DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65832--------------------------------------------------
MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: April 6, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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!
[left][URL=
HTML https://imgbox.com/JCOiZL8Y]https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/f0/3f/JCOiZL8Y_t.jpg[/URL]
[URL=
HTML https://imgbox.com/OuD0Mefb]https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/1e/d5/OuD0Mefb_t.jpg[/URL]
[URL=
HTML https://imgbox.com/ZXFF06AK]https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/7d/e5/ZXFF06AK_t.jpg[/URL][/left]
#Post#: 65978--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 7, 2025, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 65985--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 7, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
--- End Quote ---
And make a formal complaint to the DVLA:
Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:
[indent]• Go to:
HTML 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.[/indent]
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:
--- Quote ---
> I 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.
--- End Quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---
> SUPPORTING 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:
>
> [indent]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.[/indent]
>
> This complaint is based on two distinct breaches:
>
> [indent]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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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).[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 66059--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: April 8, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 66092--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
--- Quote ---
> Article 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 69333--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: April 30, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69348--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 30, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
--- Quote ---
> Ground 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.
>
>
HTML https://images2.imgbox.com/7d/e5/ZXFF06AK_o.jpg
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
>
> 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)):
>
> [indent]“the parking terms and conditions that are to be
applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the
duration of free parking permitted...”[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 69620--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: May 1, 2025, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 69622--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 1, 2025, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Outahere link ---
>
> 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?
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 69627--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: May 1, 2025, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page