DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54754--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 23, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seems like the sort of thing a local rag might take on, they're
often happy to get any local story that'll fill the Web pages.
Whilst a local paper might not strike fear into McDonald's HQ,
the restaurants are generally franchised, and the local owner
might not be a fan of the publicity.
#Post#: 55817--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 30, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, could someone provide me with a draft for the POPLA appeal?
#Post#: 56826--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: February 6, 2025, 2:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Received a response from BPA regarding the complaint (see
below). I seem to be going round in circles here and I'm
conscious that the POPLA appeal needs to be submitted soon.
Could someone please help me draft it?
BPA Response:
Thank you for your enquiry.
Our Role
Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate
alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our
Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied and
where the operator’s internal complaints process has been
exhausted. We are unable to become involved in individual
Parking Charge disputes.
Appealing the Parking Charge
Please be advised that when a Parking Charge Notice is issued by
a member of our Approved Operator Scheme, a motorist will have
28 days to appeal this via the operator's internal appeals
procedure if they believe that it was issued either unfairly or
incorrectly; the process should be outlined in the Parking
Charge Notice. The operator has 28 days to respond.
If the appeal is rejected the operator should provide details on
how to further appeal to the free and independent appeals
service, POPLA. A further appeal is available via POPLA for 28
days following the operator rejecting the appeal.
Our Code of Practice does not cover how Operators choose to
prove if a motorist leaves site. We are aware of the survey MET
Parking attendants conduct when ascertaining if a driver has
left site and we do not believe this is in breach of our Code of
Practice.
Next Steps
If you believe that there has been a breach of our Code of
Practice by a member of the Approved Operator Scheme you must
first submit your complaint directly to the operator using their
internal complaints process which can be found below:
Complaints-Policy14.pdf
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
British Parking Association
#Post#: 56864--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: February 6, 2025, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should send the following to YOUR MP Find My MP
HTML https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons:
--- Quote ---
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
> [City, Postcode]
> [Your Email]
>
> [Date]
>
> [MP’s Name]
> [MP’s Office Address]
> [City, Postcode]
>
> Subject: Urgent Concern Regarding Private Parking Regulation
and the BPA’s Failure to Enforce Standards
>
> Dear [MP’s Name],
>
> I am writing to you to raise serious concerns about the
British Parking Association (BPA) and its failure to properly
regulate its Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) members, despite its
Accredited Trade Association (ATA) status under the DVLA.
Specifically, the BPA has failed to take action against MET
Parking Services, which has refused to engage with a formal
complaint I submitted.
>
> Background
>
> • MET Parking issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in
circumstances I believe to be unfair.
>
> • I submitted a formal complaint to MET Parking about their
conduct and the way they handle enforcement.
>
> • MET Parking wrongly dismissed my formal complaint as an
“appeal” and refused to engage with the issues raised.
>
> I then escalated the matter to the BPA, expecting them to
enforce their own Code of Practice, which requires operators to
handle complaints separately from appeals. The BPA responded
with a dismissive reply, refusing to intervene despite clear
evidence of MET Parking’s breach of industry standards.
>
> The BPA’s refusal to hold MET Parking accountable raises
serious concerns about its suitability as an ATA. Under its
agreement with the DVLA, the BPA is expected to ensure its
members comply with fair business practices, yet it repeatedly
fails to take meaningful action when members engage in unfair
and misleading behaviour.
>
> This failure is part of a wider pattern where the BPA
consistently shields parking companies from scrutiny, rather
than enforcing consumer protections. As you are aware, the
private parking industry has been heavily criticised for its
predatory and exploitative practices, and this case is yet
another example of why urgent reform is needed.
>
> I ask you to:
>
> • Raise this matter directly with the BPA, challenging their
failure to enforce their own standards against MET Parking.
>
> • Refer this case to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and
Local Government (MHCLG), which is responsible for regulating
private parking and developing a statutory Parking Code of
Practice.
>
> • Support a review of the BPA’s suitability as an ATA, given
its repeated failures to hold its members accountable.
>
> • Press for stronger regulation of the private parking
industry, particularly in ensuring that ATAs are fit for purpose
and that motorists are not subjected to unfair enforcement.
>
> I have attached copies of all relevant correspondence,
including MET Parking’s refusal to properly process my complaint
and the BPA’s dismissive response.
>
> I would appreciate your intervention in this matter and look
forward to your response.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
Attach copies of:
• Your original complaint to MET Parking.
• MET Parking’s misleading response dismissing your complaint.
• Your complaint to the BPA.
• The BPA’s dismissive reply.
I also suggest you respond to Gemma Dorans at the BPA with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint Against MET Parking – BPA’s Failure
to Enforce Standards
>
> Dear Ms Dorans,
>
> I am writing to express my disappointment with your inadequate
response regarding my formal complaint against MET Parking
Services. Your reply fails to address the central issue—MET
Parking did not properly handle my complaint, instead
misrepresenting it as an appeal. This is a blatant failure to
comply with the requirements of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
>
> Key Issues:
>
> [indent]1. MET Parking ignored my formal complaint and wrongly
treated it as an appeal.
>
> 2. Their response did not address any of the concerns I
raised, showing a deliberate refusal to engage in complaint
resolution.
>
> 3. Your response does not hold MET Parking accountable for
failing to adhere to the BPA’s standards for complaints
handling.[/indent]
>
> The BPA, as an Accredited Trade Association (ATA), has a duty
to ensure its members operate fairly and in accordance with its
Code of Practice. By refusing to take action against MET
Parking, you are failing to fulfil your role as a regulator.
This is particularly concerning given the government’s ongoing
scrutiny of private parking firms and the role of ATAs in
enforcing industry standards.
>
> Formal Request for Action
>
> I now expect the BPA to confirm:
>
> [indent]1. What specific enforcement measures will be taken
against MET Parking for their failure to handle complaints
properly?
>
> 2. Why the BPA considers it acceptable for an AOS member to
dismiss a formal complaint by falsely categorising it as an
appeal?
>
> 3. What steps the BPA will take to ensure members comply with
the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in relation
to complaint handling?[/indent]
>
> Your response will determine whether I escalate this matter
further to regulatory bodies.
>
> Involvement of My MP and Further Escalation
>
> Due to the BPA’s persistent failure to regulate its members
effectively, I am now escalating this issue to my MP and
requesting that they raise it with the Ministry for Housing,
Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). It is clear that the
BPA is failing in its regulatory responsibilities, and I believe
it is necessary for the government to reconsider its suitability
as an ATA.
>
> I expect a substantive response outlining what action will be
taken against MET Parking. If I receive another dismissive
reply, I will take this matter further, including raising it
with the DVLA regarding MET Parking’s access to registered
keeper data.
>
> I look forward to your urgent response.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
Here is your POPLA appeal:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Verification Code]
> Appellant: [Your Name]
> Parking Charge Notice Number: [Insert PCN Number]
> Vehicle Registration Number: [Insert Registration]
>
> Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice Issued by
MET Parking Services
>
> Grounds for Appeal
>
> [indent]1. Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable – PoFA Non-Compliance
>
> 2. No Proof of Driver Identity
>
> 3. Zero Evidence to Support the Allegation
>
> 4. Unlawful and Unenforceable Claim Regarding “Occupants”
>
> 5. Demand for Strict Proof of Landowner Authority[/indent]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable – PoFA Non-Compliance
>
> As the Registered Keeper, I cannot be held liable for this
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to MET Parking Services’ failure
to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the mandatory
requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, particularly:
>
> [indent]• Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK does not specify the
required “period of parking.” Instead, it vaguely refers to “the
period of parking prior to 11:23 on 23rd December 2024.”
>
> • This generic reference does not constitute a defined period
of parking, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions
(2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge held that a failure to
specify a clear “period of parking” is non-compliant with PoFA.
