DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 4, 2025, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is from MET's evidence pack; the rest is copies of
correspondence and pictures of the site, signs etc
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.
SECTION C
Liability Trail
We believe we can pursue the registered keeper for payment of
the charge notice as:
1. The land on which the vehicle was parked was private land and
falls within the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of
The Protection of Freedoms Act.
2. The driver of the vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant
obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of
the vehicle on relevant land and the charges have not been paid
in full.
3. We have the right to enforce against the driver of the
vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid charges but are unable
to take steps to enforce that requirement because we do not know
the name and current address for service of the driver.
4. We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with
paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act,
this notice:
a.
Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
b.
Informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay the
charges and they have not been paid in full;
c.
Describes the charges due, the circumstances and other facts
that made them payable;
d.
Specifies the amount unpaid;
e.
States that we do not know the name and address of the driver
and invites the keeper to either pay the charges or advise us of
the name and address of the driver;
f.
Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the charges
are not paid in full and we still do not know the name and
address of the driver we may (subject
to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the
outstanding sums from the registered keeper;
g.
Informs the registered keeper of the prompt payment discount and
arrangements for dispute resolution;
h.
Identifies ourselves as the creditor and specifies how to make
to payment to us or correspond with us;
i.
Specifies the date of sending the notice;
j.
Specifies the Creditor.
5. The notice contains appropriate evidence by way of date
stamped photographs
6. The notice was given in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(4),
11 and 12 in all relevant respects.
7. The timetable of events is listed below:
a. The parking event took place on 17/06/2025
b. The registered keeper details were received from the DVLA
19/06/2025 and the Notice to Keeper was sent on 20/06/2025.
The full details of the Notice to Keeper can be viewed in
Section B above.
As the registered keeper has not provided us with the name and
current address for service of the driver of the vehicle, we may
pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding
parking charge notice.
Landowner Authority
MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by McDonald’s to ensure
adherence to the terms and conditions of the car park. Our
interest in the land arises from our obligation to perform our
contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for
motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s
premises.
The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered
this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the
motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had
been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the
motorist parking his car on the site.
We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted
contract between ourselves and our client as it contains
information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in
this instance. It also extends to more than 20 pages and
therefore the volume of redacted information will be
significantly greater than the volume of un-redacted and
relevant information.
We have however provided the letter of authority, the signature
page and front sheet of the contract demonstrating it is the
contract referred to in the letter of authority and the clause
from the contract that demonstrates this is rolling contract and
subsists until terminated.
We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract
existed at the date of the contravention and as you can see from
the extract from the contract held with McDonald’s this
agreement has a commencement date of 31 August 2010 as this was
the date it was signed by the client and is agreed for an
initial period of 9 months after which point it becomes an
ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We
can confirm that neither McDonald’s nor MET Parking have applied
the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in
place. Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that
the contract provided adequately proves that MET Parking had
sufficient authority to issue parking charges on the land, on
the day of the contravention. This is also evidenced by the fact
that McDonald’s permitted MET Parking’s parking enforcement
signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and
to this date.
#Post#: 92772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 4, 2025, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, they still don't really cover the key points.
They comment on a 'compliant NtK' but their wording skips over
the requirement to evidence what they are saying - the NtK does
not show the required 'period of parking to which the notice
relates' - but it seems that they have not made this check.
Secondly, the assumption that a driver leaving a vehicle without
displaying a valid blue badge constitutes contract (followed by
immediate breach of contract) is not supported by the Code of
Practice despite their deliberately twisted wording. For
example, a driver is quite entitled to leave their vehicle in
order to examine the precise contract wording especially if the
signage is not entirely visible from the drivers seat of the
vehicle. Their claim of contract at that point is one of
necessity from their perspective rather than one of law.
#Post#: 92773--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 4, 2025, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. Do I need to reply to them on the POPLA appeal or is
their evidence insufficient in itself?
#Post#: 92798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: October 4, 2025, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us the contract they allege is valid. Also the "letter of
authority".
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 92891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 5, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Link to letter of authority
HTML https://postimg.cc/XrvXCknn
Link to McD contract
HTML https://postimg.cc/7b7KFg88/ac2084cc
#Post#: 92899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: October 5, 2025, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is that the only page of their contract they have submitted? If
so, together with that LoA, the operator has not satisfied the
requirements that the PPSCoP states must be evidenced in any
landowner contract and pointed out as requiring evidence in the
POPLA appeal.
