Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow

Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
Posted by sausage1971 on 20 Aug, 2025 14:31
Parked in McDonalds car park on 20/6/25 in a disabled bay with a disabled person in the car; received a Parking Charge by post about a week later; followed the advice on here. Below is the latest exchange with the response from MET at the bottom sent on12/8/25

Sent by me on 22/7/25 (copied from FTLA)

Dear MET Parking Services,

Your latest response merely confirms your continued disregard for both the law and common decency.

To reiterate: the Keeper has no legal obligation to identify the driver. You are not a statutory authority and have no power whatsoever to compel disclosure of that information. You are a self-interested, unregulated private parking company operating on the basis of alleged contracts which, by your own NTK, can only bind a driver. The Keeper declines to assist your fishing expedition.

As for your request to view the reverse side of a Blue Badge: you have absolutely no legal right to demand access to sensitive personal data such as names and photographs, particularly when the front of the badge has already been provided, clearly demonstrating its validity at the time in question. Your request is not only excessive, it is wholly inappropriate and constitutes a misuse of personal data under the UK GDPR.

You are reminded that your NTK fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning you cannot pursue the Keeper. Your signage fails the mandatory standards set out in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and your operator images do not evidence any “period of parking” as required under Schedule 4. No contract was formed, and no contravention occurred.

Your speculative invoicing is therefore baseless, and your repeated requests for irrelevant or private information will not be entertained. You are urged to cancel this unjustified charge or reject the appeal and provide a POPLA code where you will be free to waste your money on having an assessor repeat what I have already pointed out and order you to cancel the PCN

MET Response
Dear Mr ,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number AB22929772 (Vehicle: )
Site: (129) McDonald's Bow
Issue date: 20/06/2025
Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above charge. In order for us to consider your appeal fully please
can you confirm if the Blue Badge belongs to the driver or the passenger at the time of this contravention.
If the Blue Badge holder was a passenger at the time, please also confirm if the Blue Badge holder remained in the
vehicle for the duration of the time you were in the disabled bay. Your response can be uploaded at
www.appealmetparking.com.
We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued the
charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue
the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
We have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to allow you time to send us this information. If we do not
receive the information by the end of the 14 days we will have to reach a decision on your appeal based on the
information we hold at that time.

#1 Reply
Posted by b789 on 20 Aug, 2025 14:42
Can you show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK)?

#2 Reply
Posted by sausage1971 on 20 Aug, 2025 14:48
Yes, attached [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

#3 Reply
Posted by IHateUnfairPCNs on 20 Aug, 2025 14:58
Familiar with this exact same situation regarding a friend of mine at the exact same place, Bow, where they have nefarious cameras in front of the bay. And all of this was the driver driving into a disabled bay for 1 minute to just conveniently pick up a small item from their other friend. Realised his mistake, and drove out afterwards. Obviously did not breach the 10-minute waiting time you have to decide whether you want to enter into a contract by remaining in the car park.

To date, he tried to do a transfer of liability, and appealed it. For the transfer, they asked for driving licence/proof of insurance LOL even though the RK wasn't the driver. They are at no legal liberty to ask for that, and God forbid, their company encounters a data leak. They rejected the appeal, even when proof of disability was given due to disabled passenger in the rear.

This was 9 months ago... they have only bothered to send Debt Recovery Plus letters semi-recently to my friend and they've stopped for now, according to them. Take that as you will.

MET Parking, a disgusting company.

#4 Reply
Posted by b789 on 20 Aug, 2025 15:00
OK. So the NtK is not PoFA compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) as there is no period of parking and there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration period for the driver to enter into a contract with the operator.

Please also show us what correspondence you have made with the operator up to this point. The two bits of correspondence you've referenced need a bit more context, even though we understand the point being made.

#5 Reply
Posted by b789 on 20 Aug, 2025 15:08
You need to stop wasting time with the morons at MET. Respond with the following and when they reject the appeal, you can make a full argument with POPLA:

Quote
Subject: PCN AB22929772 – McDonald’s Bow – Keeper liability denied

Dear MET Parking Services,

Re: PCN AB22929772 (McDonald’s Bow) – issue date 20/06/2025

I write as the registered keeper only. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver.

1. No keeper liability under PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4).
Your Notice to Keeper fails Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any “period of parking.” ANPR images of a vehicle passing cameras at the perimeter are not evidence of parking and cannot, by themselves, prove any duration of parking. This point is supported by Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), where the court made clear that recording a single instant is insufficient to evidence a period of parking. As PoFA is not met, you cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Your stock assertion that you may pursue the keeper after 29 days is wrong in law where Schedule 4 is not complied with.
Consideration/grace periods and contract formation.

2. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, v1.1, 17 Feb 2025) requires a consideration period on arrival (and a separate grace period at the end). Your images do not evidence that any consideration period was exceeded, nor that any parking contract was formed with a driver.

3. Disability and data minimisation.
A disabled person was present. Your attempt to demand whether the Blue Badge belongs to the driver or passenger, whether the badge-holder remained in the vehicle, and a view of the reverse of the badge (containing name/photo) is excessive and unnecessary for the stated purpose, contrary to UK GDPR Article 5(1)(c) (data minimisation). The front of the valid badge has been provided. On private land the Blue Badge scheme is not determinative, but your policies must still make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Those obligations do not entitle you to harvest special-category personal data.

Accordingly, keeper liability is denied. Please now cancel this charge. If you refuse, then reject the appeal and provide a POPLA verification code so the matter can be independently reviewed. Do not ask again for driver details or further personal data; these will not be provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper

#6 Reply
Posted by sausage1971 on 20 Aug, 2025 15:10
This was my original appeal 7/7/25 (from one of your previous replies to a thread)

I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.

Furthermore, your signage fails to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1, which states:

"The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises."

There are no signs with terms that can be viewed from within the vehicle, meaning that a driver with a disability was unable to make an informed decision before parking. The vehicle was parked in a disabled bay, and all occupants, including the driver, are Blue Badge holders. A copy of a valid Blue Badge is attached.

Additionally, your NtK fails to specify any "period of parking", as required by PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). A single timestamp does not constitute a period of parking and does not evidence that the vehicle was stopped for more than the minimum consideration period before leaving. No contract was formed.

MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Their reply 22/7/25

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number AB22929772 (Vehicle: LF19DPO)
Site: (129) McDonald's Bow
Issue date: 20/06/2025
Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above charge. We are confident that our notice to keeper complies
in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act and you are advised that where the charge has
not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued the charge and we still do not know the name and address
for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding
charge.
So that we can fully consider your appeal can you kindly provide us with a copy of the front and back of the blue badge,
clearly showing the expiry date and name of the BB holder. This can be uploaded at www.appealmetparking.com. We
have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to allow you time to send us this information. If we do not receive
this by the end of the 14 days, we will have to reach a decision on your appeal based on the information we hold at that
time

#7 Reply
Posted by sausage1971 on 20 Aug, 2025 15:11
Thanks again

#8 Reply
Posted by sausage1971 on 08 Sep, 2025 13:18
Received a response from MET today but cant work out how to post an image or the actual pdf??

#9 Reply
Posted by jfollows on 08 Sep, 2025 13:27
Quote from: sausage1971 on 08 Sep, 2025 13:18
Received a response from MET today but cant work out how to post an image or the actual pdf??
It’s in https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

#10 Reply
Posted by sausage1971 on 08 Sep, 2025 13:30
Got it. Thanks

https://imgur.com/a/0Qg1ImR

#11 Reply
Posted by b789 on 08 Sep, 2025 17:59
Just do a search of the forum for MET Stansted to see any of the other identical cases and what to put in your POPLA appeal.