MET Parking Charge for McDonalds Overstay

[utahraptor78]

Hello again, I still have a week or so to send my POPLA appeal but it's getting a bit tight so would like to send it sooner rather than later. 

Is this OK? 

Appellant: 
Operator: MET Parking Services
POPLA Code: [INSERT CODE]
PCN Number: [INSERT]
Vehicle Registration: [INSERT]

GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. No Evidence of Period Parked (ANPR Inaccuracy / “Double Dip” Risk)

The operator relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not demonstrate a continuous period of parking.

ANPR systems are known to:

Miss intermediate exits/re-entries

Incorrectly pair first entry with last exit (“double dipping”)

Fail to account for vehicles not parked (e.g. queuing, circulating)

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to ensure ANPR data is accurate and not misleading.

The operator has provided:

No evidence of continuous parking

No CCTV footage covering the entire stay

No proof the vehicle remained on site

Therefore, the charge is based on assumption, not evidence

2. Inadequate and Unclear Signage

The signage at the site is:

Not sufficiently prominent

Not clearly legible from all parking positions

Fails to clearly communicate key terms before parking

Drivers cannot be bound by terms they were not properly made aware of.

In particular:

No clear warning of ANPR enforcement in a prominent manner

Terms are not transparent or readable at distance

No clear contractual offer is established

This fails the BPA Code of Practice and basic contract law principles.

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator is put to strict proof that it has:

A valid contract with the landowner

Authority to issue and pursue parking charges

Authority to enter into contracts with drivers

I require:

A full, unredacted copy of the contract

Evidence the contract is current and applicable to this site

A mere witness statement or redacted agreement is insufficient.

4. Failure to Allow Mandatory Grace Periods

The BPA Code of Practice requires:

A minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of parking

A reasonable period on arrival to read terms and leave

The operator has not demonstrated:

When parking actually began

That grace periods were applied

ANPR timestamps alone cannot account for this.

5. The Charge is Not Commercially Justified

The charge is disproportionate and does not reflect:

Any genuine loss

Any legitimate interest

Unlike cases such as ParkingEye v Beavis, this case:

Lacks clear signage

Lacks transparency

Lacks a legitimate deterrent justification

Therefore, the charge is unenforceable.

With evidence attached:  Timeline of events, a statement of truth/witness statement testifying as to the location of the keeper and the car during the alleged overstay, signage photos.

Many thanks!