The 25 August 2016 “Letter of Authority” does not satisfy PPSCoP
14.1 (a)–(j). It is a generic permission letter and omits most
items the Code now requires.
Item-by-item check
[indent]a) Identity of landowner — Yes. Names McDonald’s
Restaurants Limited.
b) Boundary map — No. None provided; merely refers to “Sites …
detailed in Schedule 4 of the Contract.”
c) Applicable byelaws — No. No mention.
d) Permission and duration — Partly/Yes. Confirms MET’s
authority and states initial 9-month term from 31/08/2010
continuing on a rolling basis.
e) Parking T&Cs (free period, tariffs, exemptions) — No. Says
signage “must detail the terms and conditions,” but does not set
them out (no free period, tariffs, or exemptions listed).
f) Means by which charges will be issued — No. Does not specify
windscreen vs. postal issue, etc.
g) Responsibility for consents (planning/advertising for signs)
— No. Notes MET supplies/maintains signage, but is silent on who
obtains statutory consents.
h) Operator’s obligations “in compliance with this Code and as a
member of an ATA” — Partial. Requires compliance with the BPA
Code of Practice but does not state ATA membership/obligations
expressly.
i) Notification of documentation the operator may have to supply
to authorised bodies — No. Not addressed.
j) Operator’s approach to handling appeals — No. Not
addressed.[/indent]
Bottom line: At best, (a) and (d) are met and (h) is only
partially met. The letter fails the remaining requirements. To
comply with PPSCoP 14.1, the operator would need
contemporaneous, site-specific written confirmation (or the
underlying contract/schedules) covering the boundary plan, any
byelaws, defined T&Cs (including free time/tariffs/exemptions),
method of charge issue, consent responsibilities, ATA/Code
obligations, what documents may be provided to authorised
bodies, and the appeals approach.
The single page of the actual contract shown does not satisfy or
cure any of the defective points raised above.
This page confirms:
[indent](a) Identity of the landowner — McDonald’s Restaurants
Limited.
(d) Duration of permission — initial 9 months from 31/08/2010,
then continuing unless terminated (paras 3.1–3.3). It evidences
a signed services agreement.[/indent]
It does not address the previously unsatisfied items:
(b) boundary map/Schedule of sites (only referenced, not
provided);
(c) any applicable byelaws;
(e) specific parking terms (free period, tariffs, exemptions);
(f) means of issuing charges (windscreen/postal);
(g) responsibility for planning/advertising consents;
(h) operator obligations under the PPSCoP/ATA membership;
(i) documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies;
(j) approach to appeals.[/indent]
So, beyond reinforcing (a) and (d), this page does not satisfy
any of the other PPSCoP 14.1 (b)–(j) requirements.
Use the following for your response to the operators evidence:
--- Quote ---
> PCN AB22929772 – POPLA Comments on Operator Evidence
>
> I am the registered keeper. No driver identity is admitted.
Please address the following in order.
>
> Landowner authority – Letter of Authority dated 25 August 2016
fails PPSCoP 14.1(a)–(j):
> - PPSCoP 14.1(a) Identity of landowner: Met. Names McDonald’s
Restaurants Limited.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(b) Boundary map: Not met. No plan or site
schedule is provided; it only refers to “Sites … detailed in
Schedule 4 of the Contract,” which is not produced.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(c) Applicable byelaws: Not met. No mention at
all.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(d) Permission and duration: Partly/yes on
duration only. It states an initial 9-month term from 31/08/2010
continuing on a rolling basis, but this does not remedy the
missing site-specific particulars elsewhere.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(e) Parking terms and conditions (free period,
tariffs, exemptions): Not met. It merely says signage “must
detail the terms and conditions” without setting any out. No
free period, tariffs, or exemptions are listed.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(f) Means by which charges will be issued: Not
met. No specification of windscreen notices versus postal ANPR,
etc.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(g) Responsibility for consents
(planning/advertising for signs): Not met. It notes MET
supplies/maintains signage but is silent on who obtains
statutory consents.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(h) Operator’s obligations “in compliance with
this Code and as a member of an ATA”: Partial at best. It
references BPA Code compliance but does not state ATA
membership/obligations as required by the Single Code.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(i) Notification of documentation the operator
may have to supply to authorised bodies: Not met. No provision.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(j) Operator’s approach to handling appeals: Not
met. No provision.
