DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74312--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: June 2, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
MET has supplied its evidence to POPLA, and I now have 7 days to
comment.
For reference, my POPLA appeal, as submitted:
"Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") Issued by MET
Parking Services Ltd ("MET" or the "operator") PCN Reference:
[NUMBER] Vehicle Registration: [NUMBER] Date of Alleged
Contravention: 12/03/25 This is an appeal by the Keeper of the
vehicle and I raise the following points for POPLA to consider:
1. No breach of terms
2. No standing
Grounds for Appeal:
1.Ground of Appeal: No breach of terms — signage clearly stated
90-minutes 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 operator claims 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 at the site was plainly visible, bears a date
of "16/05/24", the same wording is repeated on several other
signs within the site and no contradictory "60-minute limit" was
displayed elsewhere within the site.
In response to the initial appeal, the operator claimed that the
signage had been 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 alleged
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:
• 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 showing that the signage was sufficient to form a
binding contract.
2. 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)):
“the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the
parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free
parking permitted...”
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:
• 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.
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:
• 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) of the
PPSCoP) 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; and
• the date that this change to the terms was formally agreed,
documented and implemented, and the signage changed accordingly.
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.
Conclusion: The driver of the vehicle was aware of the parking
restrictions in effect on the site at the time of the alleged
contravention and took pains to comply with all such terms and
conditions——including the 90-minute free parking allowance
clearly and unambiguously offered to the driver as an inducement
to enter into the contract of parking. Despite this, MET has
inexplicably sent a PCN to the Keeper of the vehicle, alleging
that the actual terms of the parking contract were contrary to
all the available evidence, and that the driver had therefore
breached such terms by remaining on site for 82minutes. However,
there is no evidence that the free parking limit was indeed 60
minutes, nor that MET had been authorised by the landowner to
offer parking services with a 60-minute limit, at the time of
the alleged contravention. I therefore request POPLA to uphold
this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services Ltd to cancel the
related PCN."
*-*-*
In response to my first ground for appeal, MET elaborated upon
its original claim that the terms and conditions had been
changed "days earlier" to specify that the terms and the signs
were changed on 12 March 2025 (four days after the alleged
contravention), but they have failed to provide any of the
requested evidence showing what the terms and conditions (or the
signs) stated on the actual date of the alleged contravention.
Instead, they have made the same evidence-free claim and then
"reiterated" the same claim again for emphasis:
"We note [REGISTERED KEEPER]’s comments, however, the signage
that was in place on 08/03/2025 advised that the time limit was
60 minutes. A new time limit of 90 minutes was implemented at a
later date, but not until 12/03/2025 when the signage was
replaced. Please see below an image taken on the date of the
installation when our attendant conducted an updated survey":
[Fuzzy, but time-stamped (12/03/2025) photo showing "1-1/2 Hours
Max Stay" on 12 March 2025]
"We reiterate that the time limit in place on 08/03/2025 was 60
minutes.
The fact of the matter is that the maximum stay period is a
contractual term between the motorist and parking operator. The
terms of that contract are what are stated on the signs and the
signs weren’t updated until 12/03/2025. Therefore, the effective
date for the purpose of the updated contract between a motorist
and ourselves is 12/03/2025 onwards. Any correspondence between
us and our client would not alter the effective date of the new
terms and conditions.
We are confident that there were sufficient signs in place in
this car park and that the signs were prominently displayed and
clearly stated the terms and conditions. In Section E of our
evidence pack we have included images of the signs that were in
place at the time and a site plan of the location. We are
confident that our signage complies with all relevant
legislation and regulations.
A motorist does not have to have read the terms and conditions
of parking to enter into a parking contract, there is only the
requirement that the parking operator affords them the
opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that there was
sufficient signage at the site in order to afford motorists the
chance to read the terms and conditions that were in place. Upon
entry to the site, it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out
any terms and conditions that may be in place before choosing to
park or remain on site."
*-*-*
In response to my second ground for appeal, MET has largely
ignored the actual grounds for appeal and provided only a
redacted version of the landowner contract, which does not
include any provision that its agreement with the landowner
includes a clause (per 14.1(e) of the PPSCoP) confirming a
60-minute maximum stay was contractually agreed and permitted by
the landowner on the date of the alleged event; nor has MET
provided "written evidence from the landowner confirming the
subsequent change to a 90-minute free parking period":
"We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in
Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially
sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of
reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to
form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices
for contractual breach.
We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis
for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is
acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at
HTML https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly
stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and
around the car park. These include that parking is for
McDonald’s customers only and there is a maximum permitted stay
of 60 minutes. Please note that these terms and conditions apply
to all users of the car park, which naturally includes customers
of the restaurant. As the photographic evidence provided in
Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle
remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted
stay. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs
where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions.
In light of this we believe the charge notice was issued
correctly and the appeal should be refused."
*-*-*
Within Section E of their evidence pack, MET again leans into
ParkingEye v Beavis (which has nothing to do with this claim),
and offers POPLA some additional, irrelevant advice:
"MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by McDonald’s to ensure
adherence to the terms and conditions of the car park. Our
interest in the land arises from our obligation to perform our
contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for
motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s
premises.
The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered
this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the
motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had
been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the
motorist parking his car on the site.
We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted
contract between ourselves and our client as it contains
information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in
this instance. It also extends to more than 20 pages and
therefore the volume of redacted information will be
significantly greater than the volume of un-redacted and
relevant information.
We have however provided the letter of authority, the signature
page and front sheet of the contract demonstrating it is the
contract referred to in the letter of authority and the clause
from the contract that demonstrates this is rolling contract and
subsists until terminated.
We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract
existed at the date of the contravention and as you can see from
the extract from the contract held with McDonald’s this
agreement has a commencement date of 31 August 2010 as this was
the date it was signed by the client and is agreed for an
initial period of 9 months after which point it becomes an
ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We
can confirm that neither McDonald’s nor MET Parking have applied
the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in
place. Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that
the contract provided adequately proves that MET Parking had
sufficient authority to issue parking charges on the land, on
the day of the contravention. This is also evidenced by the fact
that McDonald’s permitted MET Parking’s parking enforcement
signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and
to this date."
*-*-*
In summary, MET ignored my demands for particular evidence
relating to the date in question and provided a lot of
meaningless additional information which only serves to
illustrate that they have changed their terms and conditions at
different times in the past.
What's to best way to follow up? I would probably just hammer
home exactly how MET has failed to address the two grounds for
appeal, and that they have now lost their opportunity to prove
any breach has occurred on the only relevant date. Is POPLA
likely to "fill in the blanks" in MET's favour?
For example, MET included in its evidence pack numerous pictures
timestamped 3 December 2020, which show that the signs in the
car park indeed indicated a 60-minute free parking period at
that time, but the only evidence they provided relating to the
date they claim to have changed the terms and conditions (12
March 2025) is a single photo from a "site survey" allegedly
done on that date, which shows the same 90-minute free period
which I photographed on 5 April 2025. (Coincidentally, 12 March
2025 is the same date MET requested registered keeper details
from the DVLA and sent the Notice to Keeper.) MET provided no
evidence of (a) what the signs showed on 8 March 2025, or (b)
that any signs were indeed changed on 12 March 2025. In any
case, what the signs showed on 12 March 2025 is irrelevant for
the purpose of demonstrating a breach of contract on 8 March
2025.
However, I'm worried that from the evidence MET did provide,
POPLA might simply assume the facts MET has failed to prove,
such as the implication that the terms and conditions had
remained "60 minutes" from 3 December 2020 until the date MET
allegedly changed them to "90 minutes" on the same date they
requested my DVLA information (four days after the vehicle was
parked there), and that MET's unredacted (and un-provided)
contract with McDonald's contains the apparently critical "free
parking period" terms (and each change thereto was similarly
authorised by McDonald's). A legitimate finder of fact in an
"appeal" should not simply assume critical facts, of course...
Thanks in advance for any further input and advice!
--Outahere
#Post#: 74388--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: b789
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You could have hosted the PDF file on DropBox or Google Drive
for us to review. However, here is a suggested response to their
evidence, based on your description, that you can copy and paste
into the POPLA response webform:
--- Quote ---
> Final Comments in Response to MET Parking Services' Evidence
>
> This appeal was made on two grounds:
>
> No breach of terms occurred because the signage at the time of
parking stated a 90-minute free parking period.
> The operator has no standing to issue the PCN because they
have failed to provide evidence of landowner authority for the
terms allegedly in force on the material date, as required under
Section 14.1(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
> The operator has failed to rebut either of these grounds. In
fact, their evidence confirms the appellant’s position.
