-
Hello all. The driver was at McDonald's with friends and their children and the RK received this ticket for overstaying. The driver didn't realise there were restrictions.
Is this company letigeous? What would your advice be please?
Thanks so much.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
The driver didn't realise there were restrictions.
Is this company letigeous? What would your advice be please?
Why didn't the driver realise there were restrictions? Are there no signs? Is there a sign at the entrance to the car park that adequately informs drivers that it is private land and that parking restrictions apply and to see the terms and conditions signs in the car park? Are there any (sufficient) terms and conditions signs within the car park that adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching the terms and conditions?
MET are litigious but that doesn't matter because once they litigate and a claim is defended, the claim will likely be struck out or discontinued.
As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant, and any initial appeal will be unsuccessful, you will get a chance to try and appeal to POPLA but I doubt that will be successful either unless you can evidence that the signs at the car park do comply with the requirements of the BPA CoP (v9 January 2024).
Even if unsuccessful at POPLA, you would eventually receive a claim and would need to defend it, with our assistance. Eventually, as I mentioned, it will end.
So are you prepared to go all the way fighting this -
-
b 789 there is no mention of POFA on the notice am I missing something when you say it is POFA compliant. Or have I missed seeing something on the PCN
-
-
There is no legal requirement to mention PoFA. The only requirement is that all the requirements as laid out in PoFA are fully complied with.
-
-
Hi thanks for your reply. The driver didn't know there were restrictions as they didn't see any obvious signs and didn't think to look for any.
I went there tonight and and have uploaded a few photos. Here they are:
There are no signs upon entry to the car park. There are signs to the right as you drive in but the driver wouldn't have looked there as that's where electric vehicles park so the driver would have driven straight past this.
https://ibb.co/whS0ZC9M
The driver parked to the right of the light blue car in this photo. There are no signs around that area. There are two signs at either end of this row of cars but not obvious unless you're parked there, which the driver wasn't.
https://ibb.co/FbxpsSyP
Photo three is what the driver saw as they got out the car to walk into McDonalds - again no signs.
https://ibb.co/1GPkNBBH
Photo four and five are the signs on the lamppost right at the end of the bay - it's very high up.
https://ibb.co/V0C8x4KZ
https://ibb.co/Q3G2zjdJ
Photos 6 and 7 are an overview of the car park. Again, not obvious that there are any signs to look for. You can just see the two signs on the lampposts at either end of the row of parked cars. That appears to be all there is in that section.
https://ibb.co/jcbVnLf
https://ibb.co/k6KXtXYh
How do I phrase my representations?
Thanks so much. -
-
There is an entrance sign:
However, irrespective of that, there are other reasons to dispute the charge. Any initial appeal is going to be rejected, no matter what. The point though, is to get a POPLA code for a secondary, supposedly independent appeal service.
For now, appeal only as the Keeper of the vehicle with the following:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The signage at the site fails to adequately bring to the attention of drivers the parking charge payable upon breach, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Furthermore, the NtK misstates the deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue rather than receipt, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice section 8.1.2(e). PoFA compliance requires strict adherence; partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient.
There will be no admission as to who was driving. No presumption, inference, or legal assumption can be made. MET has elected to pursue the charge under contract law against the driver, and you are therefore unable to transfer liability to the keeper.
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. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN. -
-
Wow thank you so so much! I didn't spot that sign yesterday at all when I took the pictures.
Thanks again - hugely appreciated. -
-
Hello. Thanks so much for your help the other week. I've received this reply from MET parking. I'd be so grateful if you could tell me what I need to do next. Thank you so much.
Dear XXXX,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXXX (Vehicle: XXXX)
Site: (237) McDonald's Shenley Road
Issue date: XXXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXXX
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These
include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay in this area
of 90 minutes. Your vehicle remained on site for longer than the maximum permitted stay therefore we believe the
charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
We are confident that there are sufficient signs, which are made using a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-
1:2007 class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs, at this location bringing the terms and
conditions of parking to the attention of motorists. The signs are visible during the hours of darkness as they reflect light
from the lamp posts they are fixed to, ambient light and light from vehicles themselves. It remains the driver's
responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
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 17 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.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge
at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date
the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution
agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made
online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the
online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: XXXX Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please
note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to
pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to
POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides
an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do
so to POPLA as explained above.
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may
proceed with court action.
Yours sincerely
Appeals Department -
-
No initial appeal is ever successful. There is no money in it for them. You now have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection (which you have redacted for some obscure reason) to appeal to POPLA.
Hve a search of the forum to see how other POPLA appeals are formatted and what is in them and put something together and then show us, before you send anything. We will be able to advise on any changes that will need to be made.
I have no idea what this refers to in their response:Quote"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 17 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."
Is that a typo that you have made: "17 days"? -
-
Thanks. I'll check out other appeals. Any you'd advise me to look at especially? Or any?
I've not edited the content of their letter so the 17 days is what they wrote. I don't understand it either.
Appeal rejection is the 2nd May. -
-
Hi all - thanks for your help so far.
I have written this POPLA appeal based on one I found on this site. I'd really appreciate your feedback. Thanks so much. (Images not included here but they're visible above and will be included in my appeal.):
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of Appeal Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have reviewed the response by MET Parking Services to my appeal, dated 20th April 2025. I submit the following detailed response to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted.
1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract Formed**
Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking charge of £100 upon breach, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii), which states the signage must adequately bring the parking charge to the attention of the driver.
MET Parking Services response:
MET Parking Services claims the terms and conditions are clearly and prominently stated on signs displayed around the site. They state that they believe the signs are ‘sufficient’, and made of a ‘retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899- 1:2007 class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic Signs’.
However, they failed to address the core issue: the size, clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge, which is not at all visible as you enter the car park.
As you can see from the image below, the signage at the entry point of the car park is so small that the driver failed to spot it. There is also no obvious mention of a £100 parking charge. If it is on the sign it can only be buried in the small text, making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial penalty for non-compliance. This is contrary to the BPA Code of Practice, which states that any parking charge must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver, using the same size font.
Furthermore, as you can see from the images below there are no signs around where the driver parked and no signs in the direction in which they’d have walked towards McDonald’s, meaning signage at the site is inadequate.
In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.
Unanswered:
MET Parking Services did not provide evidence that their £100 charge is displayed in a prominent fashion as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements. Nor did they provide evidence that enough signage is prominently displayed around the car park, adequately bringing the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers.
The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100 charge is not visible on the entry sign, and that there is insufficient signage around the car park, supporting my claim that no valid contract was formed.
2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**
Original Appeal Argument:
MET Parking Services has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by the driver. MET Parking Services’ failure to comply with key requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.
MET Parking Services NtK fails PoFA on the following point:
The NtK misstates the deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue rather than receipt, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice section 8.1.2(e). PoFA compliance requires strict adherence; partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient.
MET Parking Services response:
MET Parking Services simply responded to this point by saying ‘We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act.’
They went on to state that as ‘17 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.’
Unanswered:
MET Parking Services failed to address the mistake in their NtK with regards the deadline for lodging an appeal. They have failed to show how their NtK complied with the specific PoFA point listed above.
Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
MET Parking Services has not demonstrated why they believe the registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver, MET Parking Services has no legal grounds to pursue this charge against me.
**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, MET Parking Services has failed to address or rebut the key points of my original appeal and demonstrate why they believe this parking change was issued correctly. Their evidence submission does not disprove any of the following:
(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100 charge.
(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance signage and unclear display of parking terms.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
-
If anyone could advise on my POPLA appeal above I'd be ever so grateful. Thanks so much.
-
-
Forget your original appeal. The POPLA appeal is a fresh appeal and you should not reference the original appeal.
Make all your points and expect to have them all rebutted. Any points they do not rebut or answer in their evidence pack (when it comes) can be highlighted.
If you are arguing a point of law of the PPSCoP, then reference it and make sure you use the correct version of the Code of Practice. Any notice issued after October 2024 references the PPSCoP. Anything before that, the relevant BPA CoP.
