MET Parking Charge for McDonalds Overstay

[b789]

Hi @utahraptor78. Only rely on the photographs that demonstrate how high the signs are mounted and how illegible the terms are due to the minuscule font. Do not include close-up images of the wording. Close-ups can inadvertently assist the operator by making the terms readable in a way that would not be possible for a motorist on site.

This is an ideal photo that clearly evidences how illegible the terms signs are:

   

This image backs that up:

   

These two images also emphasise the point about crap signage:

       

The POPLA appeal should focus squarely on the double-dip and signage inadequacy. Regarding the signs, the argument is that the terms are not legible from ground level and are therefore incapable of forming a contract. Emphasise both the height of the signs (well above typical eye level) and the density and size of the text.

You may also include wider shots of the site to demonstrate the general positioning and scarcity of signage, and the absence of any prominent, readable terms at the point of parking. The image showing the “Good Neighbour” notice beneath the parking sign is particularly effective. It provides a clear visual comparison between a sign that is designed to be read and one that is not, reinforcing the point that the parking terms were not adequately brought to the attention of motorists.

That evidential approach is sufficient. The issue is not what the small print says. The issue is whether it was capable of being read at all.

You should then structure your POPLA appeal along the following lines:

Appellant: [Registered Keeper Name]
Operator: MET Parking Services
POPLA Code: [Insert]
PCN Number: [Insert]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert]

1. No Evidence of a Continuous Period of Parking – ANPR Pairing Failure and Breach of Section 8 PPSCoP

The operator relies solely on two ANPR images: one entry image and one exit image. These images do not demonstrate a continuous period of parking.

The vehicle made two separate visits to the McDonald’s drive-thru on the material date. Between those visits, the vehicle was elsewhere. A witness statement is provided confirming the vehicle’s presence at a different location during the period alleged to constitute an “overstay”.

Section 8 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP v1.1, 17 February 2025) governs the use of ANPR technology. It requires operators to ensure the accuracy of ANPR data, to implement appropriate quality control procedures, and to undertake manual checks before issuing a parking charge.

Section 8 further requires operators to guard against errors such as duplicate, missing, or incorrectly paired captures. A “double dip” scenario — where the first entry is incorrectly paired with the last exit — is precisely the type of error those safeguards are intended to prevent.

The operator is put to strict proof that:

– All ANPR captures for this vehicle on the material date have been disclosed
– No intermediate entry or exit images exist
– The ANPR system was functioning correctly and synchronised
– The mandatory manual quality control checks required by Section 8 PPSCoP were carried out before issuing this PCN

Two isolated still images do not establish a continuous period of parking. In the absence of full capture disclosure and strict proof of compliance with Section 8 PPSCoP, the operator has failed to demonstrate that the alleged contravention occurred.

2. Illegible and Inadequately Positioned Signage – No Contract Capable of Formation

The photographs provided show that the parking terms signage is mounted significantly above normal eye level on tall poles. The detailed terms are printed in extremely small, dense font and are not legible from ground level or from a parked vehicle.

By contrast, other signage mounted lower on the same poles — including the “Residential Area / Quiet Zone” notice and the 5mph sign — is clearly readable. This comparison demonstrates that the parking terms were not positioned or formatted so as to be read before parking.

Section 5 of the PPSCoP requires that parking terms are clear, conspicuous and legible, and that drivers must have a fair opportunity to read and understand them before being bound by them.

At this site:

– The detailed terms are elevated well above typical eye level
– The font is extremely small and densely formatted
– There is no prominent, readable display of the core parking charge at driver eye level
– The entrance environment requires driver attention to traffic and pedestrians

A contract cannot be formed on the basis of terms that cannot be read. The operator has failed to comply with Section 5 PPSCoP. Accordingly, no contract was capable of formation.

3. No Keeper Liability – Failure to Strictly Comply with Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The appellant is the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified at any stage.

In order to recover a parking charge from a keeper, the operator must strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). Compliance is not optional. If the statutory conditions are not met, liability cannot transfer from the unidentified driver to the keeper.

This Notice to Keeper is an ANPR postal notice. Accordingly, paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 applies.

Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

The Notice to Keeper does not specify a period of parking. It merely states entry and exit timestamps derived from ANPR cameras and asserts that the vehicle “remained on site” for 131 minutes.

ANPR systems record a vehicle passing a camera, not a period of parking. Entry and exit times are not the same as a specified period of parking. Parliament required a “period of parking” to be specified. That has not been done.

The operator is put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies fully with paragraph 9(2)(a) and all other mandatory requirements of paragraph 9, including but not limited to paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f).

Strict compliance is required. Substantial compliance is insufficient. If any mandatory element of paragraph 9 is not satisfied, the operator has no right to recover the charge from the keeper.

As the driver has not been identified, and as the Notice to Keeper fails to strictly comply with Schedule 4, liability cannot transfer to the registered keeper.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

4. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority Required – Section 14.1 PPSCoP

Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP v1.1, 17 February 2025) is explicit and prescriptive. It provides that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued.

That written confirmation must cover the matters set out at paragraphs 14.1(a)–(j), including:

– The identity of the landowner
– A boundary map of the land to be managed
– The permission granted and the duration of that permission
– The authorised parking terms and conditions
– The means by which parking charges will be issued
– Compliance obligations under the Code
– The operator’s approach to handling appeals

This is not guidance. It is a mandatory pre-condition.

The operator is therefore put to strict proof that a contemporaneous written agreement exists which demonstrably complies in substance with each requirement of Section 14.1(a)–(j) and was valid on the material date.

Section 14.1 requires documentary confirmation covering defined matters. It does not permit authority to be inferred from surrounding circumstances.

The mere presence of signage, cameras, equipment, or enforcement activity on site is legally irrelevant to compliance with Section 14.1. Those factors do not establish:

– That the signatory to any agreement is the true landowner
– That the defined boundary includes the precise area in question
– That the operator is authorised to issue parking charges in its own name
– That the authority was valid on the material date
– That the terms being enforced were those authorised by the landowner

To treat the existence of signage or equipment as evidence of authority would be to substitute assumption for the written confirmation expressly required by the Code.
Section 14.1 does not contain any provision permitting an assessor to rely on inference in place of documentary proof. It requires written confirmation covering specified matters. Nothing in the Code authorises a decision-maker to go beyond that requirement and uphold authority on the basis that “signage would not be present without permission”.

If the operator produces a redacted document that prevents verification of landowner identity, defined boundaries, duration of authority, or the right to issue charges in its own name, then the mandatory requirements of Section 14.1 cannot be independently verified.

Unless and until the operator produces documentary evidence demonstrating full compliance with Section 14.1(a)–(j), POPLA cannot properly be satisfied that the operator holds the requisite authority.

Conclusion

This case is fundamentally a double-dip ANPR pairing error.

The operator relies solely on two timestamps and assumes they represent a single continuous stay. That assumption is contradicted by positive evidence. A third-party witness statement confirms that the vehicle was at a different location during the period alleged to constitute a continuous overstay. The operator’s case therefore conflicts with direct evidence.

The burden rests with the operator to prove a single continuous period of parking. Two isolated ANPR captures do not establish that. Section 8 PPSCoP requires operators to ensure ANPR accuracy and to undertake manual quality control checks to prevent precisely this type of incorrect pairing.

The operator must therefore produce strict proof that:

– No intermediate entry or exit captures exist;
– The full ANPR log for the vehicle on the material date has been disclosed;
– The system was functioning correctly; and
– The mandatory manual checks required by Section 8 were carried out before issuing the PCN.

In the face of a witness statement confirming the vehicle’s presence elsewhere, the operator cannot rely on assumption or incomplete ANPR data. It must displace that evidence with clear and comprehensive proof. Two timestamps are insufficient.

In addition, the operator must demonstrate that compliant and legible signage capable of forming a contract was in place (Section 5 PPSCoP), that keeper liability has been lawfully established under Schedule 4 PoFA, and that it holds a contemporaneous written landowner agreement fully compliant with Section 14.1 PPSCoP.

Unless each of those burdens is discharged with documentary evidence, the parking charge cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed.