Parking ticket from MET parking services Canning Town McDonald's for leaving the premises

shafz

Hi everyone, 

I received a notice to keeper today in the post. Stating that I parked the car at McDonald's and left the premises. 

Date of contraventions: 27th November 

Date of issue: 29th December. 

I have logged in online and seen they have pictures of me coming out of the car and walking out the car. I did however also go into mcdonalds briefly before I left the carpark but they conveniently don't show these pictures. 

I have so far not responded to MET parking, and in need of advice on what to do? 

Should I appeal on grounds that the notice to keeper arrived well over the 14 day period as per POFA? 

Or because they have images of me leaving the car park, should I just pay. 

Many thanks 

Coupon-mad

Should I appeal on grounds that the notice to keeper arrived well over the 14 day period as per POFA?

YES but obviously not admitting to driving! No 'me/myself or I' in this appeal from the keeper

Or because they have images of me leaving the car park, should I just pay.

You're joking with that bit, right?!   

shafz

Update... So I've submitted my appeal today with the following 

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice.

1. Late service – no keeper liability

The alleged contravention occurred on 27 November 2025. The Notice to Keeper is dated 29 December 2025 and was received well outside the 14-day period prescribed by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

As a result of this failure, you are unable to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

2. Failure to specify the period of parking

The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking, as required by POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a). A single timestamp or ANPR image does not constitute a parking period. This is a further failure to comply with POFA.

3. Missing mandatory POFA wording

The notice does not contain the mandatory statutory warning required by POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), which must clearly state that the keeper will become liable after 28 days if the charge remains unpaid and the driver is not named. Your wording is non-compliant and does not establish keeper liability.

4. Unclear and unsupported allegation

The allegation that the occupants “left the premises” is vague and unsupported by evidence. No details are provided as to who allegedly left, for how long, what constitutes as the premises or how this was established. Such an allegation is subjective and unenforceable.

5. Signage and contractual clarity

Any term prohibiting customers from leaving the site would be an onerous term requiring exceptionally clear and prominent signage. You have provided no evidence that such signage was present, prominent, or capable of forming a contract with the driver.

---

For all of the above reasons, there is no keeper liability, and I require that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled immediately.

Should you reject this appeal, please provide a full explanation addressing each of the above points and issue a POPLA verification code so that I may refer the matter to independent adjudication.

No the wait game for their inevitable rejection begins..

shafz

Since my appeal MET have now emailed me asking to specify who the driver was. Should I not respond? 

kryten3000

They are fishing for the driver's identity, of course you ignore this and wait for their full response which will likely be to reject the appeal. Then you can win at POPLA stage when they withdraw because they have no case.

doubledotcom

MET’s request for the driver’s identity is a clear attempt to remedy their inability to rely on keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Even if MET were to attempt to invoke PoFA wording elsewhere on the notice, they cannot do so lawfully.

The Notice to Keeper was issued well outside the statutory 14-day period required by Schedule 4, paragraph 9(4). That failure alone permanently prevents the transfer of liability from the driver to the keeper.

In addition, the notice does not specify any period of parking, as required by Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a). A single timestamp or ANPR image does not constitute a parking period. This is a further and independent bar to keeper liability.

Photographs of an unidentified person entering or exiting a vehicle do not establish driver identity. The burden of proof rests entirely with MET. There is no obligation on the keeper to assist them in curing these defects or to blab the driver’s identity, inadvertently or otherwise.

The correct course is to ignore the fishing email as stated above, await the formal appeal decision, and then proceed to POPLA, where MET’s inability to rely on PoFA should be determinative.