DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85984--------------------------------------------------
MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: dj.esco
Date: August 17, 2025, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Have received a NTK from MET parking services for an alleged
offence where a driver has parked their vehicle in the
McDonald's car park and left the premises before returning to
the vehicle.
I have posted the letter received below.
Can I please ask whether this can be contested and if so, what
is the most appropriate course of action.
Thank you in advance!
#Post#: 85987--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2025, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course you contest it. What evidence do they have that an
occupant left the premises? Are the occupants even bound by the
terms and conditions of parking? Only the driver can be liable,
assuming they even had any evidence, which they don't. They have
absolutely no idea of the drivers identity. They cannot hold the
Keeper liable as the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully
compliant with all the requirements of PoFA.
Follow the advice and you will not be paying a penny top MET.
Easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity
is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known
keeper (the recipient of the NtK) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm 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 ---
As any initial appeal is almost always rejected, come back when
you have your POPLA code and we will advise on the next step.
#Post#: 86001--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: dj.esco
Date: August 17, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appreciated b789 - will get this appeal in via their appeals
portal asap and get back to you once (I assume) they reject and
issue a POPLA reference.
Thanks again!
#Post#: 89025--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: dj.esco
Date: September 8, 2025, 2:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, as an update:
Initial appeal rejected using the wording kindly provided above.
No POPLA reference issues and the below is what has been emailed
as a response from MET:
HTML https://ibb.co/czpCDN0
Further advice would be greatly appreciated.
#Post#: 89028--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 8, 2025, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard non-reply but if you do nothing you will get a formal
rejection and POPLA code in due course. They’re offering you the
opportunity to accidentally identify the driver to them if you
write to them.
#Post#: 89062--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: dj.esco
Date: September 9, 2025, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you jfollows, appreciated. Ok, will hold tight until the
formal rejection and POPLA ref is issued and get back to you you
guys.
#Post#: 90637--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: dj.esco
Date: September 19, 2025, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Received the below letter today, this time providing the POPLA
reference number.
HTML https://ibb.co/zHh9FWnk
HTML https://ibb.co/NdZhXRGQ
Any advice on the next steps for appeal would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks again!
#Post#: 90643--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 19, 2025, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just do a forum search for recent POPLA appeals and then try and
put one together yourself and show us here before you send
anything so we can critique it and advise on any changes etc.
#Post#: 90799--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: dj.esco
Date: September 21, 2025, 2:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789.
I've looked through the forum and have found one similar case,
albeit being to a hirer of a vehicle rather than NTK (actually
at the same premises!).
Hence, having read through the appeal you guys provided and
reading through Schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms act
2012 (PoFA), I have put together the following - one thing to
mention straight away is that I understand the relevant sections
to me being sections 8 and 9 as a NtK - I have used the model
wording from the previous appeal but cannot seem to identify a
clear contravention of these 2 sections of the schedule hence
have left a bracketed note within the wording of section 1
highlighting this point. The remainder of the argument is very
much what it was for the previous appeal as it is the same
contravention hence the same argument:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and am appealing against this
Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. The allegation of “leaving the premises” is
vague, unevidenced, and legally unenforceable
3. The signage is incapable of forming a contract for the
alleged contravention
4. The operator is put to strict proof of signage near the
vehicle and of any boundary warning signs
5. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority
and contractual terms permitting PCNs for this alleged breach
1. The Notice to keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
As the operator is attempting to hold the keeper liable, they
must comply with Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA. They
have failed to do so. The Notice to Keeper did not include the
following mandatory enclosures:
(I have read through the 2 sections, 8 & 9 and cannot see an
obvious contravention - please advise)
2. The allegation of “leaving the premises” is
vague, unevidenced, and legally unenforceable
The operator alleges that “the occupants left
McDonald’s premises” but provides no definition,
evidence, or legal foundation for this claim. It is unclear
whether this alleged restriction applies to:
• The driver only
• One or more passengers
• All occupants of the vehicle, including children
The operator has not defined what constitutes “the
premises.” Is it the interior of the restaurant, the
entrance, the boundary of the car park, or some other undefined
area? There is no indication of what boundary was allegedly
crossed or where any contractual tripwire supposedly lies.
Without defining this in signage or evidence, the operator
cannot assert that a breach occurred.
Moreover, the operator has not provided any evidence to support
the claim that any person left the premises. There is no
timestamped footage, no log of observations, no details of who
supposedly left, when they did so, or what part of the site they
entered. It is impossible to determine whether any breach
occurred, or who is alleged to have caused it. A contractual
term must be communicated clearly and be enforceable. Here, the
term is so vague and unworkable that it fails to meet even the
basic standards of contractual clarity.
The operator appears to believe it can hold the hirer liable for
the movements of unnamed third parties, regardless of whether
they are even aware of the terms. This is legally and factually
unsustainable.
3. The signage is incapable of forming a contract for the
alleged contravention
The signage at the site does not clearly state that all
occupants must remain on the premises, nor does it define what
the premises are. The signs are addressed to drivers and make no
provision for warning passengers or other individuals that they
will trigger a breach simply by walking beyond an undefined
area. A contract must set out clear and prominent terms that can
be understood by all parties. It is unreasonable and
unenforceable to rely on obscure or implied conditions which are
not communicated with sufficient clarity.
The operator is put to strict proof that the signage clearly
stated that all occupants must remain on the premises, that the
premises were defined, and that breach of this alleged term
would result in a parking charge being issued.
