MET Parking PCN - McDonald's Leytonstone

Lana2025

Hello all, this is my first post. Unfortunately, I received a ticket for leaving the premises. I was so naive to admit it in my first appeal to the company. Both my appeals then were rejected by the company and POPLA. I read other threads regarding fighting back points, however, I am not sure if I didn't mess it up already by my admission. There is a similar case to mine (VCS v Ibbotson) but I am not sure if it is enough in my case. I only was away for like 15 min. max. Paying £100 for 15 min. While I appearnly had 90 min parking allowance!
I feel messed up though 😩

Gr1pr

hopefully if a court claim happens you will win with our help, probably via a discontinuance a few weeks before the hearing date, so come back to this thread if you receive a formal LoC or court claim within the next 6 years

Coupon-mad

Lana2025 said:

Hello all, this is my first post. Unfortunately, I received a ticket for leaving the premises. I was so naive to admit it in my first appeal to the company. Both my appeals then were rejected by the company and POPLA. I read other threads regarding fighting back points, however, I am not sure if I didn't mess it up already by my admission. There is a similar case to mine (VCS v Ibbotson) but I am not sure if it is enough in my case. I only was away for like 15 min. max. Paying £100 for 15 min. While I appearnly had 90 min parking allowance!
I feel messed up though 😩

Ignore it and the £170 threatograms. Only contact them if you move house, as you must check each letter is merely a debt demand.

As @Gr1pr rightly says, come back if you receive a formal LoC or court claim within the next 6 years.

Lana2025

I was thinking to wrote a formal complaint stating some defensive points in hope to make them withdraw their charge, if it doesn't benefit it won't harm! 

Gr1pr

Doesn't usually work, they follow a process,  a roboclaim process thar rarely takes in the pros and cons,  but is a game of chicken 

Lana2025

Could someone please review my points and let me know their thoughts on them and if I can add more points to my defense? Really appreciated.

1. BPA CoP Clause 9.5 – Predatory or Misleading Tactics

" You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of noncompliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel."

• The entrance sign displays “1½ Hours Max Stay” in large, bold font, giving the clear impression of an unconditional entitlement. The critical qualifier — “while on site only” — appears in significantly smaller, less prominent text and is easily missed, especially when approaching via a busy junction with traffic, pedestrian crossings, and cycle lanes.

• The main terms-and-conditions sign repeats the “90 minutes maximum stay” message and displays “McDonald’s Customer Car Park” in bold, prominent text, while burying the restriction “while on the premises only” deep within a dense paragraph in small font.

• This presentation gives drivers a misleading impression of entitlement and appears deliberately designed to trap motorists into breaching an obscure and undefined condition — a clear breach of Clause 9.5. This contrasts sharply with the signage upheld in ParkingEye v Beavis, which was clear, concise, and prominently displayed.

2. BPA CoP Clause 3 – Ambiguous Language

“Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.”

• The signage uses the terms “on site” and “on the premises” interchangeably but fails to define either. There are no boundary markers, maps, or signs clarifying which areas these terms refer to. This lack of clarity creates significant ambiguity, making compliance practically impossible.

• The use of broad terms such as "site" and "premises" can refer to a specific building, parking lot, general area or an entire complex! The undefined terms are the epitome of ambiguity and misleading. Unambiguous requirement ensures drivers are fully aware of all terms and conditions, including any restrictions on movement out of a specific marked location.

• Moreover, the heading “McDonald’s Customer Car Park” implies general customer use, but this is contradicted by an unprominent qualifying condition in small print — a clear violation of the requirement for unambiguous communication.

---

3. BPA CoP Clause A8.3 – Clarity and Legibility

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

The signage fails to meet this requirement in several ways:

• The terms “site” and “premises” are used inconsistently and remain undefined.

• If the boundary is not clear, the term is not fully understandable. How can a driver comply with "must remain on the premises" if they have no clear way of knowing where those premises begin and end? This is a fundamental flaw in contract formation. A reasonable person cannot agree to a term they cannot understand its geographical scope. It is worth referring to VCS v Ibbotson, case No 1SE09894 (16.05.2012): District Judge McIlwaine directly questioned the parking operator regarding the definition of 'premises,' stating: 'you say he left the premises ...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish? This highlights the legal necessity for clear boundary definition.