>
> Bottom line on the LoA: Only (a) and (d) are evidenced, with
(h) only partially. Items (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (i), and (j)
are not satisfied. A generic permission letter cannot establish
standing or Code compliance for this specific site and signage
scheme on the material date.
>
> Contract extract (single page) does not cure the LoA defects:
> It confirms only (a) identity of landowner (McDonald’s
Restaurants Limited) and (d) duration (initial 9 months from
31/08/2010, then continuing unless terminated, paras 3.1–3.3).
It does not address the missing PPSCoP 14.1 items: no boundary
plan or site schedule (b); no statement on byelaws (c); no
defined parking terms including any free period, tariffs,
exemptions (e); no method of issuing charges (f); no
responsibility for planning/advertising consents (g); no
explicit PPSCoP/ATA obligations (h); no statement on
documentation to authorised bodies (i); no appeals approach (j).
Therefore, even taken together, the LoA plus this single
contract page fail PPSCoP 14.1(b)–(j). Strict proof is required
in the form of contemporaneous, site-specific written authority
(or the full contract with schedules) covering all 14.1
requirements. Redacted generic paperwork is insufficient.
>
> PoFA Schedule 4 – no keeper liability:
> The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking as
required by paragraph 9(2)(a). The operator relies on ANPR
timestamps and an assertion that the driver exited the vehicle.
That is not a period of parking and cannot establish duration.
Without 9(2)(a) compliance, keeper liability cannot arise,
regardless of any 29-day wording.
>
> Consideration period not evidenced; no contract formation:
> The Single Code requires a consideration period on arrival
before terms can bind a driver. The operator has provided no
observation log or timed evidence that the vehicle remained
beyond that arrival period. Their own narrative says the charge
was issued because the driver exited the vehicle without a
displayed badge, not due to time. That concedes no evidence of
duration beyond arrival and no breach.
>
> Signage and core term visibility:
> The photos are generic and do not prove that, on the actual
entry route, an entrance sign and any disabled-bay core term
were clearly brought to the driver’s attention before parking.
POPLA should require contemporaneous driver-sightline images
(and relevant lighting/conditions) showing the core term was
prominent before the decision to park. Stating motorists must
“seek out” terms does not replace the requirement for clear,
timely notice of the core term.
>
> Disabled bay and Equality Act duties:
> A rigid “badge must be displayed at all times” condition
cannot lawfully negate the arrival/consideration period or the
duty to make reasonable adjustments. On private land, the Blue
Badge scheme is not determinative, and demanding the reverse
side of a badge (name/photo) is excessive. The operator has not
shown that reasonable adjustments were considered or that the
vehicle remained beyond arrival without display.
>
> Date inconsistencies:
> The operator’s evidence references a parking event on
17/06/2025 but elsewhere the issue/event is 20/06/2025. Their
DVLA/NtK timeline is predicated on 17/06/2025. These
contradictions undermine reliability and any claim of PoFA
timing compliance.
>
> Beavis not determinative:
> Beavis turned on unusually prominent signage and a legitimate
interest in turnover. The operator has not proved equally
prominent signage, any time beyond the arrival period, or
Code/equality-compliant enforcement in a disabled bay context.
>
> Conclusion:
> Standing is not proved because the LoA and single contract
page fail PPSCoP 14.1(b)–(j) and only partly meet (h). Keeper
liability fails because the NtK states no period of parking as
required by PoFA 9(2)(a). The operator has not proved any
exceedance of the consideration period or that a contract bound
the driver before any alleged breach. Signage proof is
inadequate, equality duties are not addressed, and dates
conflict. The appeal should be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 5, 2025, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again
This is the link to the second pages of the contract, a site
picture and a redacted list of sites managed by Met for McD
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/w63X2sz
#Post#: 92971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: October 6, 2025, 4:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So adjust accordingly:
--- Quote ---
> The 25 August 2016 “Letter of Authority” does not satisfy
PPSCoP 14.1 (a)–(j). It is a generic permission letter and omits
most items the Code now requires.
>
> Item-by-item check
> [indent]a) Identity of landowner — Yes. Names McDonald’s
Restaurants Limited.
> b) Boundary map — No. None provided; merely refers to “Sites …
detailed in Schedule 4 of the Contract.”
> c) Applicable byelaws — No. No mention.
> d) Permission and duration — Partly/Yes. Confirms MET’s
authority and states initial 9-month term from 31/08/2010
continuing on a rolling basis.
