DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70524--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 8, 2025, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all - thanks for your help so far.
I have written this POPLA appeal based on one I found on this
site. I'd really appreciate your feedback. Thanks so much.
(Images not included here but they're visible above and will be
included in my appeal.):
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
UKPC PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Response to UKPC Evidence Submission and Reaffirmation of
Appeal Points
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have
reviewed the response by MET Parking Services to my appeal,
dated 20th April 2025. I submit the following detailed response
to their evidence, highlighting critical points from my original
appeal that have not been fully addressed or rebutted.
1. **Signage: Inadequate and Unclear – No Valid Contract
Formed**
Original Appeal Argument:
The signage at the site does not clearly convey the parking
charge of £100 upon breach, contrary to PoFA Schedule 4,
Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii), which states the signage must
adequately bring the parking charge to the attention of the
driver.
MET Parking Services response:
MET Parking Services claims the terms and conditions are clearly
and prominently stated on signs displayed around the site.
They state that they believe the signs are ‘sufficient’, and
made of a ‘retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899- 1:2007
class RA1, the European Harmonised Standard for Road Traffic
Signs’.
However, they failed to address the core issue: the size,
clarity, and prominence of the £100 parking charge, which is not
at all visible as you enter the car park.
As you can see from the image below, the signage at the entry
point of the car park is so small that the driver failed to spot
it. There is also no obvious mention of a £100 parking charge.
If it is on the sign it can only be buried in the small text,
making it almost impossible for a motorist to understand that
they are entering into a contract that includes a substantial
penalty for non-compliance. This is contrary to the BPA Code of
Practice, which states that any parking charge must be
adequately brought to the attention of the driver, using the
same size font.
Furthermore, as you can see from the images below there are no
signs around where the driver parked and no signs in the
direction in which they’d have walked towards McDonald’s,
meaning signage at the site is inadequate.
In contrast, the signage in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
prominently displayed the charge in large, bold text.
Unanswered:
MET Parking Services did not provide evidence that their £100
charge is displayed in a prominent fashion as required by the
BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, or that it was brought to
the driver’s attention in line with PoFA requirements. Nor did
they provide evidence that enough signage is prominently
displayed around the car park, adequately bringing the terms and
conditions to the attention of drivers.
The image comparison I provided clearly shows how the £100
charge is not visible on the entry sign, and that there is
insufficient signage around the car park, supporting my claim
that no valid contract was formed.
2. **Keeper Liability – Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012**
Original Appeal Argument:
MET Parking Services has failed to comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot transfer liability
for the alleged parking charge from the driver to the registered
keeper.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, strict conditions must be met before
the keeper can be held liable for a parking charge incurred by
the driver. MET Parking Services’ failure to comply with key
requirements renders the Notice to Keeper (NtK) non-compliant,
meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the
charge.
MET Parking Services NtK fails PoFA on the following point:
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.
MET Parking Services response:
MET Parking Services simply responded to this point by saying
‘We are confident that our Notice to Keeper complies in all
respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act.’
They went on to state that as ‘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.’
Unanswered:
MET Parking Services failed to address the mistake in their NtK
with regards the deadline for lodging an appeal. They have
failed to show how their NtK complied with the specific PoFA
point listed above.
Their simple assertion of compliance is not enough. PoFA
compliance requires meeting every one of the detailed conditions
in Schedule 4, and they have demonstrably failed to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, UKPC cannot hold the keeper
liable, and this charge is therefore unenforceable.
MET Parking Services has not demonstrated why they believe the
registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was
the driver, MET Parking Services has no legal grounds to pursue
this charge against me.
**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, MET Parking Services has failed to address or
rebut the key points of my original appeal and demonstrate why
they believe this parking change was issued correctly. Their
evidence submission does not disprove any of the following:
(a) Inadequate signage that fails to form a valid contract with
the driver, particularly regarding the display of the £100
charge.
(b) Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, meaning they cannot hold the
registered keeper liable.
(c) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice, with inadequate entrance
signage and unclear display of parking terms.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold
my appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the
Parking Charge Notice.
#Post#: 70959--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 11, 2025, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If anyone could advise on my POPLA appeal above I'd be ever so
grateful. Thanks so much.
#Post#: 70962--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: May 11, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forget your original appeal. The POPLA appeal is a fresh appeal
and you should not reference the original appeal.
Make all your points and expect to have them all rebutted. Any
points they do not rebut or answer in their evidence pack (when
it comes) can be highlighted.
If you are arguing a point of law of the PPSCoP, then reference
it and make sure you use the correct version of the Code of
Practice. Any notice issued after October 2024 references the
PPSCoP. Anything before that, the relevant BPA CoP.
If you are referencing PoFA, make sure you understand which
paragraphs are relevant. For example, paragraph 8 relates to
Notices to Driver (NtD). Paragraph 8 relates to a Notice to
Keeper (NtK) issued after an NtD is not responded to. Paragraph
9 relates to an NtK issued without an NtD.