• The main terms and conditions sign is mounted too high above eye level to be comfortably and clearly read from a standing position.

• It uses small font sizes for material terms such as “while on the premises only", makes it very hard to read from a standing person position.

• Key information is buried in a cluttered design.

• In response to my concerns about poor signage design, small text, and high placement, your evidence instead included a parking plot map conveying the number of signs distributed around the parking area. This raises a more vital question: How many different signs is a driver expected to read — in full, on foot — in order to clearly read and understand all the terms and conditions before parking? If your signage is only fully legible at close range, and critical terms such as “while on the premises” are not clearly displayed or defined at the point of entry, then the signage fails to meet the BPA’s standard of clarity, prominence, and legibility under Clause A8.3.  Quantity of signage does not excuse poor design or compensate for the failure to make key terms visible at the decision point. Drivers cannot be expected to hunt for terms after parking in order to avoid unknowingly breaching them.

These design flaws obscure critical conditions. As highlighted in VCS v Ibbotson (2012), vague or undefined contract terms — especially those dependent on unclear geographical boundaries — are unenforceable.

---

4. BPA CoP Clauses A2.2 & A3.1.2 – Sign Placement Standards

"The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. NOTE: Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a smaller size."

"The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible"

The entrance sign does not meet these requirements. It is:

• Placed too close to a busy junction, bicycle lane and a pedestrian path to be read safely on approach.

• Mounted above typical driver sightlines, making it unreadable from a moving vehicle.

• Displays the key restriction “while on site only” in a small, secondary paragraph buried mid-text.

• After a vehicle passes the pedestrian crossing, the sign becomes entirely invisible from the driver's perspective. This not only breaches BPA visibility standards, but likely violates Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as non-transparent terms may be deemed unfair and unenforceable.

• Both signs — the entrance sign and the main terms and conditions sign — fail to clearly present the key term “while on site/premises only.”

  This condition appears in smaller font, in a less prominent area of the signage, buried mid-text within a dense and cluttered layout. If this clause forms the entire basis for issuing a £100 charge, it must be clearly and prominently displayed — not camouflaged in a cluttered smaller font of body of text.

  This is a core contractual term, and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any non-transparent or hidden terms are potentially unfair and unenforceable.

  In Vine v Waltham Forest [2000], the Court of Appeal held that no contract is formed if signage is not sufficiently visible at the point of parking.

  In this case, the key restriction relied upon for enforcement was not sufficiently visible in a way that an average driver could reasonably be expected to read, process, and agree to at the time of parking.

---

5. Land Ownership Conflict – McDonald’s Owns Only 45%

It is understood that McDonald’s owns only 45% of the land at this location. Unless you hold explicit written authority from the landowner(s) of the remaining 55%, you have no legal right to enforce parking charges across the entire car park.

Any enforcement or signage activity applied beyond your authorised zone may constitute misrepresentation and a potential breach of consumer protection law.

---

6. BPA CoP Section 7.1 to 7.3 – Incomplete Landowner Authority

While I acknowledge receipt of your document titled “Letter of Authority”, referencing a contract dated 31 August 2010, the evidence you have provided remains insufficient under BPA CoP Clauses 7.1 to 7.3 for the following reasons:

It lacks:

• A site plan or map defining the specific land MET is authorised to manage.

• Proof that the PCN location falls within that authorised area.

• Disclosure of the contractual clauses granting MET enforcement powers.

• Clarification on whether MET operates as agent or principal.

• Any reference to the remaining 55% of the land not owned by McDonald’s.

