DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 88923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: September 8, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got it. Thanks
HTML https://imgur.com/a/0Qg1ImR
#Post#: 88986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: September 8, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just do a search of the forum for MET Stansted to see any of the
other identical cases and what to put in your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 88989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you v much
#Post#: 88993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bow, not Stansted, though.
#Post#: 89003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. Will do.
#Post#: 89006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 8, 2025, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My point is that the MET appeals to POPLA at Stansted are based
on a very specific point that the land is not ‘relevant land’
for the purposes of PoFA 2012 and therefore it can not be used
to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
This is not the case at Bow, where the appeal seems to be on no
period of parking being specified and hence, again, PoFA 2012
has not been complied with.
Same end result, but the appeal points can not be the same.
Per Reply #4.
#Post#: 92495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 2, 2025, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
MET have replied to the POPLA appeal below
MET Parking Services - EW
Operator Case Summary
In the appeal to POPLA Mr Palmer raises the following grounds
for appeal: • No keeper liability As we have not been provided
with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are
pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice
to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a
full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper
under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.
• Minimum consideration period not evidenced While we note the
appellant's comments we would point out that as stated in the
Sector Single Code of Practice, a consideration period must be
given where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based
on time alone. In this instance the charge was issued based on
the action of the driver parking then exiting the vehicle
without displaying a valid blue disabled badge. • No signage
accessible from within the vehicle We are confident that there
are sufficient signs in place in this car park, that the signs
are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and
conditions, and that our signage complies with all relevant
legislation and regulations. In Section E of our evidence pack
we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of
the location. In addition to the full terms and conditions
signs, there are additional information signs on display at the
disabled bays, repeating the requirement for a disabled badge to
be displayed. A motorist does not have to have read the terms
and conditions of parking to enter into a parking contract,
there is only the requirement that the parking operator affords
them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that
there is sufficient signage at the site in order to afford
motorists the chance to read the terms and conditions that are
in place. Upon entry to the site, it is the motorist’s
obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that may be in
place before choosing to park or remain on site. • No breach of
the terms and conditions Whilst we note Mr Palmer believes the
driver was not contractually required to display a disabled
badge, the terms and conditions include that a disabled badge
must be displayed face up in the front windscreen at all times,
and the driver agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions
when they parked in the disabled bay. A vehicle does not have to
be unoccupied for this requirement to be applicable. We are not
obligated to approach a vehicle and seek a disabled badge from
its occupants, the driver is required to display it. In line
with F.3 of the Appeals Charter, the further discount was
applied and the appeal was rejected at £20. Submitting a Blue
Badge during the appeal process did not entitle Mr Palmer to a
cancellation of his charge, it only meant he was entitled to the
further discount. • No landowner authority We have included a
copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our
evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details
and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our
contract with the landowner grants us authority to form
contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for
contractual breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on
ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a
parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling
may be found at
HTML https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl<br
/>The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly
stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and
around the car park. These include that parking is for
McDonald’s customers only and that vehicles parked, stopped or
waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled
badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times. Please
note that these terms and conditions apply to all users of the
car park, which naturally includes customers of the restaurant.
As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our
evidence pack demonstrates and the appellant has acknowledged,
the vehicle remained in the marked bay without a valid blue
disabled badge on display. It remains the driver’s
responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply
with the stated terms and conditions. In light of this we
believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal
should be refused.
#Post#: 92496--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 2, 2025, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please format that into paragraphs. I know MET haven't,
but it's nearly impossible to read when it's a block of text
like that.
Any attachments provided alongside their response? They mention
an evidence pack, we could do with seeing a redacted version.
#Post#: 92501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 2, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Section C of their evidence pack looks critical - this is
probably where they will claim that the precise wording of PoFA
doesn't apply to them!
#Post#: 92509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 2, 2025, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Will post it all tomorrow. Travelling right now so just cut and
pasted from phone.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page