DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86496--------------------------------------------------
Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: August 20, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Parked in McDonalds car park on 20/6/25 in a disabled bay with a
disabled person in the car; received a Parking Charge by post
about a week later; followed the advice on here. Below is the
latest exchange with the response from MET at the bottom sent
on12/8/25
Sent by me on 22/7/25 (copied from FTLA)
Dear MET Parking Services,
Your latest response merely confirms your continued disregard
for both the law and common decency.
To reiterate: the Keeper has no legal obligation to identify the
driver. You are not a statutory authority and have no power
whatsoever to compel disclosure of that information. You are a
self-interested, unregulated private parking company operating
on the basis of alleged contracts which, by your own NTK, can
only bind a driver. The Keeper declines to assist your fishing
expedition.
As for your request to view the reverse side of a Blue Badge:
you have absolutely no legal right to demand access to sensitive
personal data such as names and photographs, particularly when
the front of the badge has already been provided, clearly
demonstrating its validity at the time in question. Your request
is not only excessive, it is wholly inappropriate and
constitutes a misuse of personal data under the UK GDPR.
You are reminded that your NTK fails to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning you cannot pursue the
Keeper. Your signage fails the mandatory standards set out in
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and your
operator images do not evidence any “period of parking” as
required under Schedule 4. No contract was formed, and no
contravention occurred.
Your speculative invoicing is therefore baseless, and your
repeated requests for irrelevant or private information will not
be entertained. You are urged to cancel this unjustified charge
or reject the appeal and provide a POPLA code where you will be
free to waste your money on having an assessor repeat what I
have already pointed out and order you to cancel the PCN
MET Response
Dear Mr ,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number AB22929772 (Vehicle: )
Site: (129) McDonald's Bow
Issue date: 20/06/2025
Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above
charge. In order for us to consider your appeal fully please
can you confirm if the Blue Badge belongs to the driver or the
passenger at the time of this contravention.
If the Blue Badge holder was a passenger at the time, please
also confirm if the Blue Badge holder remained in the
vehicle for the duration of the time you were in the disabled
bay. Your response can be uploaded at
www.appealmetparking.com.
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 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.
We have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to
allow you time to send us this information. If we do not
receive the information by the end of the 14 days we will have
to reach a decision on your appeal based on the
information we hold at that time.
#Post#: 86498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: August 20, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK)?
#Post#: 86500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: August 20, 2025, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, attached[attach=1]
#Post#: 86502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: IHateUnfairPCNs
Date: August 20, 2025, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Familiar with this exact same situation regarding a friend of
mine at the exact same place, Bow, where they have nefarious
cameras in front of the bay. And all of this was the driver
driving into a disabled bay for 1 minute to just conveniently
pick up a small item from their other friend. Realised his
mistake, and drove out afterwards. Obviously did not breach the
10-minute waiting time you have to decide whether you want to
enter into a contract by remaining in the car park.
To date, he tried to do a transfer of liability, and appealed
it. For the transfer, they asked for driving licence/proof of
insurance LOL even though the RK wasn't the driver. They are at
no legal liberty to ask for that, and God forbid, their company
encounters a data leak. They rejected the appeal, even when
proof of disability was given due to disabled passenger in the
rear.
This was 9 months ago... they have only bothered to send Debt
Recovery Plus letters semi-recently to my friend and they've
stopped for now, according to them. Take that as you will.
MET Parking, a disgusting company.
#Post#: 86503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: August 20, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. So the NtK is not PoFA compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) as
there is no period of parking and there is no evidence that the
vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration
period for the driver to enter into a contract with the
operator.
Please also show us what correspondence you have made with the
operator up to this point. The two bits of correspondence you've
referenced need a bit more context, even though we understand
the point being made.
#Post#: 86509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: August 20, 2025, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to stop wasting time with the morons at MET. Respond
with the following and when they reject the appeal, you can make
a full argument with POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: PCN AB22929772 – McDonald’s Bow – Keeper liability
denied
>
> Dear MET Parking Services,
>
> Re: PCN AB22929772 (McDonald’s Bow) – issue date 20/06/2025
>
> I write as the registered keeper only. No admission is made as
to the identity of the driver.
>
> 1. No keeper liability under PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4).
> Your Notice to Keeper fails Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does
not specify any “period of parking.” ANPR images of a vehicle
passing cameras at the perimeter are not evidence of parking and
cannot, by themselves, prove any duration of parking. This point
is supported by Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023),
where the court made clear that recording a single instant is
insufficient to evidence a period of parking. As PoFA is not
met, you cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Your stock
assertion that you may pursue the keeper after 29 days is wrong
in law where Schedule 4 is not complied with.
> Consideration/grace periods and contract formation.
>
> 2. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, v1.1,
17 Feb 2025) requires a consideration period on arrival (and a
separate grace period at the end). Your images do not evidence
that any consideration period was exceeded, nor that any parking
contract was formed with a driver.
>
> 3. Disability and data minimisation.
> A disabled person was present. Your attempt to demand whether
the Blue Badge belongs to the driver or passenger, whether the
badge-holder remained in the vehicle, and a view of the reverse
of the badge (containing name/photo) is excessive and
unnecessary for the stated purpose, contrary to UK GDPR Article
5(1)(c) (data minimisation). The front of the valid badge has
been provided. On private land the Blue Badge scheme is not
determinative, but your policies must still make reasonable
adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Those obligations do
not entitle you to harvest special-category personal data.
>
> Accordingly, keeper liability is denied. Please now cancel
this charge. If you refuse, then reject the appeal and provide a
POPLA verification code so the matter can be independently
reviewed. Do not ask again for driver details or further
personal data; these will not be provided.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 86510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: August 20, 2025, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This was my original appeal 7/7/25 (from one of your previous
replies to a thread)
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 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.
Furthermore, your signage fails to comply with the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 4.1, which
states:
"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."
There are no signs with terms that can be viewed from within the
vehicle, meaning that a driver with a disability was unable to
make an informed decision before parking. The vehicle was parked
in a disabled bay, and all occupants, including the driver, are
Blue Badge holders. A copy of a valid Blue Badge is attached.
Additionally, your NtK fails to specify any "period of parking",
as required by PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). A single
timestamp does not constitute a period of parking and does not
evidence that the vehicle was stopped for more than the minimum
consideration period before leaving. No contract was formed.
MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Their reply 22/7/25
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number AB22929772 (Vehicle: LF19DPO)
Site: (129) McDonald's Bow
Issue date: 20/06/2025
Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above
charge. 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 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.
So that we can fully consider your appeal can you kindly provide
us with a copy of the front and back of the blue badge,
clearly showing the expiry date and name of the BB holder. This
can be uploaded at www.appealmetparking.com. We
have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to allow
you time to send us this information. If we do not receive
this by the end of the 14 days, we will have to reach a decision
on your appeal based on the information we hold at that
time
#Post#: 86511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: August 20, 2025, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again
#Post#: 88918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: September 8, 2025, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a response from MET today but cant work out how to post
an image or the actual pdf??
#Post#: 88921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 8, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: sausage1971 link ---
>
> Received a response from MET today but cant work out how to
post an image or the actual pdf??
>
--- End Quote ---
It’s in
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page