-
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!
-
-
Is that your photo of the sign? If so, do you have the metadata to show when it was taken? Can you get a timestamped photo?
You have until 11th April to submit an appeal. -
-
If that is in fact a current sign at the location, you can send the following appeal:Quote
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:• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.
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:QuoteI 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:QuoteSUPPORTING 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] -
-
Is that your photo of the sign? If so, do you have the metadata to show when it was taken? Can you get a timestamped photo?
You have until 11th April to submit an appeal.
Yes, that is my photo. I have another one saying "1 1/2 Hours Max Stay", and both are time-stamped and geo-located, etc.
I will proceed as you have suggested. Just checking that I was following the latest recommended procedure (I am a former Pepipoo member from many years ago). Thank you.
--Outahere -
-
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:QuoteArticle 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. -
-
Update:
MET Parking sent a POPLA code, along with a rather incredible claim that the signage had been changed to say 90 minutes "days after" the relevant date, meaning that the PCN was properly issued (and the DVLA therefore legally contacted)...
How tame is POPLA these days?
--Outahere
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
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:QuoteGround 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. -
-
It gets better!
Look at the bottom right-hand corner of the sign I posted above. It's a little hard to make it out from that photo, but what it says is, "MET McD MAX 21 16/05/24". In fact, all the signs I saw in the car park have the same curious notation (I just checked--and took some close-ups, for good measure).
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?
Funny ol' world we're living in...
--Outahere -
-
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. -
-
Yes, that could explain it. But I'm now curious what other MET Parking McDonalds car park signs say...
Thank you for your very helpful advice.
--Outahere -
-
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 -
-
You could have hosted the PDF file on DropBox or Google Drive for us to review. However, here is a suggested response to their evidence, based on your description, that you can copy and paste into the POPLA response webform:Quote
Final Comments in Response to MET Parking Services' Evidence
This appeal was made on two grounds:
No breach of terms occurred because the signage at the time of parking stated a 90-minute free parking period.
The operator has no standing to issue the PCN because they have failed to provide evidence of landowner authority for the terms allegedly in force on the material date, as required under Section 14.1(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
The operator has failed to rebut either of these grounds. In fact, their evidence confirms the appellant’s position.
First, on the issue of signage and the alleged breach. The operator claims that a 60-minute time limit was in effect on 8 March 2025 and that the signage was changed to reflect a 90-minute limit on 12 March 2025. However, they have provided no photographic evidence from the relevant date (8 March 2025) to support this. They rely instead on a single photograph dated 12 March 2025, which shows signage stating a 90-minute maximum stay. This evidence directly supports the appellant’s case.
The appellant has provided their own photographic evidence, taken on 5 April 2025, showing signage stating “90 minutes maximum stay.” This photo is timestamped and geolocated to the site. The wording and layout of the sign match MET’s own 12 March 2025 image. MET has not disputed the authenticity or accuracy of this image, nor has it provided any contemporaneous photos showing a 60-minute restriction at the time of the alleged contravention.
Instead, MET has included photographs of signage dated 3 December 2020. This is over four years out of date and cannot be relied upon to evidence the signage in place on 8 March 2025. There is a complete lack of evidence showing what the signage displayed between December 2020 and 12 March 2025.
MET was explicitly put to strict proof of signage showing a 60-minute limit in place on the date of the alleged contravention. They have not provided it. They have failed to prove that the alleged 60-minute limit was visible, legible, and capable of forming a contractual term. Without evidence of the signage in place on the relevant date, the claim of a breach is unsupported and must be dismissed.
The operator also claimed that a motorist does not have to read the signage to be bound by its terms and that their duty is only to provide an opportunity for the motorist to see the terms. This principle is irrelevant in this case. The appellant does not claim that the signs were unread or missed. On the contrary, the appellant’s evidence shows what the signs actually said—namely, that the permitted stay was 90 minutes. Therefore, there was no breach of the terms displayed and no opportunity to see or be bound by a 60-minute limit, because no such limit was visible.
Now turning to the issue of standing. The operator was put to strict proof of landowner authority to enforce a 60-minute limit on 8 March 2025. Section 14.1(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that any written agreement with the landowner must include the actual parking terms and conditions, including the free parking period in effect.
The operator has failed to provide such proof. The contract provided is heavily redacted and contains no mention of any parking terms or the duration of the free parking period. The operator has not supplied any unredacted clause authorising enforcement of a 60-minute limit on the date in question. Nor have they supplied any documentation showing that the landowner agreed to a change from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, or when that change took effect.
Instead, the operator refers vaguely to a rolling contract with McDonald's dating back to 2010. They assert that because the contract remains in force and signage exists on site, POPLA should infer that they had the required authority. This is not sufficient. A general contract to operate at a site does not confer authority to enforce whichever terms the operator chooses. Section 14.1(e) is clear: the operator must hold written landowner confirmation of the specific terms in effect, including the permitted parking period. MET has failed to supply this.
The operator’s attempt to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis is also irrelevant. That case concerned clear signage, a 2-hour time limit, and undisputed landowner authority. Here, MET cannot show what the signage said on the relevant date and has provided no proof of landowner authority for the alleged 60-minute term. POPLA is reminded that Beavis does not override the requirement for the operator to prove the terms of contract and their authority to enforce them.
The operator also attempts to sidestep the requirement to provide a full landowner contract by stating that it contains commercially sensitive information. That may be true, but redacting irrelevant commercial terms is not the same as redacting the very clauses under which enforcement authority and parking terms are established. The operator has failed to provide evidence of landowner agreement to the 60-minute limit and has therefore failed to show any lawful authority to issue a PCN for breach of that term.
Furthermore, the operator fails to explain a critical inconsistency in their timeline. They assert that signage was changed to reflect a 90-minute limit on 12 March 2025, which is not only four days after the alleged contravention, but also the same date they made a DVLA data request and issued the Notice to Keeper. Yet they have provided no documentation confirming that signage was physically changed on that date, nor any contemporaneous site audit, work order, or landowner correspondence confirming the amendment to the parking terms. Their claim appears to be constructed around that date to justify the issuance of the PCN, and this only further undermines the credibility of their assertions.
In summary, the operator has failed to rebut either of the appellant’s two appeal grounds:
They have not shown that the signage on 8 March 2025 stated a 60-minute free parking period.
They have not shown that the landowner had authorised the 60-minute restriction at that time.
They have provided no documentary proof of a formal change to the terms and no evidence of when or how this was implemented.
They rely on irrelevant dated signage, irrelevant legal authority, and a redacted contract which does not evidence the key terms of parking.
This is not a technicality. These are core evidential and contractual requirements under the Code of Practice and contract law. A parking operator must prove both the terms allegedly breached and their legal authority to enforce them. MET has failed to do either.
POPLA is respectfully reminded that the burden of proof lies with the operator. It is not POPLA’s role to assume facts or fill in evidential gaps. The operator had a full opportunity to present relevant evidence and chose not to do so. Therefore, this appeal must be upheld and the charge cancelled. -
-
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 -
-
It's a farce, isn't it. Not to worry. A POPLA decision is not binding on you. DO NOT pay.
You can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
When you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) come back and we will provide a suitable response and further advice. The odds of this ever reaching a courtroom are less than 1%. -
-
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. -