Don't rush this. You have 33 days from the date of the initial
appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 71615--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 15, 2025, 4:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello thank you for your help so far. I've completely
re-written everything after doing more research. I decided to
remove the non compliant NtK bit because I think actually it was
compliant. You very kindly wrote something for me to send off
which included the line "Furthermore, the NtK misstates the
deadline for lodging an appeal, indicating 28 days from issue
rather than receipt."
However, I've looked at the NtK again and it states "Please be
warned, that if after a period of 28 days beginning with the day
after that on which this notice is given..." Doesn't the use of
the word 'given' make it the date of receipt rather than issue?
Based on that I've made my POPLA appeal about lacking and non
compliant signage. The driver is colour blind so that actually
plays into this a lot because the most important part of the
entry sign, the part that says there's terms and conditions, is
on a blue background, against the red of the brick. This made
it impossible for the driver to see.
Anyway this is what I've written so far - go easy on me. I'm
not as clever as some of you and don't know too much about the
law on this!
I'd be ever so grateful for some feedback and anything else you
think I should add.
Many thanks.
***
No contract with driver due to lack of and non-compliant signage
Section 3 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) states that signs and road markings must be ‘visible,
legible and unambiguous to drivers.’
Below is an image taken at the entrance to the McDonald’s car
park in similar light conditions to the time the driver entered
the car park on X.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/N95hgFPq/PXL-20250418-182053555.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/N95hgFPq
The entry sign here is not obviously visible. In fact it’s so
small that the driver failed to spot it at all.
Upon closer inspection of the available entry sign, it’s clear
it is not compliant with Annex A of the PPSCoP.
Section A.3 states with regards to contrast and illumination;
‘There must be colour contrast between the text and its
background. The best way to achieve this is to have dark,
preferably black, text on a white background, recognising that
the use of corporate colours, whilst permissible, could cause
problems e.g. for drivers who are colour blind.’
Below is a close up of the available entry sign:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/FkS0Xbyf/PXL-20250512-173020644.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/FkS0Xbyf
Section A.3 of the PPSCoP is particularly significant in this
case because the driver has red, green and blue colour
blindness. The use of a blue background on a sign placed in
front of red brick, meant the sign became almost invisible to
the driver. This is in direct contravention of the PPSCoP, which
states the signs must be clearly visible and take into account
colours which may affect drivers who are colourblind.
Furthermore,whilst part of the sign uses black text on a white
background, the most important part of the sign, the part that
tells the driver there are terms and conditions, does not. The
use of white text against the blue background does not create a
clear enough contrast, in direct contravention of Section A.3,
which states the best way to achieve this is to use ‘black text
on a white background.’
This meant that when the driver entered the car park that
evening they had no idea they were about to park on land
governed by terms and conditions, and terms which involved a
£100 parking charge for non compliance.
This also puts MET Parking Services in breach of the Consumer
Rights Act 2015. Section 64 of the Act states that any terms
and conditions must be transparent and prominent, and
sufficiently drawn to the attention of the customer.
Without transparency and prominence, and where terms are one
sided, they are deemed to be unfair and therefore not binding on
the customer.
Furthermore, section 3.1.3 subheading a of the PPSCoP states
that any signage within the controlled land must be placed ‘such
that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking
or leaving their vehicle.’
The image below shows several bays within the car park. The
driver was parked either where the blue car is or to the right
of it.
As you can see there are no nearby signs, which could have
alerted the driver to the fact they’d just parked on land
controlled by terms and conditions.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/TyF83mLj/car-park.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/TyF83mLj
When the driver exited the vehicle they would have turned around
to face McDonald’s. Below shows the view they’d have seen:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/t1HSS5xM/PXL-20250418-182126924.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/t1HSS5xM
As you can see there are also no signs displaying terms and
conditions here either. This is in direct contravention to
clause 4.1 of the PPSCoP, ‘Accessible Parking’, which states
that ‘the parking operator must ensure that at least one sign
containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed
without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for
drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed
decision on whether to park at the premises.’
Had signage been available here the driver might have become
aware that they were parking on land controlled by terms and
conditions.
#Post#: 71646--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2025, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your arguments about your colour blindness is good but I doubt
that a POPLA assessor will consider them. They are more of a
mitigation rather than pointing out that MET have breached any
law or code of practice rules. That does not mean tha you should
not try and use that argument.
It would be very good if it were ever to be argued in court, but
that will never happen. Even if it goes to a court claim, it
would most likely be struck out or discontinued.
Make sure you throw in things such as requiring them to evidence
that they have a vales contract flowing from the landowner that
authorises them to operate and issue PCNs in their own name at
the location.
I doubt a POPLA appeal will be successful in this case but you
have to try.
#Post#: 72093--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 18, 2025, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The 'driver's' colour blindness ;)
Thanks so much.
How does this work for the landowner contract?
