DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67532--------------------------------------------------
MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: April 17, 2025, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all. The driver was at McDonald's with friends and their
children and the RK received this ticket for overstaying. The
driver didn't realise there were restrictions.
Is this company letigeous? What would your advice be please?
Thanks so much.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 67568--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: April 17, 2025, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rosy link ---
>
> The driver didn't realise there were restrictions.
> Is this company letigeous? What would your advice be please?
>
--- End Quote ---
Why didn't the driver realise there were restrictions? Are there
no signs? Is there a sign at the entrance to the car park that
adequately informs drivers that it is private land and that
parking restrictions apply and to see the terms and conditions
signs in the car park? Are there any (sufficient) terms and
conditions signs within the car park that adequately bring to
the attention of the driver the charge for breaching the terms
and conditions?
MET are litigious but that doesn't matter because once they
litigate and a claim is defended, the claim will likely be
struck out or discontinued.
As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant, and any initial
appeal will be unsuccessful, you will get a chance to try and
appeal to POPLA but I doubt that will be successful either
unless you can evidence that the signs at the car park do comply
with the requirements of the BPA CoP (v9 January 2024).
Even if unsuccessful at POPLA, you would eventually receive a
claim and would need to defend it, with our assistance.
Eventually, as I mentioned, it will end.
So are you prepared to go all the way fighting this
#Post#: 67573--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Sander333
Date: April 17, 2025, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
b 789 there is no mention of POFA on the notice am I missing
something when you say it is POFA compliant. Or have I missed
seeing something on the PCN
#Post#: 67575--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: April 17, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no legal requirement to mention PoFA. The only
requirement is that all the requirements as laid out in PoFA are
fully complied with.
#Post#: 67662--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: April 18, 2025, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi thanks for your reply. The driver didn't know there were
restrictions as they didn't see any obvious signs and didn't
think to look for any.
I went there tonight and and have uploaded a few photos. Here
they are:
There are no signs upon entry to the car park. There are signs
to the right as you drive in but the driver wouldn't have looked
there as that's where electric vehicles park so the driver would
have driven straight past this.
HTML https://ibb.co/whS0ZC9M
The driver parked to the right of the light blue car in this
photo. There are no signs around that area. There are two
signs at either end of this row of cars but not obvious unless
you're parked there, which the driver wasn't.
HTML https://ibb.co/FbxpsSyP
Photo three is what the driver saw as they got out the car to
walk into McDonalds - again no signs.
HTML https://ibb.co/1GPkNBBH
Photo four and five are the signs on the lamppost right at the
end of the bay - it's very high up.
HTML https://ibb.co/V0C8x4KZ
HTML https://ibb.co/Q3G2zjdJ
Photos 6 and 7 are an overview of the car park. Again, not
obvious that there are any signs to look for. You can just see
the two signs on the lampposts at either end of the row of
parked cars. That appears to be all there is in that section.
HTML https://ibb.co/jcbVnLf
HTML https://ibb.co/k6KXtXYh
How do I phrase my representations?
Thanks so much.
#Post#: 67699--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: April 19, 2025, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is an entrance sign:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/D7Es9lU.jpeg
However, irrespective of that, there are other reasons to
dispute the charge. Any initial appeal is going to be rejected,
no matter what. The point though, is to get a POPLA code for a
secondary, supposedly independent appeal service.
For now, appeal only as the Keeper of the vehicle with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will
be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to
your client landowner.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The signage at the site fails to
adequately bring to the attention of drivers the parking charge
payable upon breach, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs
2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Furthermore, the NtK misstates the
deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue
rather than receipt, in breach of the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice section 8.1.2(e). PoFA compliance requires
strict adherence; partial or substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
>
> There will be no admission as to who was driving. No
presumption, inference, or legal assumption can be made. MET has
elected to pursue the charge under contract law against the
driver, and you are therefore unable to transfer liability to
the keeper.
>
> 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.
MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 67713--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: April 19, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow thank you so so much! I didn't spot that sign yesterday at
all when I took the pictures.
Thanks again - hugely appreciated.
#Post#: 69910--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 3, 2025, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Thanks so much for your help the other week. I've
received this reply from MET parking. I'd be so grateful if you
could tell me what I need to do next. Thank you so much.
Dear XXXX,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXXX (Vehicle: XXXX)
Site: (237) McDonald's Shenley Road
Issue date: XXXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXXX
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the
above parking charge.
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 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.
We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all
respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid
in full and 17 days has passed since we issued the
charge and we still do not know the name and address for service
of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue
the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and
takes into account our consideration of any mitigating
circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end
of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of
options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time
of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge
at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's
date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date
the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs
will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution
agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action
to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made
online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service,
within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the
online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification
code: XXXX Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon
the facts and application of the relevant law. Please
note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's
decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to
pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention
occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to
POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides
an alternative dispute resolution service that would be
competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution
service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do
so to POPLA as explained above.
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the
monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may
proceed with court action.
Yours sincerely
Appeals Department
#Post#: 69934--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: May 4, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No initial appeal is ever successful. There is no money in it
for them. You now have 33 days from the date of the appeal
rejection (which you have redacted for some obscure reason) to
appeal to POPLA.
Hve a search of the forum to see how other POPLA appeals are
formatted and what is in them and put something together and
then show us, before you send anything. We will be able to
advise on any changes that will need to be made.
I have no idea what this refers to in their response:
--- Quote ---
> "We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all
respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act
and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in
full and 17 days has passed since we issued the charge and we
still do not know the name and address for service of court
papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered
keeper for payment of the outstanding charge."
--- End Quote ---
Is that a typo that you have made: "17 days"?
#Post#: 69991--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 4, 2025, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I'll check out other appeals. Any you'd advise me to
look at especially? Or any?
I've not edited the content of their letter so the 17 days is
what they wrote. I don't understand it either.
Appeal rejection is the 2nd May.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page