Free Traffic Legal Advice

So, the driver of my vehicle parked in a local McDonald's car park infested with MET Parking Services signage last month.  (The numerous signs all say, "90 minutes maximum stay".)

After utilising the handy drive-up window, the driver proceeded to park up and enjoy their XXL Happy Meal whilst chatting on the phone with friends.  At no point did the driver exit the vehicle, but before parking the driver did recall noting the "90 minutes maximum stay" signs and duly exited the car park (never to return) after approximately 82 minutes.  With me so far?

A few days after the happy (meal) incident occurred, I (as registered keeper of the vehicle) received a letter from MET Parking Services Ltd. informing me that "I" owed them £100 in re a "Parking Charge Issued on Private Land".  If you read the letter, however, it claims that the "Maximum Permitted Stay" is 60 minutes. 

I just want to make this go away ASAP.  I would appreciate any advice to achieve that end.  Thanks!

If that is in fact a current sign at the location, you can send the following appeal:

Subject: Appeal – Notice to Keeper [Insert PCN Reference]

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge Notice. There has been no breach of any parking terms or conditions.

Your own signage clearly states that 90 minutes of free parking is permitted. The vehicle remained on site for 82 minutes—well within the advertised limit. Your claim that a contravention occurred is entirely false. No contractual terms have been breached, and no charge is payable.

Issuing a Parking Charge Notice under these circumstances is not only unjustified but also indicative of a serious lack of competence in your operational procedures. It suggests that either you do not understand your own terms or you are content to issue baseless charges in the hope they go unchallenged.

In addition, a formal complaint has been raised with the DVLA. You had no reasonable cause to request the Keeper’s data in this instance, and the use of that data constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. You are reminded that access to DVLA data is granted for the specific purpose of pursuing genuine cases of parking contraventions, not for speculative or erroneous demands.

You are urged to cancel this charge immediately and take urgent steps to review your procedures before further action is taken.

And make a formal complaint to the DVLA:

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:


The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against MET Parking Services Ltd, a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and unlawfully obtaining and using my personal data.

The operator had no reasonable cause to make a KADOE request for my data, as no parking contravention occurred. Their subsequent use of the unlawfully obtained data to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) constitutes a further breach of data protection law. In doing so, the operator has also breached the PPSCoP, which forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on strict compliance.

The DVLA, as Data Controller, is obliged under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action where data has been unlawfully requested and/or misused following its release. This complaint concerns both the initial unlawful acquisition of keeper data and the subsequent misuse of that data in circumstances where no breach of contract occurred.

I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the details of the breach and the operator’s actions. I request that the DVLA investigate this matter fully and take appropriate enforcement action. The supporting document is attached.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload a copy of the NtK and the photo of the sign with the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Unlawful KADOE Request and Misuse of Keeper Data

Operator name: MET Parking Services Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 12th March 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report an unlawful request for, and misuse of, my personal data by MET Parking Services Ltd. The operator wrongfully obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract and then used that data to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) where no contravention had occurred.

The circumstances are as follows:

The operator issued a PCN despite the vehicle being parked for only 82 minutes, whereas the on-site signage clearly states that 90 minutes of free parking is permitted. No breach of any parking terms occurred. As such, there was no reasonable cause for the operator to obtain my personal data from the DVLA, and the subsequent use of that data to issue a PCN was unlawful, misleading, and unjustified.

This complaint is based on two distinct breaches:

1. Unlawful KADOE Request – MET Parking Services Ltd had no reasonable cause to obtain my data, as required under the KADOE contract and data protection legislation. The DVLA’s own rules prohibit data release except where the operator can demonstrate a valid cause under the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Since no parking contravention occurred, the operator had no entitlement to access my details.

2. Unlawful Use of Data – Following the invalid request, the operator then used the unlawfully obtained data to pursue a PCN. This constitutes further misuse of personal data, as the data was never lawfully obtained for that purpose in the first place.

These are not minor errors or technical oversights. The initial KADOE request was made without lawful basis, and as a result, all subsequent processing of the data was also unlawful under:

• Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR (no legitimate interest); and
• Section 170(1)(a) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (unlawful obtaining of personal data).

As the statutory Data Controller for the information it releases under the KADOE contract, the DVLA is required to ensure that personal data is only released where there is a lawful, fair, and proportionate reason to do so. This includes a duty to investigate any instance where data appears to have been accessed unlawfully or used in breach of the conditions under which it was provided.