>
> • Paragraph 9(2)(e): The NtK fails to properly “invite” the
keeper to pay the charge or identify the driver. This failure
means that MET cannot transfer liability to the keeper.[/indent]
>
> The full transcript of the Brennan judgment, for reference:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=5zeipvip&dl=0
>
> As MET Parking has failed to comply with PoFA, they have no
lawful basis to hold the Keeper liable for this charge.
>
> 2. No Proof of Driver Identity
>
> MET Parking has not provided any evidence that the individual
they are pursuing is the driver. Under PoFA, the Keeper is under
no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated,
private parking company like MET Parking Services.
>
> As the Keeper, I have no intention of assisting a predatory
company whose practices have earned private parking firms such a
poor reputation. Unless MET can provide clear, conclusive
evidence that the driver has been identified, their PCN must be
cancelled.
>
> 3. Zero Evidence to Support the Allegation
>
> MET Parking alleges that the “occupants” of the vehicle left
the McDonald’s Leytonstone site. However, they have provided
absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The photographs in
the NtK show only a parked vehicle and do nothing to
substantiate their speculative and baseless allegation.
>
> The so-called "survey" provided by MET is completely
unsubstantiated and proves nothing. It lacks:
>
> [indent]• Time-stamped photographic or video evidence showing
the occupants leaving the site.
>
> • Any signed statements or corroborative evidence from
independent witnesses.[/indent]
>
> This lack of evidence renders MET’s PCN entirely speculative
and invalid.
>
> 4. Unlawful and Unenforceable Claim Regarding “Occupants”
>
> MET Parking’s allegation that all occupants of the vehicle
must remain on-site is utterly preposterous, both legally and
practically. No reasonable person could believe that such an
absurd and disproportionate obligation could form the basis of a
valid contract.
>
> First, MET has provided no evidence to support their claim
that the alleged contravention occurred. They have not proven
that all occupants left the premises, nor have they provided any
indication of how this could possibly be monitored or enforced.
The so-called "survey" they have submitted fails to prove
anything and raises serious concerns about their methods
(addressed further below).
>
> Second, the idea that a driver entering into a contract to
park could somehow extend liability to all passengers of the
vehicle is legally and contractually nonsensical. For this
condition to be enforceable, the signage would need to:
>
> [indent]• Explicitly define which “occupants” are covered by
this obligation.
>
> • Explain how a motorist is expected to control or monitor the
actions of passengers, particularly adults, once they leave the
vehicle.
>
> • Specify the consequences for non-compliance in a way that is
fair, reasonable, and transparent under the Consumer Rights Act
2015.[/indent]
>
> MET’s signage fails to do any of these things. Even if it
attempted to impose such a condition, it would be deemed unfair
and unenforceable under consumer protection laws due to its
ambiguity and disproportionate nature.
>
> Furthermore, the suggestion that passengers entering a
McDonald’s restaurant and later leaving the site could breach
the terms of a parking contract is farcical. MET Parking appears
to be arguing that a contract for parking allows them to:
>
> [indent]• Track and monitor the movements of private
individuals.
>
> • Hold the driver liable for actions that are entirely outside
their control.[/indent]
>
> Such behaviour is not only absurd but could also be construed
as a breach of privacy. If MET Parking believes this to be a
valid term of their alleged contract, they are reminded that
unfair terms are not legally binding under the Consumer Rights
Act 2015.
>
> If the POPLA assessor reviewing this case fails to recognise
the absurdity and illegality of this claim, it would raise
serious questions about their understanding of fair contract
principles. Such a failure could reinforce concerns that POPLA
is not truly independent and may, in practice, lean towards
protecting the interests of the parking operators who fund it. A
decision not to reject this appeal on such an obvious and
indefensible point would do little to dispel the perception that
POPLA serves as a mechanism that too often favours operators
rather than acting as an impartial appeals body.
>
> 5. Demand for Strict Proof of Landowner Authority
>
> MET Parking Services is put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a clear chain of
authority flowing from the freeholder or landholder of the
"relevant land" to MET Parking.
