengers, particularly adults, once they leave the vehicle.

• Specify the consequences for non-compliance in a way that is fair, reasonable, and transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

MET’s signage fails to do any of these things. Even if it attempted to impose such a condition, it would be deemed unfair and unenforceable under consumer protection laws due to its ambiguity and disproportionate nature.

Furthermore, the suggestion that passengers entering a McDonald’s restaurant and later leaving the site could breach the terms of a parking contract is farcical. MET Parking appears to be arguing that a contract for parking allows them to:

• Track and monitor the movements of private individuals.

• Hold the driver liable for actions that are entirely outside their control.

Such behaviour is not only absurd but could also be construed as a breach of privacy. If MET Parking believes this to be a valid term of their alleged contract, they are reminded that unfair terms are not legally binding under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

If the POPLA assessor reviewing this case fails to recognise the absurdity and illegality of this claim, it would raise serious questions about their understanding of fair contract principles. Such a failure could reinforce concerns that POPLA is not truly independent and may, in practice, lean towards protecting the interests of the parking operators who fund it. A decision not to reject this appeal on such an obvious and indefensible point would do little to dispel the perception that POPLA serves as a mechanism that too often favours operators rather than acting as an impartial appeals body.

5. Demand for Strict Proof of Landowner Authority

MET Parking Services is put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a clear chain of authority flowing from the freeholder or landholder of the "relevant land" to MET Parking.

It is not accepted that MET Parking has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace periods, hours of operation, or instructions regarding the cancellation of charges due to complaints. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the freeholder authorises MET to issue parking charges, or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are. It is also unclear whether MET Parking has standing to enforce such charges in their own name, as opposed to holding a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

As part of this, MET Parking is put to strict proof of specific clauses in the landowner contract explicitly authorising them to impose charges based on the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site. This clause is critical because it forms the basis of MET’s allegation. Without evidence of such an explicit clause, MET has no right to issue or enforce a charge under these circumstances.

The operator is further put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). As MET Parking does not have proprietary interest in the relevant land, I require them to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. This must include any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out key details such as:

• Specific clauses authorising MET Parking to impose charges based on the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site.

• Definitions and exemptions (e.g., any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions).

• Any site occupier’s right of veto or charge cancellation rights.

The above evidence is critical to define what MET Parking is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landholder or site occupiers (e.g., McDonald’s) may override or cancel a charge.

It cannot be assumed that because an agent has been contracted to erect signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, they are also authorised to:

• Make enforceable contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers.

• Pursue legal action to enforce parking charges in their own name.

A witness statement will not suffice. Such statements are often pre-signed, generic documents that fail to identify the specific case or site rules. While a witness statement might sometimes be accepted by POPLA, in this case, I assert that it is insufficient to evidence the specific terms of the agreement between MET and the landholder.

Without full, unredacted evidence of their landholder authority—including clauses explicitly relating to the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site—MET Parking’s right to issue and enforce this charge cannot be established, and the PCN must be cancelled.

Conclusion

The Parking Charge Notice issued by MET Parking Services is invalid and unenforceable for the following reasons:

• Non-compliance with PoFA.

• Failure to provide evidence that the Keeper is the driver.

• Zero evidence to support the allegation that vehicle occupants left the site.

• An absurd and unlawful claim regarding vehicle occupants.

• Failure to demonstrate landowner authority to issue charges based on the alleged contravention.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

In this instance, MET Parking Services have withdrawn the case from POPLA and the motorist will receive no further correspondence regarding this Parking Charge.