Given the facts of this case, I respectfully request that the DVLA:

• Conduct a full investigation into MET Parking Services Ltd’s request and use of my data
• Confirm that the KADOE request and data use were unlawful
• Take appropriate enforcement action, including suspension or termination of MET’s KADOE access
• Report this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in line with the DVLA’s obligations as Data Controller under the UK GDPR

I have attached relevant supporting material with this complaint and am happy to provide further information if needed. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference number for this complaint.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]

Great. Just to as suggested. Make sure you get that DVLA complaint in and show us the response when you get it. This is a classic data breach and the DVLA should be sanctioning MET for this unlawful access to your GDPR data.

If you're minded to, you could sue MET for the breach. Here is some guidance:

Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR requires data controllers to ensure that personal data is accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. If a data controller, such as a private parking company, unlawfully obtains a vehicle keeper's data from the DVLA and processes it inaccurately—such as issuing an invoice based on incorrect information about a breach of an alleged contract with the landowner (or their agent)—this would constitute a breach of the UK GDPR. Such processing would be both inaccurate and unlawful under Article 5(1)(d).

Precedents for claiming damages for unlawful data processing are found in cases such as Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333, where the court awarded compensation for distress caused by inaccurate personal data processing under the Data Protection Act 1998. Although this case pre-dates the UK GDPR, its principles remain applicable under the updated UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals have the right to compensation for both material and non-material damage resulting from a breach of data protection laws.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 confirmed that claimants could recover compensation for distress alone under the Data Protection Act 1998. This principle is now explicitly recognised under the UK GDPR, meaning that individuals can claim compensation even if they have not suffered financial loss, as long as distress is demonstrable.

Furthermore, the case of Tetragon Financial Group Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKUT 0305 (TCC) underlines the importance of accurate data handling by public bodies. This principle applies to the DVLA, a public body, which has a responsibility to ensure that the data it shares with third parties—such as private parking companies—is used lawfully and accurately. If a private parking company unlawfully obtained and inaccurately processed your data, you may have grounds to seek compensation.

To seek compensation for the unlawful processing of your personal data, you should provide a pre-action notice to the data controller (the private parking company). While the standard pre-action protocol typically allows 14 days' notice, providing 21 days demonstrates goodwill. Your letter should clearly state your intention to claim damages of £300 for distress under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, unless the company confirms in writing within 14 days that all references to the alleged debt have been deleted. Mark this letter as a ‘Letter Before County Court Proceedings’.

If the data controller does not comply, you can file your claim as a litigant-in-person under Part 27 proceedings in the County Court, commonly referred to as the Small Claims Court. Each party is generally responsible for their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome. The claim can be submitted online through the Money Claim Online service (moneyclaimonline.gov.uk) for a filing fee of £35. If successful, you may recover your court fees, bringing the total claim to £335.

Did you submit the DVLA complaint?

MET’s attempt to justify the PCN has unravelled completely, and your photo of the signage—backed by geolocation and metadata—proves they are either lying or grossly negligent in their records and representations.

Here are two POPLA appeal points incorporating the key arguments, including signage, lack of contemporaneous evidence, and the requirement for strict proof of landowner authority:

Ground of Appeal: No breach of terms – signage clearly stated 90-minute free parking period at the time of parking

The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle and disputes the validity of the charge on the basis that no breach of the stated parking terms occurred. The vehicle remained on site for 82 minutes. The signage visible at the site clearly stated that 90 minutes of free parking was permitted. Therefore, there was no contravention, and the charge has been issued without foundation.

The appellant holds photographic evidence of the signage in situ clearly stating “90 minutes maximum stay.” This photo is timestamped and geotagged, evidencing the location, date, and time. The signage was plainly visible, and no contradictory 60-minute limit was displayed.



In response to the initial appeal, the operator claimed that the signage was changed to 90 minutes "days after" the date of the alleged contravention. However, they have failed to provide any contemporaneous photographic evidence of the signage in place on the material date, nor have they shown that the 60-minute limit was clearly and unambiguously displayed at the time.

If the operator now wishes to claim that the maximum permitted stay was 60 minutes, they are put to strict proof of:

• A full set of photographs showing the signage in situ on the exact date of the alleged contravention,
• The wording of all terms and conditions allegedly visible to the driver,
• And evidence that the signage was sufficient to form a binding contract.

Ground of Appeal: No standing – Operator must prove landowner authority, actual parking terms, and the date of contractual amendment

In accordance with Section 14.1 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), no parking charge can be issued unless the operator holds written confirmation from the landowner which explicitly includes the actual parking terms and conditions in force at the time, including (per 14.1(e)):

“the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted...”

MET Parking Services has made the extraordinary claim that the maximum stay on the site was 60 minutes on the date of the alleged contravention, and that this was changed to 90 minutes 'days later'. However, they have:

• Not provided any photographic evidence of signage on the site dated at or near the time of the alleged contravention showing a 60-minute restriction; and
• Offered no documentary evidence supporting the existence or date of any amendment to the parking terms.

This is a critical failure. The operator’s claim is not only unsupported—it is directly contradicted by contemporaneous evidence. If MET had any signage displaying a 60-minute restriction on the date in question, they would have included photographic evidence from that period. They haven’t, because they can’t.

The operator is now put to strict proof of the following, per PPSCoP Section 14:

• A contemporaneous, unredacted copy of their landowner agreement showing that MET was authorised to manage parking at the site;
• That this agreement includes a clause (per 14.1(e)) confirming a 60-minute maximum stay was contractually agreed and permitted by the landowner on the date of the alleged event;
• Written evidence from the landowner confirming the subsequent change to a 90-minute free parking period;
• The date that this change to the terms was formally agreed, documented, and implemented, and the signage changed accordingly.

Any failure to provide this material is fatal to their claim. A parking operator cannot simply invent past restrictions or rely on undisclosed internal records. The landowner contract must show the actual parking terms in effect at the time, not what MET retrospectively asserts. If they cannot produce it, then they had no authority to issue this charge, and the appeal must be upheld.

Isn't it a little odd that signs which have been installed within the last month (allegedly) have what looks very much like a date from 2024 on them?

There's a fair chance that's just when the template was created - MET operate parking services at a huge number of McDonalds across the country - many of them have identical signage. Your appeal is strong enough using points you can categorically demonstrate I'd say.

MET has supplied its evidence to POPLA, and I now have 7 days to comment.

For reference, my POPLA appeal, as submitted:

"Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") Issued by MET Parking Services Ltd ("MET" or the "operator") PCN Reference: [NUMBER] Vehicle Registration: [NUMBER] Date of Alleged Contravention: 12/03/25 This is an appeal by the Keeper of the vehicle and I raise the following points for POPLA to consider:

1. No breach of terms
2. No standing

Grounds for Appeal:

1.Ground of Appeal: No breach of terms — signage clearly stated 90-minutes free parking period at the time of parking The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle and disputes the validity of the charge on the basis that no breach of the stated parking terms occurred. The operator claims the vehicle remained on site for 82 minutes. The signage visible at the site clearly stated that 90 minutes of free parking was permitted. Therefore, there was no contravention, and the charge has been issued without foundation.

The appellant holds photographic evidence of the signage in situ clearly stating “90 minutes maximum stay.” This photo is timestamped and geotagged, evidencing the location, date and time. The signage at the site was plainly visible, bears a date of "16/05/24", the same wording is repeated on several other signs within the site and no contradictory "60-minute limit" was displayed elsewhere within the site.

In response to the initial appeal, the operator claimed that the signage had been changed to 90 minutes "days after" the date of the alleged contravention. However, they have failed to provide any contemporaneous photographic evidence of the signage in place on the material date, nor have they shown that the alleged 60-minute limit was clearly and unambiguously displayed at the time.

If the operator now wishes to claim that the maximum permitted stay was 60 minutes, they are put to strict proof of:

• a full set of photographs showing the signage in situ on the exact date of the alleged contravention;
• the wording of all terms and conditions allegedly visible to the driver; and
• evidence showing that the signage was sufficient to form a binding contract.

2. Ground of Appeal: No standing — Operator must prove landowner authority, actual parking terms and the date of contractual amendment In accordance with Section 14.1 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), no parking charge can be issued unless the operator holds written confirmation from the landowner which explicitly includes the actual parking terms and conditions in force at the time, including (per 14.1(e)):

“the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted...”

MET Parking Services has made the extraordinary claim that the maximum stay on the site was 60 minutes on the date of the alleged contravention, and that this was changed to 90 minutes 'days later'. However, they have:

• not provided any photographic evidence of signage on the site dated at or near the time of the alleged contravention showing a 60-minute restriction; and
• offered no documentary evidence supporting the existence or date of any amendment to the parking terms.

This is a critical failure. The operator’s claim is not only unsupported—it is directly contradicted by contemporaneous evidence. If MET had any signage displaying a 60-minute restriction on the date in question, they would have included photographic evidence from that period. They haven’t, because they can’t.

