DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73599--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: May 28, 2025, 9:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okey doke. Thanks. Will report back when I hear back from
them.
#Post#: 77001--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: June 18, 2025, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. I've received the parking operator's evidence for my
POPLA appeal. I've uploaded a redacted version here:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lWyEE_ch4HTHHdNCEuZdqe49GsRYxoHh/view?usp=sharing<br
/>
The photos they've supplied for night time are of a completely
different car park. The day time photos - many of them are from
the drive through, which the driver didn't access. That's round
the back of the site.
The landowner contract they've supplied is nearly 15 years old.
They say that half the signs are on white background with black
writing and that doesn't affect colour blindness - but that's
not how colour blindness works. Half the sign was blue against
red, which rendered the whole sign invisible to the driver.
How do I respond, if it all?
Thanks so much for your time and help.
#Post#: 77010--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: June 18, 2025, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You point out any of your appeal points that have not been
rebutted and you rebut any of their appeal points in their
evidence. Check what points they have evidenced, as required by
the PPSCoP, from this point made in the POPLA appeal:
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
I note that they have only provided a couple of pages from their
contract with McDonalds and a "Letter of Authority". They have
not evidenced the points made in "e" above. When the contract as
made 15 years ago, what were the agreed terms and conditions
then and have they changed at all since then? For example, has
the period of free parking changed? If so, where is the
amendment to the contract?
#Post#: 77343--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: June 20, 2025, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi. Thank you so much for your help. This is what I've written
in response to their evidence. What do you think so far?
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PMYGlqWGt4OdPeD8nrRHjcN8UdWmSwLE/view?usp=sharing<br
/>
Can I just double check that their Parking Notice is compliant?
I know I said I thought it was and I removed my evidence to
suggest it wasn't, but somehow I sent my POPLA complaint with
that bit still left in. They've obviously come back and said
their notice was compliant so I just want to double check.
Here is the notice:
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/FL0rBhbP"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/FL0rBhbP/MET-parking-page-1.jpg"<br
/>alt="MET-parking-page-1" border="0"></a>
<a href="
HTML https://ibb.co/1fF1ftXC"><img<br
/>src="
HTML https://i.ibb.co/1fF1ftXC/Met-parking-page-2.jpg"<br
/>alt="Met-parking-page-2" border="0"></a>
#Post#: 77354--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: June 20, 2025, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DOn't worry about the PoFA bit being left in. You are taking
this POPLA appeal far too seriously. If it is unsuccessful, you
are not bound by the decision and it has absolutely no bearing
on anything going forwards.
I cannot access your response because it requires access
permission. Just make it "Public".
#Post#: 77357--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: June 20, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes I probably am! Ok noted.
I've changed privacy settings on the Google doc. Thanks so much.
#Post#: 77362--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: June 20, 2025, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's all very nice but you cannot submit your response to the
operators evidence with photos or anything else. Your response
can only be plain, unformatted text, which you can copy and
paste into the POPLA response webform. When POPLA look at it,
there will be no formatting and will just be a single block of
text.
So, forget coloured text, bold text, underlined text. Forget
images.
#Post#: 77547--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: June 21, 2025, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok understood thanks. But the content other than that is ok?
#Post#: 77555--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: June 22, 2025, 2:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
yes
#Post#: 88293--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: Rosy
Date: September 3, 2025, 2:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all. Not surprisingly POPLA found in favour of MET Parking
Services. POPLA completely ignored my point that the photos MET
provided at night time are of a completely different car park
and NOT the one I parked in. They also say my photos are not a
true representation of the signage at the site. They are
literally photos of what's there so how they can't be a true
representation is anyone's guess. I'll post POPlA's response
below.
I've now received this letter. Should I respond or just ignore
for now?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/GfNtgh08/Whats-App-Image-2025-09-03-at-20-35-58.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/qLVWbZdc
POPLA's response:
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking
operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if
the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of
the car park. Both the appellant and the operator have provided
photographs of the signage on site. In this car park, the terms
and conditions state that the maximum stay time is one and a
half hours. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the
motorist parked for one hour and 46 minutes. The appellant has
raised three main grounds of appeal, each of which I will
address separately. • The appellant has stated that the keeper
of the vehicle cannot be held liable for the PCN as the notice
to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA 2012). 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. Having reviewed the notice to keeper, I am satisfied
that it has the necessary information and the parking operator
has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the
registered keeper. While the appellant has made reference to
section 8.1.2(e) of the Privete Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice, this does not relate to PoFA 2012 and does not affect
the operator’s ability to transfer liability. It is important to
explain that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether the PCN
was issued correctly. Should the appellant be unhappy with the
wording of the appeals process, then they would need to raise
this with the parking operator directly. • The appellant has
stated that a contract was not formed between the driver and the
operator due to non-compliant signage. In support of this, the
appellant has provided photographs of the signage and the site.
The appellant has also made reference to the Consumer Rights Act
2015 and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking
Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs
to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. I
understand that the appellant has made reference to the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, but parking operators
have until December 2026 to implement the requirements for
signage. As such, I will be assessing whether the signage
complies with the applicable British Parking Association (BPA)
Code of Practice. In this case, both the appellant and the
operator have provided photographs of the signage on site.
Section 19.3 of the BPA Code states that signs must be easy to
see, read and understand. On the face of the evidence, I am
satisfied that the terms and conditions, along with the
consequences of failing to comply with them, are clearly set
out. Regarding entrance signage, section 19.2 of the BPA Code of
Practice states that parking operators must have entrance signs
to advise motorists that they are entering into private land and
that there are terms and conditions that they must be aware of.
Again, both the appellant and the operator have provided images
of the entrance signage and demonstrated its location. I am
therefore satisfied that the operator has complied with the
requirements regarding entrance signage. While the appellant
appears to be indicating that the entrance sign cannot be seen
on approach, I can see it within their image; the image was
simply taken from a distance so it cannot be read. I further
note that the appellant has commented that the signage is not
where the operator claims it to be, but the evidence suggests
that it is. The operator has also provided further images of the
signage, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution
throughout the site. I understand that the appellant has
commented on every single sign, but in the absence of evidence
to suggest otherwise, I am satisfied that there is sufficient
signage throughout all areas of the site to advise of the
parking conditions. I understand that the appellant has provided
two images of several parking spaces, but I do not consider this
to be an accurate representation of how the signage at the site
looks. Regarding signage in the dark, Appendix B states that
signs must be visible at all times. Within its evidence file,
the operator has provided images of the signage at the night
time, which demonstrate that they are well-illuminated during
the night time. While the appellant has made reference to
signage within disabled bays, by their own admission the
motorist did not park within a disabled bay. As a result, I do
not consider it necessary to address the adequacy of the signage
within the disabled bays. Overall, in light of the evidence, I
am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the terms
and conditions to the attention of motorists and I consider that
the motorist was presented with the opportunity to review the
terms before deciding whether to remain on site. As such, a
parking contract was formed. • The appellant has stated that the
operator has a lack of standing/authority from the landowner.
Section 14.1 of the applicable Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice 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 response to
this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its
contract with the landowner. Having reviewed this and taking
into consideration the fact that there are many signs at the
site, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority
to issue PCNs on the land. I understand that the appellant is
unhappy with the contract provided, but they have not provided
any evidence which would dispute the validity of the contract in
place. For the avoidance of doubt, POPLA’s role is solely to
assess the validity of the PCN. After considering the evidence
from both parties, I am satisfied that the motorist exceeded the
maximum stay time and therefore did not comply with the terms
and conditions of the site. As such, the parking charge has been
issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page