> e) Parking T&Cs (free period, tariffs, exemptions) — No. Says
signage “must detail the terms and conditions,” but does not set
them out (no free period, tariffs, or exemptions listed).
> f) Means by which charges will be issued — No. Does not
specify windscreen vs. postal issue, etc.
> g) Responsibility for consents (planning/advertising for
signs) — No. Notes MET supplies/maintains signage, but is silent
on who obtains statutory consents.
> h) Operator’s obligations “in compliance with this Code and as
a member of an ATA” — Partial. Requires compliance with the BPA
Code of Practice but does not state ATA membership/obligations
expressly.
> i) Notification of documentation the operator may have to
supply to authorised bodies — No. Not addressed.
> j) Operator’s approach to handling appeals — No. Not
addressed.[/indent]
>
> Bottom line: At best, (a), (b) and (d) are met and (h) is only
partially met. The letter fails the remaining requirements. To
comply with PPSCoP 14.1, the operator would need
contemporaneous, site-specific written confirmation (or the
underlying contract/schedules) covering the boundary plan, any
byelaws, defined T&Cs (including free time/tariffs/exemptions),
method of charge issue, consent responsibilities, ATA/Code
obligations, what documents may be provided to authorised
bodies, and the appeals approach.
>
> The single page of the actual contract shown does not satisfy
or cure any of the defective points raised above.
>
> This page confirms:
> [indent](a) Identity of the landowner — McDonald’s Restaurants
Limited.
> (d) Duration of permission — initial 9 months from 31/08/2010,
then continuing unless terminated (paras 3.1–3.3). It evidences
a signed services agreement.[/indent]
>
> It does not address the previously unsatisfied items:
> (b) boundary map/Schedule of sites (only referenced, not
provided);
> (c) any applicable byelaws;
> (e) specific parking terms (free period, tariffs, exemptions);
> (f) means of issuing charges (windscreen/postal);
> (g) responsibility for planning/advertising consents;
> (h) operator obligations under the PPSCoP/ATA membership;
> (i) documentation to be supplied to authorised bodies;
> (j) approach to appeals.[/indent]
>
> So, beyond reinforcing (a), (b) and (d), this page does not
satisfy any of the other PPSCoP 14.1 (c)–(j) requirements.
>
> Use the following for your response to the operators evidence:
>
> [quote]PCN AB22929772 – POPLA Comments on Operator Evidence
>
> I am the registered keeper. No driver identity is admitted.
Please address the following in order.
>
> Landowner authority – Letter of Authority dated 25 August 2016
fails PPSCoP 14.1(a)–(j):
> - PPSCoP 14.1(a) Identity of landowner: Met. Names McDonald’s
Restaurants Limited.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(b) Boundary map: Not met. No plan or site
schedule is provided; it only refers to “Sites … detailed in
Schedule 4 of the Contract,” which is not produced.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(c) Applicable byelaws: Not met. No mention at
all.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(d) Permission and duration: Partly/yes on
duration only. It states an initial 9-month term from 31/08/2010
continuing on a rolling basis, but this does not remedy the
missing site-specific particulars elsewhere.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(e) Parking terms and conditions (free period,
tariffs, exemptions): Not met. It merely says signage “must
detail the terms and conditions” without setting any out. No
free period, tariffs, or exemptions are listed.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(f) Means by which charges will be issued: Not
met. No specification of windscreen notices versus postal ANPR,
etc.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(g) Responsibility for consents
(planning/advertising for signs): Not met. It notes MET
supplies/maintains signage but is silent on who obtains
statutory consents.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(h) Operator’s obligations “in compliance with
this Code and as a member of an ATA”: Partial at best. It
references BPA Code compliance but does not state ATA
membership/obligations as required by the Single Code.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(i) Notification of documentation the operator
may have to supply to authorised bodies: Not met. No provision.
> - PPSCoP 14.1(j) Operator’s approach to handling appeals: Not
met. No provision.
>
> Bottom line on the LoA: Only (a) and (d) are evidenced, with
(h) only partially. Items (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (i), and (j)
are not satisfied. A generic permission letter cannot establish
standing or Code compliance for this specific site and signage
scheme on the material date.
>
> Contract extract (single page) does not cure the LoA defects:
> It confirms only (a) identity of landowner (McDonald’s
Restaurants Limited) and (d) duration (initial 9 months from
31/08/2010, then continuing unless terminated, paras 3.1–3.3).
It does not address the missing PPSCoP 14.1 items: no boundary
plan or site schedule (b); no statement on byelaws (c); no
defined parking terms including any free period, tariffs,
exemptions (e); no method of issuing charges (f); no
responsibility for planning/advertising consents (g); no
explicit PPSCoP/ATA obligations (h); no statement on
documentation to authorised bodies (i); no appeals approach (j).
Therefore, even taken together, the LoA plus this single
contract page fail PPSCoP 14.1(c)–(j). Strict proof is required
in the form of contemporaneous, site-specific written authority
(or the full contract with schedules) covering all 14.1
requirements. Redacted generic paperwork is insufficient.
>
> PoFA Schedule 4 – no keeper liability:
> The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking as
required by paragraph 9(2)(a). The operator relies on ANPR
timestamps and an assertion that the driver exited the vehicle.
That is not a period of parking and cannot establish duration.
Without 9(2)(a) compliance, keeper liability cannot arise,
regardless of any 29-day wording.
>
> Consideration period not evidenced; no contract formation:
> The Single Code requires a consideration period on arrival
before terms can bind a driver. The operator has provided no
observation log or timed evidence that the vehicle remained
beyond that arrival period. Their own narrative says the charge
was issued because the driver exited the vehicle without a
displayed badge, not due to time. That concedes no evidence of
duration beyond arrival and no breach.
>
> Signage and core term visibility:
> The photos are generic and do not prove that, on the actual
entry route, an entrance sign and any disabled-bay core term
were clearly brought to the driver’s attention before parking.
POPLA should require contemporaneous driver-sightline images
(and relevant lighting/conditions) showing the core term was
prominent before the decision to park. Stating motorists must
“seek out” terms does not replace the requirement for clear,
timely notice of the core term.
>
> Disabled bay and Equality Act duties:
> A rigid “badge must be displayed at all times” condition
cannot lawfully negate the arrival/consideration period or the
duty to make reasonable adjustments. On private land, the Blue
Badge scheme is not determinative, and demanding the reverse
side of a badge (name/photo) is excessive. The operator has not
shown that reasonable adjustments were considered or that the
vehicle remained beyond arrival without display.
>
> Date inconsistencies:
> The operator’s evidence references a parking event on
17/06/2025 but elsewhere the issue/event is 20/06/2025. Their
DVLA/NtK timeline is predicated on 17/06/2025. These
contradictions undermine reliability and any claim of PoFA
timing compliance.
>
> Beavis not determinative:
> Beavis turned on unusually prominent signage and a legitimate
interest in turnover. The operator has not proved equally
prominent signage, any time beyond the arrival period, or
Code/equality-compliant enforcement in a disabled bay context.
>
> Conclusion:
> Standing is not proved because the LoA and single contract
page fail PPSCoP 14.1(b)–(j) and only partly meet (h). Keeper
liability fails because the NtK states no period of parking as
required by PoFA 9(2)(a). The operator has not proved any
exceedance of the consideration period or that a contract bound
the driver before any alleged breach. Signage proof is
inadequate, equality duties are not addressed, and dates
conflict. The appeal should be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 92991--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: October 6, 2025, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again, really appreci\ted
#Post#: 98124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: November 14, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA rejected appeal
See below
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist parked or waited within
a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge.
Assessor summary of your case
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s
grounds into the following points, and have checked each point
before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: •
the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore keeper liability cannot apply;
• the operator has not provided evidence that the vehicle was
observed for any measurable length of time, more than the
minimum consideration period allowed; • the vehicle was occupied
throughout the duration of stay; • the driver had a right to use
the disabled bay; • the terms and conditions were not breached
as displaying a Blue Badge was not contractually required; •
there wasn’t any accessible signage from within the vehicle; and
• there isn’t any evidence of the operator’s landowner authority
and they put the operator to strict proof. After reviewing the
operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded
on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has also provided
comments. I have addressed these within my rationale. Within
their comments, the appellant has also raised additional grounds
of appeal – the appellant has stated that: • the Blue Badge
scheme is not determinative on private land; • the operator has
not shown that reasonable adjustments were made; and • Beavis is
not determinative. The motorist comments stage of our appeal
process is to allow the motorist to expand upon their initial
grounds of appeal in light of the evidence provided by the
operator. POPLA does not allow the appellant to raise new
grounds of appeal at this stage, and any new grounds of appeal
raised will not be considered. Therefore, I will not be
addressing this as part of my response.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 as set out on the signs. The terms and conditions
of the site state 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; failure to comply with
this will result in a PCN of £100. Within its evidence file, the
operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle
parked in a disabled bay. Having reviewed these images, I can
see that a Blue Badge was not displayed. The appellant has
raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will
address separately. • The appellant has stated that the notice
to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. The
Protection of Freedoms Act (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.
Within PoFA 2012, it states that the PCN must specify the period
of parking. Having reviewed the PCN, I can see that it specifies
both the date and time of the parking event. I am therefore
satisfied that it is compliant in this respect. For the
avoidance of doubt, the date of the parking event differs to the
date of issue. Overall, the PCN has the necessary information
and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred
the liability onto the registered keeper. • The appellant has
stated that the operator has not provided evidence that the
vehicle was observed for any measurable length of time, more
than the minimum consideration period allowed. Section 5.1 of
the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that
parking operators must allow a consideration period of
appropriate duration to allow a driver time to decide whether or
not to park. Although motorists are allowed a consideration
period, I must emphasise that this is to determine whether or
not to park. In this case, the images demonstrated that the
motorist simply parked as there was no one in the driver’s seat
at the time. While the operator may not have documented how long
the parking event occurred for, the evidence still demonstrates
that the vehicle was parked, irrespective of how long it was
there for. • The appellant has stated that the vehicle was
occupied throughout the duration of stay. Although I understand
that the vehicle may have been occupied by the passenger, the
fact remains that it was still parked for purposes of parking
management. • The appellant has stated that the driver had a
right to use the disabled bay. While I do not dispute this
ground of appeal, the motorist was still required to ensure that
they displayed the disabled badge. If the motorist was not able
to, then they would need to have parked within an alternative
bay. It is important to explain that the disabled bays are
managed by CCTV cameras and there isn’t a requirement that a
motorist be challenged at the time of the parking event. As the
vehicle was not displaying a Blue Badge, a PCN was issued as the
terms weren’t complied with. The Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice sets the standards its parking operators need
to comply with. Section F.3 of the Appeals Charter within the
Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must
reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being
provided. In terms of displaying a Blue Badge, section F.3e
specifically states that the charge should be reduced to £20 for
14 days where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder
supplies a copy of a valid Blue Badge, which would have been
valid at the time of the parking event. This section
specifically states that the holder was in the vehicle at the
time. Having reviewed the appellant’s appeal to the operator, I
can see that they provided a photograph of the Blue Badge but
redacted all of the information. In response, I can see that the
operator requested that the appellant confirm whether the Blue
Badge belongs to the driver or passenger. As the appellant
refused to confirm, the operator was unable to respond
accordingly. In terms of POPLA’s role, we can only assess
whether the parking conditions were breached. • The appellant
has stated that the terms and conditions were not breached as
displaying a Blue Badge was not contractually required.
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. Within
its evidence file, the operator has provided photographs of the
signage on site. Having reviewed this, I can see that failing to
display a Blue Badge whilst parked or waiting within a disabled
bay is a breach of the terms and conditions. By choosing to do
so, a motorist accepts that they will be liable for a PCN of
£100. • The appellant has stated that there wasn’t any
accessible signage from within the vehicle. Section 19.9 of the
applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states
that there must be at least one sign that can be read without
leaving the car near any disabled parking bays. While the
appellant has made reference to the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice, parking operators have until December
2026 to implement any changes regarding signage. As the operator
has not confirmed which code it is compliant with, I will be
basing my determination on whether the operator has complied
with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Within
its evidence file, the operator has provided images of the
signage. Having reviewed this, I can see that there are signs
placed at a lower, readable height within the disabled bays.
Having compared these images with those taken of the appellant’s
vehicle at the time of the parking event, I am satisfied that
they parked directly in front of a sign. While I accept that the
sign does not contain the full terms and conditions, the sign
contains the terms and conditions relative to this parking
event. I am therefore satisfied that the motorist was presented
with the opportunity to comply. • The appellant has stated that
there isn’t any evidence of the operator’s landowner authority
and they put the operator to strict proof. 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 a letter of
authority signed by 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. While the appellant has
requested strict proof and specified where the operator has not
complied, it is not POPLA’s role to source specific evidence on
behalf of either party and we must base decisions on the
evidence provided. In the absence of evidence to suggest
otherwise, I am satisfied that the operator is authorised to
issue PCNs for the car park. After considering the evidence from
both parties, I am satisfied that the motorist parked in a
disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge 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