>
> It is not accepted that MET Parking has adhered to the
landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace periods, hours of
operation, or instructions regarding the cancellation of charges
due to complaints. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the
freeholder authorises MET to issue parking charges, or what the
land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are. It is also
unclear whether MET Parking has standing to enforce such charges
in their own name, as opposed to holding a bare licence to act
as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
>
> As part of this, MET Parking is put to strict proof of
specific clauses in the landowner contract explicitly
authorising them to impose charges based on the alleged
behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site. This clause is
critical because it forms the basis of MET’s allegation. Without
evidence of such an explicit clause, MET has no right to issue
or enforce a charge under these circumstances.
>
> The operator is further put to strict proof of full compliance
with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP). As MET Parking does not have proprietary interest in
the relevant land, I require them to produce an unredacted copy
of the contract with the landowner. This must include any 'site
agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out key details such as:
>
> [indent]• Specific clauses authorising MET Parking to impose
charges based on the alleged behaviour of vehicle occupants
leaving the site.
>
> • Definitions and exemptions (e.g., any 'genuine customer' or
'genuine resident' exemptions).
>
> • Any site occupier’s right of veto or charge cancellation
rights.[/indent]
>
> The above evidence is critical to define what MET Parking is
authorised to do and any circumstances where the landholder or
site occupiers (e.g., McDonald’s) may override or cancel a
charge.
>
> It cannot be assumed that because an agent has been contracted
to erect signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, they are also
authorised to:
>
> [indent]• Make enforceable contracts with all or any category
of visiting drivers.
>
> • Pursue legal action to enforce parking charges in their own
name.[/indent]
>
> A witness statement will not suffice. Such statements are
often pre-signed, generic documents that fail to identify the
specific case or site rules. While a witness statement might
sometimes be accepted by POPLA, in this case, I assert that it
is insufficient to evidence the specific terms of the agreement
between MET and the landholder.
>
> Without full, unredacted evidence of their landholder
authority—including clauses explicitly relating to the alleged
behaviour of vehicle occupants leaving the site—MET Parking’s
right to issue and enforce this charge cannot be established,
and the PCN must be cancelled.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The Parking Charge Notice issued by MET Parking Services is
invalid and unenforceable for the following reasons:
>
> [indent]• Non-compliance with PoFA.
>
> • Failure to provide evidence that the Keeper is the driver.
>
> • Zero evidence to support the allegation that vehicle
occupants left the site.
>
> • An absurd and unlawful claim regarding vehicle occupants.
>
> • Failure to demonstrate landowner authority to issue charges
based on the alleged contravention.[/indent]
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
cancel the charge.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 56865--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 6, 2025, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Re. The comms with your MP - if the car park is in your (and
therefore your MP's) constituency, then I'd specifically mention
that. It's obviously a national issue, but if this specific case
is also a local issue then it might pique their interest more.
#Post#: 56929--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: February 6, 2025, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I'll update you as I get any responses.
#Post#: 59547--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: February 24, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, MP’s office has written to my wife and forwarded
correspondence from the BPA which I’ll paste below. Does this
mean that the penalty charge is cancelled?
Correspondence from the British Parking Association
Good Morning Uma,
I hope you had a lovely weekend.
Re: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Your reference: CXXXXXX
BPA reference: BPA-XXXXXX
Parking Charge Notice: XXXXXXXXX
Thank you for your patience whilst I contacted MET Parking
Services for further information.
Our Role
It might be helpful if I begin by explaining that our role as an
Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches
of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator
Scheme. Please appreciate that our remit does not extend to
compelling operators to cancel charges or becoming involved in
the appeals process.
The Site
McDonald's Leytonstone operates a 90 minute maximum stay for
customers only. We are aware that MET Parking Services conduct a
survey to ascertain when a parking attendant leaves the site and
we do not believe it constitutes a breach of the Code of
Practice.
