10-13-2026, 02:40 PM
@SamedayCourier, there is a saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result each time. 
You have now visited McDonald's four times, spoken to the same assistant manager and received the same assurances that she would contact MET and email you. Four visits later, you have absolutely nothing in writing.
It should be obvious by now that, whatever her intentions, she is not delivering on those promises. You should have recorded her assurances on video or, at the very least, obtained written confirmation while you were there. Repeatedly returning and accepting another verbal promise is achieving nothing.
Secondly, I would like to see photographs of the actual signs, particularly the wording of the alleged contractual terms.
MET alleges "No Parking at anytime". How exactly is anyone supposed to visit and dine at this McDonald's if parking is prohibited? Unless this is exclusively a drive-through restaurant, there is an obvious distinction between a restriction on parking on an access road and any restriction applicable to the restaurant's customer parking spaces.
We need to establish precisely what the signs prohibit, where those restrictions apply and whether they are capable of forming any contractual agreement in the first place.
Regarding the appeal deadline, you still have time.
The Notice was issued on Tuesday 15 September 2026. Allowing two working days for postal delivery, the presumed date of receipt is Thursday 17 September. That makes Thursday 15 October 2026 the earliest relevant 28-day deadline calculated from receipt.
Section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly refers to appealing within 28 days of receiving the parking charge. MET's Notice instead refers to 28 days from the date of issue.
I would submit the keeper's appeal no later than 15 October, preferably before then, retaining evidence of submission.
As for MET, I have absolutely no respect for this former clamping outfit or its business practices. Its business model depends upon extracting money from motorists through demands dressed up as contractual parking charges. I regard its conduct in pursuing £100 over a photographed stop lasting just 60 seconds as particularly contemptible.
I fully expect MET to reject the initial appeal. There is little financial incentive for it to do otherwise. Consequently, I would not waste time constructing a comprehensive legal argument at this stage. Save the detailed arguments concerning PoFA, signage, the consideration period and the alleged contract for POPLA.
For now, the registered keeper should submit the following brief appeal:
Submit that as the registered keeper, not as the driver. There is no legal obligation to identify the driver to MET.
If MET rejects it, as I fully expect, we can address the substantive defects in its case through POPLA. In the meantime, please obtain clear photographs of the entrance signs and the signs applicable to the precise location where the vehicle stopped. Those will be important.
You have now visited McDonald's four times, spoken to the same assistant manager and received the same assurances that she would contact MET and email you. Four visits later, you have absolutely nothing in writing.
It should be obvious by now that, whatever her intentions, she is not delivering on those promises. You should have recorded her assurances on video or, at the very least, obtained written confirmation while you were there. Repeatedly returning and accepting another verbal promise is achieving nothing.
Secondly, I would like to see photographs of the actual signs, particularly the wording of the alleged contractual terms.
MET alleges "No Parking at anytime". How exactly is anyone supposed to visit and dine at this McDonald's if parking is prohibited? Unless this is exclusively a drive-through restaurant, there is an obvious distinction between a restriction on parking on an access road and any restriction applicable to the restaurant's customer parking spaces.
We need to establish precisely what the signs prohibit, where those restrictions apply and whether they are capable of forming any contractual agreement in the first place.
Regarding the appeal deadline, you still have time.
The Notice was issued on Tuesday 15 September 2026. Allowing two working days for postal delivery, the presumed date of receipt is Thursday 17 September. That makes Thursday 15 October 2026 the earliest relevant 28-day deadline calculated from receipt.
Section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly refers to appealing within 28 days of receiving the parking charge. MET's Notice instead refers to 28 days from the date of issue.
I would submit the keeper's appeal no later than 15 October, preferably before then, retaining evidence of submission.
As for MET, I have absolutely no respect for this former clamping outfit or its business practices. Its business model depends upon extracting money from motorists through demands dressed up as contractual parking charges. I regard its conduct in pursuing £100 over a photographed stop lasting just 60 seconds as particularly contemptible.
I fully expect MET to reject the initial appeal. There is little financial incentive for it to do otherwise. Consequently, I would not waste time constructing a comprehensive legal argument at this stage. Save the detailed arguments concerning PoFA, signage, the consideration period and the alleged contract for POPLA.
For now, the registered keeper should submit the following brief appeal:
Quote:Initial appeal to MET Parking Services
I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver is not identified.
MET's own photographic evidence shows the vehicle stationary for just 60 seconds. This does not establish that any enforceable parking contract was formed or that any applicable consideration period had expired.
Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, MET has no right to transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
McDonald's management has also confirmed that this charge should be cancelled and has undertaken to contact MET accordingly.
Please cancel the charge or issue a POPLA verification code.
Submit that as the registered keeper, not as the driver. There is no legal obligation to identify the driver to MET.
If MET rejects it, as I fully expect, we can address the substantive defects in its case through POPLA. In the meantime, please obtain clear photographs of the entrance signs and the signs applicable to the precise location where the vehicle stopped. Those will be important.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
