Parking in Disabled - Mcdonalds

Skywalker95

Hi,

I have received a notice to keeper from MET Parking services for parking in a disabled parking space at Mcdonalds. 

The driver at the time was told to park up and wait for their food. The car park was busy and the waiting bays were taken up. The driver parked in the free space which happened to be a disabled parking area. The driver parked for less than 10-15 minutes. 

I submitted an appeal to Popla highlighting key points which Popla rejected. They summarised my whole defence and wrote why they are rejecting each point. Finally saying:

"Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked or waited in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge, and therefore they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the charge should be directed to the operator."

I was now wondering is it better to pay this or have you dealt with something similar?

Thank you for your support

James_Poisson

You have been conned by thinking that POPLA consider what happened on the day and mitigation, they don't that is allegedly what the parking operator considers, but being scammers they are only interested in getting money out of you.

Presumably the occupants were in the vehicle, in a fair world if those parking spaces are for disabled then the parking management would tell you to move to free up, but of course that wouldn't make money would it.

Did the McD's server tell you to park there?

Plan A is always the first option.

No one on here pays MET!

Skywalker95

Occupant I believe were in the car, no one had told the driver to move the vehicle. There were no one that required the parking at the time. It was only for a short moment of up to 10 minutes max but most likely less than that. 

I had contacted the manager of the Mcdonalds where the incident happend and they said they cannot do anything about this either as the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay and I have to deal with MET itself. 

The McD's server didn't say to park there. They had just said to park up and wait for the order. The waiting bays were occupied and this is the spot that was seen and closest. The driver has arthiritis but is not disabled. They didn't see the markings and quickly parked as thought it would be ok. 

Both Popla & McDonalds didn't do anything about it even though it can be a genuine mistake. 

I was unsure about whether to ignore as I didn't know if the defences would stand in this scenario which is to do with parking in a disabled bay. 

Coupon-mad

Show the photos but redact your VRM.

All defences v MET stand because they use DCB Legal who always discontinue.

Skywalker95

Here is the image. 

Coupon-mad

I asked for the photos. The pictures. If you log in as if to appeal or pay you'll see more than one I expect. Redact your VRM/any people.

James_Poisson

Skywalker95 said:

Here is the image. 

You have covered up the dates which isn't helpful, but at the top you have written "waiting for POPLA decision" if so what points have you appealed on, I hope it's not what happened on the day you have blown it.

The photo evidence is what is important as @Coupon-mad has stated but looking at the site there are no required signs at the entrance, and those disabled spaces have no signs stating anything, the paint on the floor means nothing contractually, it does not state anywhere on those spaces that a blue badge must be displayed or what they mean. All this would be part of your POPLA appeal!

 

Skywalker95

My apologies. I have logged in and downloaded the images. 

Popla have rejected my decision... The incident took place on 4th September 2025.

I appealed to Popla on:

1. Failure to establish keeper liability (POFA 2012)
MET state they are relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). However, their Notice to Keeper still fails to specify the period of parking, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4.

A single photo of a stationary vehicle does not establish a period — it merely captures a moment in time. POFA requires that the Notice clearly identifies the duration of parking (start and end of parking), not just an isolated photograph or an assumed time.

MET have not evidenced how long the vehicle was stationary, nor any clear start and end of the parking event. Without that, there is no valid period of parking stated, and keeper liability cannot be invoked.

Even if the car was briefly stopped, MET must still comply fully and precisely with POFA to pursue the keeper. Since they have failed to do so, only the driver could be held liable — and as keeper, I decline to name them.

2. The “Sector Single Code of Practice” is not in force

MET rely on the so-called “Sector Single Code of Practice.” That Code has been withdrawn following a government review and is not legally binding. The only operative framework remains the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which still governs all BPA-approved operators, including MET.

Therefore, BPA Code of Practice paragraphs 13.1–13.4 remain applicable and mandate both:

• A reasonable consideration period to read the terms; and

• A minimum 10-minute grace period to leave.

The total stay was under 10 minutes, well within the combined allowance.

3. Grace and consideration periods apply to all parking events

MET claim no grace period applies because the driver was “not in compliance” with the terms. This is an incorrect interpretation.
Both BPA and the Department for Levelling Up (DLUHC) have confirmed that grace periods apply before compliance is determined — they exist to give motorists the chance to review the signs, assess bay markings, and leave if unsuitable.

Even if MET allege misuse of a bay, it remains incumbent on them to show the driver had a fair opportunity to read and understand the terms before any enforcement action.

A brief stop of under 15 minutes cannot reasonably incur a £100 penalty in a free customer car park.

4. Signage remains inadequate

MET’s evidence pack contains close-up photos taken at ideal angles and in daylight. These do not represent the actual driver’s viewpoint on arrival.

• The entrance sign fails to warn of any £100 charge or that Blue Badge terms apply immediately on entry.

• The disabled bay signage is small, positioned low, and easily missed when following restaurant or drive-thru directions.

The BPA Code requires that contractual terms be “clearly legible from all parking bays.” MET’s photos do not prove this.

Thus, no valid contract was formed.

5. Landowner authority remains unproven

The “redacted contract” MET have provided does not show:

• The start and end dates;

• The landowner’s full legal identity; or

• The specific authority to take legal action in their own name.

Section 7 of the BPA Code requires that the operator produce the unredacted written authorisation upon request, not merely assure that it exists. POPLA has previously ruled that redacted or incomplete contracts do not meet this requirement.

6. The charge is unfair and disproportionate

MET cite ParkingEye v Beavis; however, that case concerned a prominently-signed, busy retail park where a two-hour free stay was clearly offered. The Supreme Court stressed that charges must protect a legitimate interest and not be unconscionable.

In this case, a £100 demand for a brief 10-minute stop in a free McDonald’s car park serves no legitimate commercial interest. It is plainly punitive and fails the test of fairness under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

James_Poisson

Some of that is a mix up of wrong information e.g. section 2 is wrong.
You needed to evidence with dated photos of signage, or rather lack of it etc.
But no matter POPLA isn't binding on you, ignore the idiots and their silly debt collectors, but come back here for advice when the court claim arrives, you need all your ducks in a row.

Coupon-mad

Await the claim form.

Skywalker95

As per the advice, I have ignored. I have now received this letter: