Author Topic: MET Parking PCN – Exceeded maximum permitted stay – McDonald's, Prince of Wales, Slough  (Read 485 times)

0 Members and 148 Guests are viewing this topic.

Upon entering the car park, the driver ordered food at the drive through kiosk and then found a space, parked up, and ate. The driver did not see the sign as they entered the car park as it was dark. Nor did they see the sign when parked up as it is very high up and not in visible eye line.

Totally bad night and completely at fault. This is new to this McDonald's as we go very often and never had a problem before. Emailed McDonald's and they've replied saying there is nothing they can do to help.

Date of Contravention : 3rd April 2025
Date of Issue of Notice : 8th April 2025
Arrived in the post : 14th April 2025

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Happy to take this all the way ! Thank you so much !

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Any MET parking PCN is easily defended if it ever goes as far as litigation. If you want to see the advice already given for an identical PCN at this location, have a read of this thread:

MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH

Exactly when did the terms of parking materially change at this location?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2025, 04:14:53 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thank you for your guidance. I have asked around and the signs have been there longer than I thought, apologies for the misdirection. Thank you for the link to the other case. I've emailed an appeal to MET. Will update the thread when I hear back. Thanks again.

Hello !! I have had a response to my email. Please would you review, in particular, they include this statement which I don't see on the other thread :

We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis which may be found at
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf. This ruling revolved around a charge
of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable.

Your assistance would be appreciated. 

Kind Regards Serena

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

If you heed the advice given here, this is what is going to happen...

Wait until you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then show us so we can advise on a suitable response. Eventually a claim will be issued and we will provide a defence.

Eventually, the claim will be either struck out or discontinued.

Until then, ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear. You can safely ignore all debt collator letters, they cannot do anything.

You cn go through the POPLA appeal process but in these cases, they are unlikely to be successful. It's you time and effort and maybe someone else on the forum will assist with a POPLA appeal. Personally, I wouldn't bother and I'd wait for the claim and defend it.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Appreciate the swift response.

I will wait for the LoC :)  Will ignore everything else.

Thank you !!