DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64232--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: b789
Date: March 26, 2025, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What "fine"? You have not been "fined" and I will give you £100
for every occurrence of the word "fine" you can show me in any
of the correspondence you have received.
MET Parking is not an authority of any kind that can issue
"fines" or "penalties". They are an unregulated private parking
company or ex-clampers.
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is nothing more than a speculative
invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Do you
simply pay any old invoice just because you have received it
without disputing it if you don't think it is fair? Of course
you appeal to POPLA.
Do a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals and see what
you can come up with and then show us before you send anything
so that we can advise on any corrections or changes that need to
be made.
#Post#: 64678--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 28, 2025, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your help so far. Here is my attempt to the
appeal, please advice if it's any good. Many thanks!
Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above
vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via
post from MET Parking Services (“the Operator”), which purported
to be a Notice to Keeper. I appealed to the Operator, who
acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my
position that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have
no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should
therefore be upheld. My appeal is based on the following
grounds:
1. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The operator does not know the identity of the driver and is
therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered
keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid
charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must
comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. MET Parking Services have
failed to do so.
As MET Parking Services now concede that they are not seeking to
rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper,
and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be
held liable for the charge. My appeal should therefore be
upheld.
2. Breach of the PPSSCoP – Misrepresentation
The parking charge notice issued by MET Parking Services falsely
claimed that they would be able to hold me liable as the
registered keeper under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act, despite the fact that they were
aware (or ought to have been aware) that they had not complied
with the relevant conditions to do so. This was confirmed in
their response to my appeal, in which they admitted that they
were not seeking to hold me liable under PoFA.
This is in direct contravention of section 8.1.1 (d) of the
Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP), which
states:
8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include
material on its website which in its design and/or language:
a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory
authority where none exists;
b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement
penalty charge notice;
c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
d) states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the
registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge, and I
request that my appeal is upheld.
3. Unfair Parking Charge – Unavoidable Extended Stay Due to Slow
Service
The alleged contravention occurred due to circumstances beyond
the control of the vehicle’s occupants. The vehicle was parked
while its occupants were customers at the establishment, with
two separate orders placed at:
First order at 17:56
Second order at 18:40
It was a Sunday evening, and the restaurant was operating at
near-full capacity, leading to delays in service. The second
order alone took at least 20 minutes to be prepared for
collection and consumption. Had the service been quicker, the
vehicle would have left within the 90-minute stay limit.
A parking system that penalizes genuine customers who experience
slow service due to factors outside their control is both
unreasonable and unfair. The operator has failed to account for
situations where delays are caused by the business itself,
making the charge punitive rather than a genuine parking
enforcement measure.
4. Unenforceable Penalty – No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
(GPEOL)
The parking charge of £100 (or £60 if paid early) is
disproportionate to any potential loss suffered by the
landowner. Under contract law, damages for breach should be a
genuine pre-estimate of loss rather than a penalty designed to
deter.
The car park is free for customers within a set time limit,
meaning the landowner suffers no financial loss from the
extended stay.
MET Parking Services has not demonstrated how this charge is a
genuine estimate of any loss incurred.
The charge appears to be punitive and aimed at generating
revenue rather than covering actual losses.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any contract term that
imposes a disproportionate financial burden is considered unfair
and unenforceable. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the
court found that a charge may be justified only if it serves a
legitimate interest beyond mere deterrence. However, in this
case, there is no legitimate interest, as the delay was caused
by restaurant service, and no financial loss was suffered by the
landowner.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above:
The operator has failed to establish keeper liability under
PoFA.
The notice misrepresented legal liability, breaching the
PPSSCoP.
The extended stay was unavoidable due to slow service, making
the charge unfair.
The charge is disproportionate and fails the Genuine
Pre-Estimate of Loss test.
I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the Parking
Charge Notice is cancelled.
#Post#: 64745--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 29, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In what way are Met failing to comply with PoFA? You can’t just
say they don’t, you need to explain why not. Where do Met agree
that they’re not seeking to use PoFA to hold the registered
keeper liable? I can’t see this but I may have missed it. If
they do say this, quote it to POPLA, who need leading through
the logic at all times.
#Post#: 64747--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: b789
Date: March 29, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think that you, the Keeper have no liability when we
already told you that the NtK is PoFA compliant?
If you are appealing as the Keeper, and decline to identify the
driver, then MET can pursue you for the charge. I think you may
be misunderstanding what that means.
If the Keeper is appealing only as the Keeper, irrespective of
whether they were the driver or not, they must always refer to
the driver in the third party. No "I did this or that". Only
"the driver did this or that".
In this case, because the NtK is PoFA compliant, it doesn't make
a difference to MET because they can just chase you as the
Keeper. Simply stating that there is no Keeper liability without
pointing out why, is not an appeal (or defence) point.
I don't see where MET have "conceded" that they are not pursuing
the Keeper under the PoFA provisions.
Also. at POPLA, mitigation will not be considered. So, the slow
service or whatever, is not METs fault. Whilst mitigation can
help if it ever went to a haring in court, that is a different
matter.
Again, no GPEOL will not interest POPLA. They will only be
looking at the actual contract law. Although you could raise it
under the terms of the CRA, most POPLA assessors don't know
enough about that to even consider it properly. Again, that is
something that would be available to you if it went to court.
Don't pin your hopes on POPLA for this one.
#Post#: 64854--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 30, 2025, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have amended the appeal to below, do I still stand a chance
for this appeal? Felt like running out of reasons now, does it
mean there is no choice but have to force to pay this, which I
really don't have the extra money for at the moment?
Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper of the vehicle, received a Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) from MET Parking Services, issued as a
Notice to Keeper (NtK). I appealed to the Operator, but my
appeal was rejected. I contest this charge on the following
grounds:
1. No Keeper Liability – Failure to Comply with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Operator has failed to meet the strict conditions of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the
registered keeper. Specifically:
The NtK fails to specify the period of parking, which is a
requirement under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA. A timestamp of
entry/exit is not the same as a period of parking.
The NtK does not explicitly warn the keeper that they will be
liable if the driver is not named, as required by Paragraph
9(2)(f).
The NtK was not delivered within the required timeframe of 14
days from the alleged parking event, as required by Paragraph
9(4).
Because MET Parking Services has failed to comply with PoFA,
they cannot transfer liability to me as the keeper. Without
identifying the driver, MET has no legal basis to pursue this
charge against me.
2. Breach of the PPSSCoP – Misrepresentation of Keeper Liability
MET Parking Services' NtK misleadingly suggests that the
registered keeper is liable under PoFA despite their failure to
meet the statutory requirements. This misrepresentation violates
Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (PPSSCoP), which explicitly prohibits parking operators
from stating that the keeper is liable under PoFA where they
cannot legally enforce such liability.
Since MET Parking Services failed to comply with PoFA but still
suggested keeper liability in their NtK, this charge is based on
misleading information and should be cancelled.
3. No Valid Contract – Inadequate and Unfair Signage
A parking contract is only enforceable if the terms are clearly
displayed and visible. In this case:
The signage at the site is unclear, not prominent, and
positioned in a way that does not provide adequate notice.
The signs fail to specify key conditions in a legible and
transparent manner, making it difficult for motorists to be
aware of and understand the terms before parking.
The Operator claims that signs comply with BS EN 12899-1:2007,
but this standard relates to retro-reflectivity, not readability
or comprehensibility of contractual terms.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires
that signs be conspicuous, well-lit, and placed where they can
be easily read by motorists before parking—this standard has not
been met at the site.
The use of ANPR cameras further complicates clarity, as
motorists are not explicitly informed at the point of entry how
their data will be used or the exact moment their "parking
period" begins.
4. Unfair Terms Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
The parking charge imposed by MET Parking Services is
disproportionate and unfair, violating Sections 62 and 68 of the
Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act states:
A contract term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance
between the trader and consumer to the detriment of the
consumer.
Terms must be transparent, written in plain language, and
prominent enough for consumers to understand their financial
obligations before entering into a contract.
In this case, the signage fails to clearly communicate the
contractual terms, including the precise start of the "parking
period" under ANPR enforcement. Furthermore, the penalty charge
of £100 (or £60 if paid early) is disproportionate to any
potential loss suffered by the landowner, as the car park is
free for customers within the permitted stay. This suggests the
charge is designed to deter rather than reflect a legitimate
loss, making it unenforceable under consumer protection laws.
Conclusion:
For the reasons outlined above:
The Operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA
due to non-compliance with key statutory requirements.
The NtK misrepresents legal liability, breaching the PPSSCoP.
No valid contract was formed due to inadequate signage.
The charge is unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights
Act 2015.
I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the Parking
Charge Notice is cancelled.
#Post#: 64856--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 30, 2025, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused. Admittedly I haven't read both drafts fully but in
both you are claiming the NtK is not PoFA compliant when you've
been told repeatedly here that it is...
Copy/paste appeals are absolutely fine if the circumstances are
identical - but where they aren't you must be discerning about
which elements to use, and construct one that is a true
reflection of your case.
#Post#: 64870--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: b789
Date: March 30, 2025, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TO be brutally honest with you, I don't think you have any
chance at POPLA. What you have shown us above is not going to
work, especially as you have simply copied and pasted from
elsewhere bits that you think sound OK bat are totally
irrelevant to your PCN.
I already explained why the PoFA argument is not going to work
because the PCN was fully compliant with PoFA in the first
place. So, whitening on about no Keeper liability, especially
that the NtK wasn't given within 14 days of the alleged
contravention is never going to work because to was issued only
3 days after the event!
Not being successful at POPLA does not mean that you have to pay
the charge. The POPLA decision has no bearing on anything going
forwards.
You say you can't afford the charge. Well, you wouldn't be able
to afford it if it went all the way to court and you were
unsuccessful because by then it will have increased to around
£250. However, that does not mean that you'd be unsuccessful and
the odds of it actually going all the way to a hearing
conclusion is low.
Within the litigation process, you will have an opportunity to
have a mediator discuss between you and the claimant an
acceptable resolution. For example, you could come to an
agreement to an acceptably mutual sum. You could also offer to
pay that agreed sum in instalments... and so on.
If it were me in your situation and knowing what I do about the
whole process, I would not worry about POPLA. I would let it go
all the way to litigation and once I knew which firm of
incompetent bulk litigators they use, I would then decide on
whether to try and come to an agreement during mediation or,
just let them issue a Claim and wait for them to discontinue.
There is always an element of risk in this strategy but I am
only telling you what my position would be if I were in your
shoes but with my knowledge of how these things play out.
#Post#: 64875--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 30, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What's the address on the PCN?
#Post#: 64884--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: pleasehelp
Date: March 30, 2025, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN? do you mean what is MET parking services registered office
address?
#Post#: 64893--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET McDonalds - OVERSTAY - SLOUGH
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 30, 2025, 2:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No. The address where the alleged breach occurred. You redacted
the post code and I cannot find McDonald's Prince of Wales.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page