3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
MET Parking Services has no title in this land and no PPSCoP
compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and
enforce in the courts in their own right has been evidence.
Annex G of the PPSCoP dictates some of the required contract
wording. I put MET Parking Services to strict proof of the
contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or
agent).
MET Parking Services has no legal status to enforce this charge
because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the
courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with
drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at
best) to have a bare license to put signs up and ‘ticket’
vehicles, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied
lawfully showing that MET Parking Services are entitled to
pursue these charges in their own right.
I require MET Parking Services to provide a full copy of the
contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the
landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the
requirements set out in the PPSCoP and does not allow them to
charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged
contravention in this car park.
In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for MET
Parking Services merely to supply a site agreement or witness
statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the
restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed
with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder
such as another agent. In order to comply with the PPSCoP, a
non-landowner private parking company must have a
specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an
‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise
there is no authority.
#Post#: 72111--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: May 18, 2025, 4:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You do not assert that MET do not have a valid contract flowing
from the landowner. You don't know that. You DO put them to
strict proof that they have a valid contract.
Unfortunately, POPLA assessors are pretty thick when it comes to
proof of a valid contract because they will accept a simple
statement that one exists as "proof", together with the absurd
argument that if the landowner has allowed signs to put in
place, then they must surely be permitted.
You have to explain to the POPLA assessor that any contractual
proof will have to fulfil what is required in the PPSCoP. So,
whatever that provide as their evidence of a valid contract, it
must show what is required in section 14 of the PPSCoP:
--- Quote ---
> 14 Relationship with landowner
>
> 14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a
landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written
confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the
landowner(s) covering:
>
> [indent]a) the identity of the landowner(s);
> b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
> c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the
management of parking;
> d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the
landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
> e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by
the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of
free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific
permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those
stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers,
delivery drivers and couriers;
> f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
> NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
> g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g.
planning or advertising consents relating to signs;
> h) the obligations under which the parking operator is
working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
> i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator
may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies
detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
> j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals
against parking charges.
>
> [i]NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the
issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision
has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and
therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that
the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.
>
> NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate
contractual terms, including the application of parking terms
and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders
may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by
imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to
display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under
their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not
breach planning consents.[/I][/indent]
--- End Quote ---
So, you have to lead the POPLA assessor by the nose that a
simple signed statement is not evidence, especially if the
signatories to the statement are not identified by name and
their standing to sign on behalf of their companies. Good luck
with getting that agreed to, but it doesn't hurt to try.
#Post#: 72520--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 21, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK thanks so much for your advice. I've re-written that section
- would you say this is OK and the whole thing is good to go?
Authority from landowner
Further, I put MET Parking Services to strict proof that they
have a valid contract from the landowner, that authorises them
to operate and issue Parking Notices in their own name at this
specific location.
I require MET Parking Services to provide a full copy of the
contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the
landowner.
It will not be sufficient for MET Parking Services merely to
supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not
show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and
revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may
well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In
order to comply with the PPSCoP, a non-landowner private parking
company must have a specifically-worded contract with the
landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder
managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
Section 14.1. Of the PPSCoP states:
Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a
landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written
confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the
landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s);
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the
management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the
landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by
the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of
free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific
permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those
stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers,
delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning
or advertising consents relating to signs;
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working,
in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator
may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies
detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals
against parking charges.
Without a valid contract that contains all the required wording
under the PPSCoP, MET Parking Services will have no legal status
to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights
to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to
form contracts with drivers themselves.
#Post#: 73591--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 28, 2025, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi. I just want to check that this is good to go. You didn't
have any notes on the first part of my representations but if
you think this is OK now I will submit today.
Thanks so much.
3. Authority from landowner
I put MET Parking Services to strict proof that they have a
valid contract from the landowner, that authorises them to
operate and issue Parking Notices in their own name at this
specific location.
I require MET Parking Services to provide a full copy of the
contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the
landowner.
It will not be sufficient for MET Parking Services merely to
supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not
show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and
revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may
well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In
order to comply with the PPSCoP, a non-landowner private parking
company must have a specifically-worded contract with the
landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder
managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.
Section 14.1. Of the PPSCoP states:
Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a
landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written
confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the
landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s);
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the
management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the
landowner(s) and the duration of that permission;
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by
the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of
free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific
permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those
stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers,
delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning
or advertising consents relating to signs;
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working,
in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator
may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies
detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals
against parking charges.
Without a valid contract that contains all the required wording
under the PPSCoP, MET Parking Services will have no legal status
to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights
to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to
form contracts with drivers themselves. If this is the case,
this Parking Notice is invalid and must be cancelled.
#Post#: 73597--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: May 28, 2025, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's POPLA. Whatever they decide, if they don't agree with you,
it doesn't matter and is not binding on you. Go for it and wait
to see what evidence they provide in their response pack.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page