The Parking Charge
When a Parking Charge is issued by a member of our Approved
Operator Scheme, a motorist will have 28 days to appeal this via
the operator's internal appeals procedure if they believe that
it was issued either unfairly or incorrectly; the process should
be outlined in the Parking Charge.
The operator has 28 days to respond to the appeal. If the appeal
is rejected the operator should provide details on how to
further appeal to the free and independent appeals service,
POPLA. A further appeal is available via POPLA for 28 days
following the operator rejecting the appeal.
Parking Charge issued: 27th December 2024
Appeal received: 5th January 2025
Appeal rejected: 16th January 2025
Correspondence received: 20th January 2025
Correspondence responded to: 23rd January 2025
POPLA appeal submitted
When MET received the correspondence dated 20th January, they
considered it to be a further appeal as they felt it did not fit
the definition of a complaint outlined in their complaints
policy
(
HTML https://www.metparking.com/wp-content/uploads/Complaints-Policy14.pdf).
We received contact from the motorist under BPA-060029 and our
Senior Compliance Manager responded numerous times addressing
their queries. Within the motorist’s complaint they have not
raised any breaches of the Code of Practice. We are careful to
not overstep our remit and cannot advise if an operator is
acting unlawfully.
In this instance, MET Parking Services have withdrawn the case
from POPLA and the motorist will receive no further
correspondence regarding this Parking Charge.
The Parking (Code of Practice) Act
At the BPA we continue to engage with Government departments and
other stakeholders on establishing the new single Code of
Practice and the surrounding architecture. It has long been our
aspiration to establish a standard setting body overseeing a
single code of practice and one independent appeals service to
give the motoring public a level playing field when dealing with
parking operators that manage private land and eradicate
confusion created by multiple codes and appeals services.
As the various initiatives outlined in the Act come to fruition,
we are keen to continue our constructive input to the Act, and
if you would like to arrange a call to discuss any issues, we
would be very happy to make mutually convenient arrangements.
Kind regards
#Post#: 59552--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: February 24, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Wraith link ---
>
> In this instance, MET Parking Services have withdrawn the case
from POPLA and the motorist will receive no further
correspondence regarding this Parking Charge.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, despite the smarmy wriggling to try and excuse their
members outrageous behaviour and probably breach of some
criminal laws, never mind the PPSCoP, the end result appears to
have worked.
If MET have withdrawn their POPLA case, then you will receive
notification from POPLA of this fact in due course.
They never had a chance with this one and they know it. However,
there are probably tens or more of these cases at this location
every month where the Keeper has no idea about their rights and
they either simply pay it at the mugs discount rate or wait
until they receive threats of litigation and then pay up out of
ignorance and fear.
Well done for persevering. It is over now.
#Post#: 93742--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: maxi54
Date: October 11, 2025, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s really interesting to read how this case was ultimately
resolved, especially after the BPA and MP got involved, and I
was quite shocked to learn about the reference to a “survey”
inside McDonald’s toilets mentioned in the PCN.
In my own situation, I haven’t gone down the BPA route yet, but
I’ve already exhausted the usual steps: appeal rejected by POPLA
and McDonald’s refusing to intervene despite proof that we were
genuine customers dining inside.
At this point I’m considering raising the issue publicly through
the press and consumer channels, as it’s clear many people are
being treated unfairly under the “leave the premises” rule.
If anyone here has had a similar experience and might be willing
to share their story (even anonymously) for a press piece, or if
there’s any advice you’d recommend before I go down that route,
I’d really appreciate it.
#Post#: 93754--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: maxi54
Date: October 11, 2025, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I posted about this before but my comment may have been missed,
so I’m posting again here for visibility.
I’m in the same situation, a genuine customer at McDonald’s,
received a PCN for “leaving the site,” appeal rejected, and
McDonald’s declined to help even with proof of purchase.
I’m now considering raising the issue with the press and other
public channels, as I know many others have been affected too.
If anyone has advice on any final steps before doing that, or if
you’ve experienced the same and might be willing to share your
story I’d really appreciate hearing from you.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page