If you are referencing PoFA, make sure you understand which paragraphs are relevant. For example, paragraph 8 relates to Notices to Driver (NtD). Paragraph 8 relates to a Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued after an NtD is not responded to. Paragraph 9 relates to an NtK issued without an NtD.
Don't rush this. You have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. -
-
Hello thank you for your help so far. I've completely re-written everything after doing more research. I decided to remove the non compliant NtK bit because I think actually it was compliant. You very kindly wrote something for me to send off which included the line "Furthermore, the NtK misstates the deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue rather than receipt."
However, I've looked at the NtK again and it states "Please be warned, that if after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given..." Doesn't the use of the word 'given' make it the date of receipt rather than issue?
Based on that I've made my POPLA appeal about lacking and non compliant signage. The driver is colour blind so that actually plays into this a lot because the most important part of the entry sign, the part that says there's terms and conditions, is on a blue background, against the red of the brick. This made it impossible for the driver to see.
Anyway this is what I've written so far - go easy on me. I'm not as clever as some of you and don't know too much about the law on this!
I'd be ever so grateful for some feedback and anything else you think I should add.
Many thanks.
***
No contract with driver due to lack of and non-compliant signage
Section 3 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) states that signs and road markings must be ‘visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.’
Below is an image taken at the entrance to the McDonald’s car park in similar light conditions to the time the driver entered the car park on X.
The entry sign here is not obviously visible. In fact it’s so small that the driver failed to spot it at all.
Upon closer inspection of the available entry sign, it’s clear it is not compliant with Annex A of the PPSCoP.
Section A.3 states with regards to contrast and illumination; ‘There must be colour contrast between the text and its background. The best way to achieve this is to have dark, preferably black, text on a white background, recognising that the use of corporate colours, whilst permissible, could cause problems e.g. for drivers who are colour blind.’
Below is a close up of the available entry sign:
Section A.3 of the PPSCoP is particularly significant in this case because the driver has red, green and blue colour blindness. The use of a blue background on a sign placed in front of red brick, meant the sign became almost invisible to the driver. This is in direct contravention of the PPSCoP, which states the signs must be clearly visible and take into account colours which may affect drivers who are colourblind.
Furthermore,whilst part of the sign uses black text on a white background, the most important part of the sign, the part that tells the driver there are terms and conditions, does not. The use of white text against the blue background does not create a clear enough contrast, in direct contravention of Section A.3, which states the best way to achieve this is to use ‘black text on a white background.’
This meant that when the driver entered the car park that evening they had no idea they were about to park on land governed by terms and conditions, and terms which involved a £100 parking charge for non compliance.
This also puts MET Parking Services in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Section 64 of the Act states that any terms and conditions must be transparent and prominent, and sufficiently drawn to the attention of the customer.
Without transparency and prominence, and where terms are one sided, they are deemed to be unfair and therefore not binding on the customer.
Furthermore, section 3.1.3 subheading a of the PPSCoP states that any signage within the controlled land must be placed ‘such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.’
The image below shows several bays within the car park. The driver was parked either where the blue car is or to the right of it.
As you can see there are no nearby signs, which could have alerted the driver to the fact they’d just parked on land controlled by terms and conditions.
When the driver exited the vehicle they would have turned around to face McDonald’s. Below shows the view they’d have seen:
As you can see there are also no signs displaying terms and conditions here either. This is in direct contravention to clause 4.1 of the PPSCoP, ‘Accessible Parking’, which states that ‘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.’
Had signage been available here the driver might have become aware that they were parking on land controlled by terms and conditions.
-
-
Your arguments about your colour blindness is good but I doubt that a POPLA assessor will consider them. They are more of a mitigation rather than pointing out that MET have breached any law or code of practice rules. That does not mean tha you should not try and use that argument.
It would be very good if it were ever to be argued in court, but that will never happen. Even if it goes to a court claim, it would most likely be struck out or discontinued.
Make sure you throw in things such as requiring them to evidence that they have a vales contract flowing from the landowner that authorises them to operate and issue PCNs in their own name at the location.
I doubt a POPLA appeal will be successful in this case but you have to try. -
Agree x 1
View List