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!

[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!

[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.

[utahraptor78]

Brilliant, thank you so much!

[utahraptor78]

The appeal and evidence have been submitted online. Many thanks once again!