MET Parking Charge for McDonalds Overstay

[utahraptor78]

Hello all!

My daughter's Mum received a parking invoice for an overstay at McDonalds, 873 St Albans Road, Garston, Watford.

She received it on the 31st Jan, it was issued dated 15th Jan, but the alleged contravention date is 13th Jan.

I have offered to deal with it for her as she is under a fair bit of stress at the moment. 

Anyway, I noticed that time was running short to appeal it so just sent in a quick appeal on the MET website just to halt time running out and potential escalation. I did the appeal on the basis of poor signage, the appeal was rejected on 5th Feb as expected. 

We are now at the POPLA appeal stage, which is what I would be ever so grateful for help with. 

Initially the we noticed the poor signage, and the misleading fact that there is a soft play in the venue, suggesting long stays. The parking charge itself also arrived way out of the 14 day window. After buying more time with the initial appeal, the keeper looked into it a bit deeper and realised she had never stayed in the venue as long as the charge suggested, in her life. More importantly, on that day she had not in fact stayed at all, but the driver used the drive thru on two occasions. Once to buy dinner for her daughter after school before visiting a friend, then once again on the way home to buy something for herself. She appears to have been the victim of double-dipping ANPR cameras. The friend she visited can confirm in writing that she was with them between the times she is alleged to have been parked at McDonalds.

Please could someone help me word the POPLA appeal? There is still several weeks left til it needs to be in. This is link to the pictures of the illegible terms on the signage which I could not read even standing in front of. There is also a tiny sign at the entrance but a zebra crossing right there, and coming off a busy road it is extremely easy not to notice it. It has none of the terms on anyway and the only legible bit on it is where it says "90 minute stay", but even then as I said, you could easily miss it as your eyes are immediately drawn to the zebra crossing. 

Here is a link to the signs, and the NTK, but the main points are the fact that the letter arrived late and she wasn't even parked there during the alleged times. 

Many thanks! 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...sp=sharing

[b789]

Thanks for posting. Before anyone can sensibly help draft a POPLA appeal, there are a few factual points that need to be pinned down.

First, what exactly was said in the initial appeal submitted to MET? The wording matters, particularly whether the driver was identified, even inadvertently, and what grounds were actually relied upon. Please quote it verbatim.

Second, the date the Notice to Keeper was actually received is not determinative. The issue date shown on the notice appears to fall within the relevant PoFA period. However, if the date of posting is disputed, the operator can be put to strict proof of the actual date of posting. Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, operators are required to retain evidence of the date of posting, not merely the date the PCN was generated.

Third, if this is a classic ANPR “double dip”, evidence becomes critical. Does the driver have receipts from the two McDonald’s drive-thru purchases showing two distinct visits? Is there any corroborating evidence of where the driver was between those visits, such as confirmation from the friend, location data, or other contemporaneous records?

Finally, the operator will be put to strict proof that they carried out the required manual quality control checks on the ANPR images and that they can account for all images captured that day, including any so-called “orphan” images that would demonstrate an exit and re-entry rather than a single continuous stay.

Once those points are clarified, a structured POPLA appeal can be drafted.

[utahraptor78]

Thank you! This was the exact wording of the appeal, I hastily generated it on ChatGPT as I felt we were running out of time:

I am formally challenging this Parking Charge Notice as unfair and unenforceable.
1. Inadequate Signage
The signs at this location are positioned high up, with small text that is difficult to read from a vehicle. The parking terms and conditions were therefore not clear and prominent at the time of parking.
2. Reasonable Expectation of Stay
The site contains a children’s soft play area. It is reasonable for visitors to expect to stay longer than 90 minutes when using this facility. There was no clear indication that the 90-minute limit would be strictly enforced under these circumstances.
3. ANPR Evidence Does Not Make the Charge Fair
Although entry and exit were captured by ANPR, this does not override the duty to ensure parking terms are adequately communicated to drivers.
On these grounds, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

With regard to the receipts, unfortunately they were thrown away and cash was used, but the driver has a witness as to where they were at the time. The witness is prepared to make a statement if necessary.

The other issues weren't mentioned in the appeal as we didn't have time to investigate or fully look back over the events due to the late receipt of the charge letter. We sent the appeal in to stall the system as it was about to run out of time, assuming they'd just reject it anyway.

[b789]

That wording is helpful, thank you.

The initial appeal does not identify the driver, which is important. It is framed entirely in general terms and challenges signage, expectations, and the operator’s reliance on ANPR. That means keeper liability has not been compromised at this stage.

The absence of receipts is not fatal. Double-dip cases do not stand or fall on receipts alone. A contemporaneous witness statement confirming where the driver was between the two alleged visits is valid evidence and can be relied upon at POPLA. In addition, the burden remains on the operator to prove a single continuous period of parking, not on the appellant to disprove it.

The fact that the double-dip issue was not raised in the initial appeal is not a problem. POPLA is not limited to the grounds raised at first appeal, and it is entirely normal for further investigation to uncover the true facts later, particularly where the Notice to Keeper was received late and time pressure forced a holding appeal.

At POPLA, the operator will be put to strict proof that:

– the ANPR system did not record two separate visits,
– all entry and exit images for that vehicle on the material date have been disclosed,
– no “orphan” images exist,
– and that the required manual quality control checks were carried out before issuing the charge.

In parallel, the PoFA position can still be examined separately by reference to the Notice to Keeper itself, regardless of what was said in the initial appeal.

At this stage, nothing in the initial appeal has prejudiced the case. Once confirmation is given that the witness will provide a statement, the POPLA appeal can be structured around double-dipping, ANPR reliability, and the operator’s strict evidential burden, with signage and PoFA points included as supporting grounds.

You have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal, not just 28. They allow 5 days for service of the rejection.

[utahraptor78]

Thank you very much.

The witness happy to make a statement and is ready to do so whenever needed.

[utahraptor78]

Hello again, just wondering if I should send the POPLA appeal in now? The witness is ready to make a statement, but any help with the wording of the appeal and witness statement would be much appreciated.

There is still a couple of weeks to go, but just checking you're not waiting on anything else from me so I don't run out of time.

Many thanks as always!