DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61682--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 10, 2025, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, yes I did. Apologies my editing skills are poor and my
equipment not up to par so taking ages to reduce image size etc.
please find attached NtK and signage, premises surroundings,
etc.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 61739--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: b789
Date: March 10, 2025, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You could show us the back of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) as any
breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
means that they are in breach of their KADOE contract with the
DVLA and would warrant a formal complaint to the DVLA which MET
won't like as they will be in danger of losing their access to
the DVLA data.
Those signs are incapable of forming a contract. The font is
tiny and they are at least 10-15 feet high up on a pole.
However, you'd have to argue that point to a POPLA assessor.
The most likely outcome would be a court claim that is
eventually discontinued or struck out. Chance of success...
about 99%.
#Post#: 61758--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 10, 2025, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please find attached the back of the NtK.
May I ask if I need to draft a letter for the appeal process?
Are there any ready templates I could use? Many thanks in
advance
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 61797--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: b789
Date: March 10, 2025, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yup, there it is on the back... "...please forward your appeal
within 28 days from the date of issue of this notice..." PPSCoP
breach.
#Post#: 61921--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 11, 2025, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I looked at similar cases, this is the draft for the appeal.
Please advise if it's any good? Many thanks in advance.
""" I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. Premier Park has relied on contract law
allegations of breach against the driver only.
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.
Also, you are in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of
Practice (PPSCoP), I would suggest you remove the charges, else
a formal complaint to the DVLA will be on it's way. """
#Post#: 61922--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 11, 2025, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> else a formal complaint to the DVLA will be on its way.
--- End Quote ---
(no apostrophe)
#Post#: 61944--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 11, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great thank you for pointing that out.
Appreciate all the advice so far, will let you know if I heard
of anything. Thanks again.
#Post#: 61952--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: b789
Date: March 11, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, that NtK is about as PoFA compliant as you can
get. There is a minor technical flaw but it is not likely to be
enough to persuade a judge that all the requirements of PoFA
have been met.
You could argue that the signs are too small, high up and almost
impossible to read as the text is mostly in a minuscule font.
The other point is that their statement on the back of the NtK
that says: "...please forward your appeal within 28 days from
the date of issue of this notice..." is a breach of the PPSCoP
section 8.1.2(e) which states:
[indent]"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs
the recipient: hat if the recipient appeals within 28 days of
RECEIVING the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate
applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14
days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification
that their appeal has been rejected;"[/indent]
Appeal for now with the following but don't be surprised when it
is rejected:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference]
>
> Dear MET Parking Services,
>
> I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in
relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I dispute
this charge for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Inadequate and Unclear Signage
>
> The signage at the site fails the legal test of prominence and
fairness. The text is minuscule, and the signs are positioned
too high to be legible for a driver or passenger. Under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be fair, transparent, and
clearly communicated, which is not the case here. Your signage
fails to meet the standards required by the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) for legibility and prominence,
making it unenforceable.
>
> 2. Frustration of Contract Due to Service Delays
>
> The driver was a paying customer at the restaurant, and the
delay in departure was caused by slow service due to high demand
and capacity issues. This is a circumstance beyond the driver’s
control, making enforcement of the parking limit unfair. The
contract was frustrated by external factors, and no fair or
reasonable enforcement should apply in such cases.
>
> 3. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL)
>
> There was no financial loss suffered by the landowner or the
parking operator, as the restaurant was operating and serving
food to paying customers. The charge is unreasonable,
disproportionate, and punitive, rather than a genuine reflection
of any loss incurred.
>
> 4. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) – Misrepresentation of Appeal Timeframe
>
> Your NtK states that an appeal must be submitted within 28
days from the date of issue, which is a breach of Section
8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP. The correct timeframe should be 28 days
from the date of receipt. Any breach of the PPSCoP invalidates
your access to keeper data under your KADOE contract with the
DVLA. This procedural error means the PCN was issued
incorrectly.
>
> Given the above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be
cancelled immediately. If you reject this appeal, I require a
POPLA code so I can escalate the matter.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Keeper's Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64214--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 26, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Felt defeated..... they reply and rejected the appeal, below is
their reply.
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 note your comments, however, the time limit was still
applicable.
We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location
bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of
motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check
the signs where they park and comply with the terms and
conditions.
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.
Should I appeal to POPLA?
#Post#: 64218--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 26, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal letter attached as for your reference. Should I appeal
further to POPLA or I actually need to pay the hefty fines? :'(
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page