• Evidence that the contract is current, renewed, or reviewed;                                                                            You have not shown a current letter from McDonald’s confirming the agreement is still valid as of today.  BPA and courts do not treat “silence” or “we didn’t cancel it” as strong evidence of an active, enforceable contract. A contract that has not been reviewed since 2010 — 15 years ago — raises serious doubts about: - Whether its terms are still appropriate or accurate. - Whether it still reflects current land use (especially when McDonald’s owns only 45% of the land). Simply relying on the absence of notice to terminate is not sufficient evidence of current authority under BPA requirements.

This falls significantly short of BPA transparency and documentation requirements, and raises doubt over MET’s authority to issue PCNs at this location. 

---

7. Misapplication of the Beavis Case

Your reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis is inapplicable in this context. That ruling involved:

• Clear, prominent signage, and

• Full contractual disclosure with the landholder in court.   

It does not absolve your company from demonstrating compliance with the BPA Code, nor does it override the requirement to produce valid landowner authority upon request.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Enforcement Procedure Flaw – No Evidence at Time of PCN Issue

According to the PCN, MET Parking issued the charge at 12:47. However, the earliest photograph MET provides of my vehicle is timestamped 12:54 — 7 minutes after the PCN was supposedly issued.

The other photos follow at 12:59 and 13:00, and the only attempt to support the key claim that I “left the premises” — a so-called “survey” — was conducted at 13:02.

This timeline reveals a critical procedural flaw:

At the time MET issued the PCN, it had no evidence at all — photographic or observational — of any breach.

All evidence, including the confirmation of my vehicle’s presence and my alleged absence, was gathered after the notice had already been issued. The PCN was therefore issued without reasonable cause, which fundamentally undermines its validity.

This approach is inconsistent with the principles of evidence-based enforcement, and it arguably breaches the requirement for fair treatment under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Section 62), as well as the BPA Code of Practice’s standards for justification and transparency.

Additionally, if MET requested my personal data from the DVLA based on a PCN issued without any supporting evidence, this raises concerns about whether that request was lawful, given that reasonable cause is a legal prerequisite for such data access under DVLA regulations and BPA rules.

In short, the PCN was speculative when issued, and its legitimacy cannot be salvaged by collecting “evidence” afterward to retroactively justify the charge.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

What I require from you:

Please treat this as a formal complaint. I request the following:

1. A full, unredacted copy of your landowner agreement, or an updated, signed Letter of Authority from McDonald’s that includes:

• A site map clearly identifying the land covered,

• A list of all authorised activities (e.g. signage placement, PCN enforcement, appeals),

• Any limitations or conditions, particularly concerning areas of the site not owned by McDonald’s.

Gr1pr

I think that you mean complaint,  or appeal   ?  Not defence   !

A defence is what you submit to a court claim against you,  which is an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

You are not at the defence stage yet  ( because you don't have a court claim against you   )

Who are you going to send that draft above to  ?

Umkomaas

Is this AI generated?  Sorry, this really isn't how to deal with it. Almost 2,000 words and they won't even read beyond the first couple of sentences. What they will read into it is that they've got you rattled and the more pressure they exert, the greater the possibility you will pay them. They have no requirement to reply to you or respond to your demands for proofs. Save your energy for any court claim. Follow the sage advice above from @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad, then get on with life. 

fisherjim

Don't mean to be unkind but that will make absolutely no difference at all, why waste your time, keep it until a possible court claim comes through.

They will just say you appealed admitted leaving site (shame about that as they will not have any evidence and the survey in Mc D's is another con) lost at POPLA give us your money.

As stated above, you say it's a complaint then talk about a "defense" (sic) every entity you have mentioned will brush that off and it will get nowhere, we have seen it all before, but we have only seen one leaving site claim reach court.

At the end of the day it's your choice though, but remember one thing for later none of those words about signage and the site mean a thing unless supported by dated photos.

Lana2025

I was gathering all my observations in those points to complain and/or as a defense draft for court - if happens. I acknowledged leaving the location for few minutes but just realised that the time I mentioned on my first appeal was like 47 minutes before the time of the PCN issuance. So I could argue that I was not away at the time of the PCN! 

fisherjim

"So I could argue that I was not away at the time of the PCN!"

You are over thinking this!  

Please note "defense" is American you mean defence.