>
> First, on the issue of signage and the alleged breach. The
operator claims that a 60-minute time limit was in effect on 8
March 2025 and that the signage was changed to reflect a
90-minute limit on 12 March 2025. However, they have provided no
photographic evidence from the relevant date (8 March 2025) to
support this. They rely instead on a single photograph dated 12
March 2025, which shows signage stating a 90-minute maximum
stay. This evidence directly supports the appellant’s case.
>
> The appellant has provided their own photographic evidence,
taken on 5 April 2025, showing signage stating “90 minutes
maximum stay.” This photo is timestamped and geolocated to the
site. The wording and layout of the sign match MET’s own 12
March 2025 image. MET has not disputed the authenticity or
accuracy of this image, nor has it provided any contemporaneous
photos showing a 60-minute restriction at the time of the
alleged contravention.
>
> Instead, MET has included photographs of signage dated 3
December 2020. This is over four years out of date and cannot be
relied upon to evidence the signage in place on 8 March 2025.
There is a complete lack of evidence showing what the signage
displayed between December 2020 and 12 March 2025.
>
> MET was explicitly put to strict proof of signage showing a
60-minute limit in place on the date of the alleged
contravention. They have not provided it. They have failed to
prove that the alleged 60-minute limit was visible, legible, and
capable of forming a contractual term. Without evidence of the
signage in place on the relevant date, the claim of a breach is
unsupported and must be dismissed.
>
> The operator also claimed that a motorist does not have to
read the signage to be bound by its terms and that their duty is
only to provide an opportunity for the motorist to see the
terms. This principle is irrelevant in this case. The appellant
does not claim that the signs were unread or missed. On the
contrary, the appellant’s evidence shows what the signs actually
said—namely, that the permitted stay was 90 minutes. Therefore,
there was no breach of the terms displayed and no opportunity to
see or be bound by a 60-minute limit, because no such limit was
visible.
>
> Now turning to the issue of standing. The operator was put to
strict proof of landowner authority to enforce a 60-minute limit
on 8 March 2025. Section 14.1(e) of the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice requires that any written agreement with the
landowner must include the actual parking terms and conditions,
including the free parking period in effect.
>
> The operator has failed to provide such proof. The contract
provided is heavily redacted and contains no mention of any
parking terms or the duration of the free parking period. The
operator has not supplied any unredacted clause authorising
enforcement of a 60-minute limit on the date in question. Nor
have they supplied any documentation showing that the landowner
agreed to a change from 60 minutes to 90 minutes, or when that
change took effect.
>
> Instead, the operator refers vaguely to a rolling contract
with McDonald's dating back to 2010. They assert that because
the contract remains in force and signage exists on site, POPLA
should infer that they had the required authority. This is not
sufficient. A general contract to operate at a site does not
confer authority to enforce whichever terms the operator
chooses. Section 14.1(e) is clear: the operator must hold
written landowner confirmation of the specific terms in effect,
including the permitted parking period. MET has failed to supply
this.
>
> The operator’s attempt to rely on ParkingEye v Beavis is also
irrelevant. That case concerned clear signage, a 2-hour time
limit, and undisputed landowner authority. Here, MET cannot show
what the signage said on the relevant date and has provided no
proof of landowner authority for the alleged 60-minute term.
POPLA is reminded that Beavis does not override the requirement
for the operator to prove the terms of contract and their
authority to enforce them.
>
> The operator also attempts to sidestep the requirement to
provide a full landowner contract by stating that it contains
commercially sensitive information. That may be true, but
redacting irrelevant commercial terms is not the same as
redacting the very clauses under which enforcement authority and
parking terms are established. The operator has failed to
provide evidence of landowner agreement to the 60-minute limit
and has therefore failed to show any lawful authority to issue a
PCN for breach of that term.
>
> Furthermore, the operator fails to explain a critical
inconsistency in their timeline. They assert that signage was
changed to reflect a 90-minute limit on 12 March 2025, which is
not only four days after the alleged contravention, but also the
same date they made a DVLA data request and issued the Notice to
Keeper. Yet they have provided no documentation confirming that
signage was physically changed on that date, nor any
contemporaneous site audit, work order, or landowner
correspondence confirming the amendment to the parking terms.
Their claim appears to be constructed around that date to
justify the issuance of the PCN, and this only further
undermines the credibility of their assertions.
>
> In summary, the operator has failed to rebut either of the
appellant’s two appeal grounds:
>
> They have not shown that the signage on 8 March 2025 stated a
60-minute free parking period.
> They have not shown that the landowner had authorised the
60-minute restriction at that time.
> They have provided no documentary proof of a formal change to
the terms and no evidence of when or how this was implemented.
> They rely on irrelevant dated signage, irrelevant legal
authority, and a redacted contract which does not evidence the
key terms of parking.
> This is not a technicality. These are core evidential and
contractual requirements under the Code of Practice and contract
law. A parking operator must prove both the terms allegedly
breached and their legal authority to enforce them. MET has
failed to do either.
>
> POPLA is respectfully reminded that the burden of proof lies
with the operator. It is not POPLA’s role to assume facts or
fill in evidential gaps. The operator had a full opportunity to
present relevant evidence and chose not to do so. Therefore,
this appeal must be upheld and the charge cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85675--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: Outahere
Date: August 14, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To wrap this up, POPLA rolled over and denied my appeal.
"POPLA assessment and decision
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Jessica Nuttall
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for
exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.
Assessor summary of appellant case:
The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of
appeal: • There was no breach of terms as the signage stated 90
minutes free parking. • The operator has failed to provide any
evidence of the signage in place on the date of the
contravention showing the 60-minute max stay. • Landowner
authority. • They would like the PCN to be cancelled. After
reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands
and reiterates on their grounds of appeal. • The images from
2020 cannot be relied upon to evidence the signage in place on 8
March 2025. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted
the following: 1. Photo of the sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered
keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning
the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking
operator is not provided with the name and address of the
driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary
information and the parking operator has therefore successfully
transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. When
assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park on the day.
The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car
park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who
exceed the 1-hour max stay. The Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice (SCOP) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. SCOP comes into effect from 1 October 2024.
Any points raised going forward will be considered using SCOP
apart from signs which will be considered within the British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of practice version 9 as this
will apply until December 2026. The British Parking Association
(BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking
operators need to comply with.
Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have
signs that clearly set out the terms. Whilst I appreciate the
appellant has provided an image of the sign within the appeal,
the details show this was taken on 05 April 2025. The date of
the contravention was 08 March 2025. The parking operator have
provided several date stamped images which demonstrate a 1-hour
max stay, I appreciate the images are dated from 2020 however I
am satisfied these terms were in place at the time of the
contravention. The parking operator have also provided evidence
of the new signage that was in place on 12 March 2025, after the
contravention took place.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code)
sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with.
Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is
being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation
must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this
case the parking operator have provided a copy of the landowner
contract. I acknowledge some of the information is redacted
however this is due to its sensitive nature.
The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images demonstrate
the appellant entered the site at 13:48 and exited at 15:11.
They remained on site for 82 minutes. Therefore, they breached
the terms and conditions as they exceeded the 1 hour max stay. I
do empathise that the appellant wants the PCN cancelled. POPLA
is an appeals service only. Our role is to assess whether a
Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly based on the
evidence provide by both parties. It is simply not within our
remit to allow an appeal which the motorist breached the parking
condition. For further support you may wish to speak with
Citizens Advice on 03444 111 444. Whilst I note the appellant
has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case
file, the comments expand on and reiterate the initial grounds
raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore,
the comments do not require any further consideration. After
considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist
exceeded the maximum stay and therefore did not comply with the
terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the
parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the
appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the
parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the
appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly."
- - - - -
If they're just going to assume, without the need for evidence,
the facts of the case as presented by the parking operator, what
is the point of having an appeals process? I hope the court's
process is a little more rigorous!
--Outahere
#Post#: 85678--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a farce, isn't it. Not to worry. A POPLA decision is not
binding on you. DO NOT pay.
You can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt
collectors are powerless to do anything except try and persuade
the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of
ignorance and fear.
When you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) come back and we will
provide a suitable response and further advice. The odds of this
ever reaching a courtroom are less than 1%.
#Post#: 85682--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services' Dumbest PCN (this week)
DIR By: disgruntchelt
Date: August 14, 2025, 8:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there a local Facebook group near this mc Donald’s? It would
be worth asking there if anybody else was done at this location
prior to your incident and if they have any picture of the
signs.
Alternatively get a mate to park there for 85 mins and see if
they get a pcn too for overstaying the “60 minute” limit.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page