The operator is now put to strict proof of the following, per PPSCoP Section 14:

• a contemporaneous, unredacted copy of their landowner agreement showing that MET was authorised to manage parking at the site;
• that this agreement includes a clause (per 14.1(e) of the PPSCoP) confirming a 60-minute maximum stay was contractually agreed and permitted by the landowner on the date of the alleged event;
• written evidence from the landowner confirming the subsequent change to a 90-minute free parking period; and
• the date that this change to the terms was formally agreed, documented and implemented, and the signage changed accordingly.

Any failure to provide this material is fatal to their claim. A parking operator cannot simply invent past restrictions or rely on undisclosed internal records. The landowner contract must show the actual parking terms in effect at the time, not what MET retrospectively asserts. If they cannot produce it, then they had no authority to issue this charge, and the appeal must be upheld.

Conclusion: The driver of the vehicle was aware of the parking restrictions in effect on the site at the time of the alleged contravention and took pains to comply with all such terms and conditions——including the 90-minute free parking allowance clearly and unambiguously offered to the driver as an inducement to enter into the contract of parking. Despite this, MET has inexplicably sent a PCN to the Keeper of the vehicle, alleging that the actual terms of the parking contract were contrary to all the available evidence, and that the driver had therefore breached such terms by remaining on site for 82minutes. However, there is no evidence that the free parking limit was indeed 60 minutes, nor that MET had been authorised by the landowner to offer parking services with a 60-minute limit, at the time of the alleged contravention. I therefore request POPLA to uphold this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services Ltd to cancel the related PCN."

*-*-*

In response to my first ground for appeal, MET elaborated upon its original claim that the terms and conditions had been changed "days earlier" to specify that the terms and the signs were changed on 12 March 2025 (four days after the alleged contravention), but they have failed to provide any of the requested evidence showing what the terms and conditions (or the signs) stated on the actual date of the alleged contravention.  Instead, they have made the same evidence-free claim and then "reiterated" the same claim again for emphasis:

"We note [REGISTERED KEEPER]’s comments, however, the signage that was in place on 08/03/2025 advised that the time limit was 60 minutes. A new time limit of 90 minutes was implemented at a later date, but not until 12/03/2025 when the signage was replaced. Please see below an image taken on the date of the installation when our attendant conducted an updated survey":

[Fuzzy, but time-stamped (12/03/2025) photo showing "1-1/2 Hours Max Stay" on 12 March 2025]

"We reiterate that the time limit in place on 08/03/2025 was 60 minutes.

The fact of the matter is that the maximum stay period is a contractual term between the motorist and parking operator. The terms of that contract are what are stated on the signs and the signs weren’t updated until 12/03/2025. Therefore, the effective date for the purpose of the updated contract between a motorist and ourselves is 12/03/2025 onwards. Any correspondence between us and our client would not alter the effective date of the new terms and conditions.

We are confident that there were sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs were prominently displayed and clearly stated the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs that were in place at the time and a site plan of the location. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations.

A motorist does not have to have read the terms and conditions of parking to enter into a parking contract, there is only the requirement that the parking operator affords them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that there was sufficient signage at the site in order to afford motorists the chance to read the terms and conditions that were in place. Upon entry to the site, it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that may be in place before choosing to park or remain on site."

*-*-*

In response to my second ground for appeal, MET has largely ignored the actual grounds for appeal and provided only a redacted version of the landowner contract, which does not include any provision that its  agreement with the landowner includes a clause (per 14.1(e) of the PPSCoP) confirming a 60-minute maximum stay was contractually agreed and permitted by the landowner on the date of the alleged event; nor has MET provided "written evidence from the landowner confirming the subsequent change to a 90-minute free parking period":

"We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.

We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that parking is for McDonald’s customers only and there is a maximum permitted stay of 60 minutes. Please note that these terms and conditions apply to all users of the car park, which naturally includes customers of the restaurant. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In light of this we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused."

*-*-*

Within Section E of their evidence pack, MET again leans into ParkingEye v Beavis (which has nothing to do with this claim), and offers POPLA some additional, irrelevant advice:

"MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by McDonald’s to ensure adherence to the terms and conditions of the car park. Our interest in the land arises from our obligation to perform our contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s premises.

The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the motorist parking his car on the site.

We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted contract between ourselves and our client as it contains information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in this instance. It also extends to more than 20 pages and therefore the volume of redacted information will be significantly greater than the volume of un-redacted and relevant information.

We have however provided the letter of authority, the signature page and front sheet of the contract demonstrating it is the contract referred to in the letter of authority and the clause from the contract that demonstrates this is rolling contract and subsists until terminated.

We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract existed at the date of the contravention and as you can see from the extract from the contract held with McDonald’s this agreement has a commencement date of 31 August 2010 as this was the date it was signed by the client and is agreed for an initial period of 9 months after which point it becomes an ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm that neither McDonald’s nor MET Parking have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that the contract provided adequately proves that MET Parking had sufficient authority to issue parking charges on the land, on the day of the contravention. This is also evidenced by the fact that McDonald’s permitted MET Parking’s parking enforcement signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and to this date."

*-*-*

In summary, MET ignored my demands for particular evidence relating to the date in question and provided a lot of meaningless additional information which only serves to illustrate that they have changed their terms and conditions at different times in the past. 

What's to best way to follow up?  I would probably just hammer home exactly how MET has failed to address the two grounds for appeal, and that they have now lost their opportunity to prove any breach has occurred on the only relevant date.  Is POPLA likely to "fill in the blanks" in MET's favour? 

For example, MET included in its evidence pack numerous pictures timestamped 3 December 2020, which show that the signs in the car park indeed indicated a 60-minute free parking period at that time, but the only evidence they provided relating to the date they claim to have changed the terms and conditions (12 March 2025) is a single photo from a "site survey" allegedly done on that date, which shows the same 90-minute free period which I photographed on 5 April 2025.  (Coincidentally, 12 March 2025 is the same date MET requested registered keeper details from the DVLA and sent the Notice to Keeper.)  MET provided no evidence of (a) what the signs showed on 8 March 2025, or (b) that any signs were indeed changed on 12 March 2025.  In any case, what the signs showed on 12 March 2025 is irrelevant for the purpose of demonstrating a breach of contract on 8 March 2025. 

However, I'm worried that from the evidence MET did provide, POPLA might simply assume the facts MET has failed to prove, such as the implication that the terms and conditions had remained "60 minutes" from 3 December 2020 until the date MET allegedly changed them to "90 minutes" on the same date they requested my DVLA information (four days after the vehicle was parked there), and that MET's unredacted (and un-provided) contract with McDonald's contains the apparently critical "free parking period" terms (and each change thereto was similarly authorised by McDonald's).  A legitimate finder of fact in an "appeal" should not simply assume critical facts, of course...

Thanks in advance for any further input and advice!

--Outahere

To wrap this up, POPLA rolled over and denied my appeal.

"POPLA assessment and decision

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Jessica Nuttall

Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of appellant case:
The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • There was no breach of terms as the signage stated 90 minutes free parking. • The operator has failed to provide any evidence of the signage in place on the date of the contravention showing the 60-minute max stay. • Landowner authority. • They would like the PCN to be cancelled. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands and reiterates on their grounds of appeal. • The images from 2020 cannot be relied upon to evidence the signage in place on 8 March 2025. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. Photo of the sign. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day.

The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who exceed the 1-hour max stay. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCOP) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. SCOP comes into effect from 1 October 2024. Any points raised going forward will be considered using SCOP apart from signs which will be considered within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of practice version 9 as this will apply until December 2026. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has provided an image of the sign within the appeal, the details show this was taken on 05 April 2025. The date of the contravention was 08 March 2025. The parking operator have provided several date stamped images which demonstrate a 1-hour max stay, I appreciate the images are dated from 2020 however I am satisfied these terms were in place at the time of the contravention. The parking operator have also provided evidence of the new signage that was in place on 12 March 2025, after the contravention took place.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the parking operator have provided a copy of the landowner contract. I acknowledge some of the information is redacted however this is due to its sensitive nature.

The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images demonstrate the appellant entered the site at 13:48 and exited at 15:11. They remained on site for 82 minutes. Therefore, they breached the terms and conditions as they exceeded the 1 hour max stay. I do empathise that the appellant wants the PCN cancelled. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is to assess whether a Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly based on the evidence provide by both parties. It is simply not within our remit to allow an appeal which the motorist breached the parking condition. For further support you may wish to speak with Citizens Advice on 03444 111 444. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on and reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the maximum stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly."

- - - - -

If they're just going to assume, without the need for evidence, the facts of the case as presented by the parking operator, what is the point of having an appeals process?  I hope the court's process is a little more rigorous!

--Outahere

Is there a local Facebook group near this mc Donald’s? It would be worth asking there if anybody else was done at this location prior to  your incident and if they have any picture of the signs.

Alternatively get a mate to park there for 85 mins and see if they get a pcn too for overstaying the “60 minute” limit.