DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79335--------------------------------------------------
Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: July 2, 2025, 7:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I received an NtK from MET Parking Services claiming Out of Bay
as a reason to issue a charge notice.
The images they provide do not categorically imply that the car
was parked out of bay, as far as I can see. I am not sure how
the driver parked or judged where the boundaries of the bay
were.
I have attached the NtK.
Please review these and I would appreciate some advice on how to
proceed with this.
Thanks[attachimg=2][attach=3][attach=2][attach=4]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79363--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: b789
Date: July 3, 2025, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant and therefore
they cannot transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver
to the known Keeper. There is no "period of parking" stated on
the NtK which means that MET have not complied with PoFA
9(2)(a).
Any initial appeal is going to be rejected so don't waste much
effort on this. After it is rejected, you will have an
opportunity to appeal to POPLA where you can go into the detail
of why there is no Keeper liability and quote relevant,
persuasive legal precedent at them.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. MET has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> 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#: 79390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: July 3, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Lol, I love that last line in the template response.
The NtK does include a line in the front page: "This charge
relates to the period of parking immediately prior to 16:57 on
21 June 2025 specified above..."
Apologies if this may be naive on my part, but does this not
satisfy PoFA 9(2)(a) in regards to Period of Parking?
#Post#: 79392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 3, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their main problem is that the evidence they have produced does
not seem to substantiate a sufficient period of parking. They
have provided 1 image, taken at 16:52:29, and stated that the
issue time of the PCN was 16:57 (no seconds are provided here).
That's less than the 5 minute consideration period required.
Further (and more damningly in my view), as they've only
provided 1 image, there's no evidence provided to show that the
vehicle was still in contravention at 16:57.
A "period of parking" does not necessarily need to cover the
entire time the vehicle was parked, but persuasive case law has
demonstrated that it must at least cover a sufficient time to
demonstrate that a parking event has taken place - that is, that
the vehicle was there for longer than the consideration period
allowed for the driver to consider the terms on offer and decide
whether to accept them and remain parked, or reject them and
leave. Stating a single time and then making vague reference to
an unspecified "period of parking immediately before" that time
would not satisfy this requirement.
#Post#: 79397--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: July 3, 2025, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant and therefore
they cannot transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver
to the known Keeper. There is no "period of parking" stated on
the NtK which means that MET have not complied with PoFA
9(2)(a).
>
> Any initial appeal is going to be rejected so don't waste much
effort on this. After it is rejected, you will have an
opportunity to appeal to POPLA where you can go into the detail
of why there is no Keeper liability and quote relevant,
persuasive legal precedent at them.
>
> There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the
recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity
of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be
made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [quote]I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your
'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement
and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to
your client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. MET has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> 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 ---
[/quote]
Sorry, I did not add the pictures in my post. I've added them
now. Weirdly they've taken some close up pictures of my car.
#Post#: 79411--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: b789
Date: July 3, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want to understand why a judge deemed that not stating a
"period of parking" other than a single observation time or
timestamp, have a read of this:
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=cd9hzrea&dl=0
So, no PoFA compliance to be able to hold the Keeper liable and
no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver.
#Post#: 80185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: July 8, 2025, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If you want to understand why a judge deemed that not stating
a "period of parking" other than a single observation time or
timestamp, have a read of this:
>
> Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=cd9hzrea&dl=0
>
> So, no PoFA compliance to be able to hold the Keeper liable
and no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, I've sent the appeal exactly as you provided in your
earlier comment.
I'll update when I receive a response.
#Post#: 83298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: imnotpaying
Date: July 29, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If you want to understand why a judge deemed that not stating
a "period of parking" other than a single observation time or
timestamp, have a read of this:
>
> Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=cd9hzrea&dl=0
>
> So, no PoFA compliance to be able to hold the Keeper liable
and no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi [member=26]b789[/member],
I received the following response from MET Parking last week via
email:
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the
above parking charge.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on signs
prominently displayed in this area. These include that
vehicles must park in marked bays. Your vehicle was observed
parked outside a marked bay therefore we believe the
charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it.
We note your comments however we are confident there are
sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and
conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it
remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where
they
park and comply with the terms and conditions.
We are also 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 29 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: xxxxxx 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#: 83299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 29, 2025, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You might want to obscure your POPLA code?
#Post#: 83311--------------------------------------------------
Re: Out of Bay Parking - NtK from MET Parking Services - Romford
Brewery
DIR By: b789
Date: July 29, 2025, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, do a search of other POPLA appeals on the forum to get an
idea of how to put it together and the format. When you have
something you think is ready, show us here and we will advise.
You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit
your POPLA appeal.
The main points will be the fact that the driver is not
identified and the NtK is not compliant with PoFA paragraph
9(2)(a) because there is no "period of parking" stated. Relevant
case law is Brenna v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) where the
judge stated that a single timestamp is not evidence of a
"period of parking" and therefore the NtK was not PoFA compliant
and the Keeper cannot be liable.
You can then also include the fact that the ground markings are
ambiguous and cause confusion with the slightly faced line on
the right being visible. Also throw in a requirement that puts
them to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing
from the landowner that authorises them to issue PCNs in their
own name at the location.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page