4. The operator is put to strict proof of signage near the
vehicle and of any boundary warning signs
The operator is required to provide evidence of the signage near
the location where the vehicle was parked. It is not sufficient
to provide generic sign images from elsewhere on the site. The
operator must show that the vehicle was parked within sight of a
sign that:
• Clearly defined the premises
• Made the alleged term about remaining on the premises
clear
• Warned the driver that a charge would be issued if any
occupant left the premises
If the operator is asserting that a boundary was crossed, they
are also required to show that boundary and any sign or marking
that warned a person under a contractual obligation that they
were about to be in breach by crossing it. Without such signage
and markers, no contractual term can be said to have been
breached.
4. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority
and contractual terms permitting PCNs for this alleged breach
The operator must produce a valid, unredacted contract with the
landowner that allows them to issue parking charge notices at
this site. A simple witness statement or letter is not
sufficient. The contract must:
• Be signed by the landowner or authorised agent
• Authorise the operator to take legal action in their own
name
• Include express permission to issue PCNs for
“leaving the premises”
A general statement of authority does not prove that the
operator has permission to issue PCNs for a breach as unusual
and specific as an occupant allegedly leaving undefined
premises. The burden is on the operator to prove that the
landowner has agreed to this condition and has authorised them
to enforce it.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the operator has failed to meet
the legal requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, has failed to
provide evidence of a breach, and has failed to prove that the
signage is capable of forming a contract for the alleged
contravention. They have also failed to evidence any boundary or
warning signs and have not shown that they have the necessary
landowner authority. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
require the operator to cancel the parking charge.
Any additional comments, revisions are greatly appreciated -
apologies, I am not an expert or experienced in this field
whatsoever! I should also add that the images provided by MET
show the signs within the car park but the text is illegible
hence I am making some assumptions in section 3 above.
#Post#: 90822--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET - Notice to keeper, McDonald's car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 21, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TO start with... PoFA para 7 only applies to a windscreen Notice
to Driver (NtD) Para 8 only applies to a Notice to Keeper (NtK)
issued after an NtD was issued and not responded to. Para 9
applies to any other postal NtK that is issued without any NtD
having been issued. For ;eased/hired vehicles, para 14 applies,
only after the lease/hire company receives an NtK under paras 8
or 9 and they have then complied with para 13 of PoFA so that a
Notice to Hirer (NtH) can be issued under para 14 to the Hirer.
Here is a tidied up and expanded version:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper and I appeal this Parking Charge
Notice on the following grounds:
>
> [indent]1. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule
4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA) and keeper liability cannot arise
> 2. The allegation of “leaving the premises” is vague,
unevidenced, and legally unenforceable
> 3. The signage is incapable of forming a contract for the
alleged contravention
> 4. The operator is put to strict proof of signage near the
vehicle and of any boundary warning signs
> 5. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority
and contractual terms permitting PCNs for this alleged
breach[/indent]
>
> 1. PoFA non-compliance (Paragraph 9(2)(a)) and no evidence of
any contract being formed
> The operator seeks to hold the keeper liable using a postal
Notice to Keeper. Only Paragraph 9 applies. Paragraph 9(2)(a)
requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on
which it was parked and the period of parking.” This NtK states
only a single time of observation, not any period of parking.
ANPR entry/exit timestamps or a single instant do not evidence a
period of parking.
>
> In the absence of a stated and evidenced period of parking,
the NtK is not compliant with PoFA 9(2)(a) and keeper liability
cannot arise.
>
> Separately, even on the facts, there is no proof that the
vehicle was parked for longer than the mandatory consideration
period afforded to motorists to read and decide whether to
accept terms. Without evidence that any consideration period was
exceeded, the operator has not shown that a parking contract was
ever formed, still less breached.
>
> For completeness, the operator is also put to strict proof of
full compliance with the other mandatory elements of Paragraph
9, including 9(2)(e) (the prescribed invitation to the keeper),
9(2)(f) (the prescribed 28-day warning), 9(2)(h) (identification
of the creditor), and delivery within the 14-day window per 9(5)
and 9(6). Any defect defeats keeper liability.
>
> 2. The “leaving the premises” allegation is vague,
unevidenced, and unenforceable
> The operator alleges “the occupants left McDonald’s premises”
without defining who this applies to (driver, a passenger, or
all occupants) or what “the premises” are. No boundary is
identified, marked, or evidenced. No timestamped observations
are provided establishing who supposedly left, when, or where. A
non-driving keeper cannot be liable for undefined movements of
unnamed third parties.
>
> 3. Signage incapable of forming the alleged contract
> The signs do not clearly and prominently state that all
occupants must remain on defined premises, nor do they define
the premises. Signs addressed to drivers cannot bind passengers,
and vague prohibitions cannot create a clear contractual term or
a lawful deterrent charge.
>
> The operator is put to strict proof that, at the material
time, signage clearly and prominently stated that all occupants
must remain on a defined premises, identified that boundary on
site plans, and warned that breach would result in a charge.
>
> 4. Strict proof of signage near the vehicle and any boundary
markers
> Generic site photos are insufficient. The operator must show
the vehicle’s exact location, the nearest readable terms sign at
that location at the material time, and the precise boundary
allegedly crossed, with contemporaneous photos of any markers or
warnings that crossing it would constitute a breach.
>
> 5. No evidence of any landowner authority or standing
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and
pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and
the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship
with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Conclusion
> The NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(a) because it does not state any
period of parking; therefore keeper liability does not arise.
There is also no evidence that any consideration period was
exceeded, so no contract is shown to have been formed. The
“leaving the premises” allegation is undefined and unevidenced.
The operator has not shown clear, proximate signage, a defined
boundary, or landowner authority for this unusual charge type.
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and
require cancellation of the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page