McDonald’s “parking charge” from metparking (McDonalds notice to keeper NTK met parking services)

EatHealthyAvoidPCNs

This is my draft, I believe it is all applicable and current advice - could someone please confirm? Thank you. 

ADDRESS

EMAIL

CAR LICENSE PLATE

DATE

Dear POPLA,

On the DATE, Met Parking Services Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle was “observed parked in an apparent breach”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - Met Parking Services Ltd.’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on DATE, but they did not issue the PCN until DATE, over a month later.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

Please see below for details

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived on Friday 16th January 2026, 34 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from Met Parking Ltd. with the ‘event date’ of DATE and the issue date of DATE (ie, 30 days later). 

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have Met Parking Services Ltd. provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with Met Parking Services Ltd. with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

Coupon-mad

"CAR LICENSE PLATE"

We are not in the USA!

Your appeal will succeed though.

EatHealthyAvoidPCNs

Thanks @Coupon-mad . Copy and paste from the post! I’ll get that submitted today.

EatHealthyAvoidPCNs

Submitted and I used this for the summary

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as such Met Parking Services Ltd. have no lawful right to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle. The NTK arrived in excess of 14 days from the day after the alleged “apparent breach”, which is in excess of the relevant period for sending an NTK when no notice to driver has been given. Met Parking Services Ltd. have also failed to comply with POFA to establish keeper liability. This is explained further with excerpts from schedule 4 of POFA (2012) in the attached letter.

EatHealthyAvoidPCNs

11 days after submitting, the appeal has been withdrawn. I was expecting it to drag out and have to respond to their evidence. When can I be sure it’s cancelled? I haven’t received a letter from Met Parking Ltd. yet and when I log in to their website it still shows as live with an option to pay (of course!).

I really don’t like the language they permit themselves to use, “appeal withdrawn” sounds like it’s failed for you. The way they confuse and muddy communications is dodgy.

For anyone looking to follow what I’ve done: I spent a lot of hours reading the threads here, ex aren’t that many recent ones which is why I made a thread. I didn’t just copy and paste, I checked each word of the letter and compared it to the POFA 2012 just to be sure.

Thank you for your help and maintaining the board!

Message from POPLA:

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Le_Kirk

That means you have won; agreed it is cack-handed; how can the operator withdraw your appeal. Senseless but that is POPLA for you!

kryten3000

Stupid wording designed to confuse. The old wording was much better:

"the operator has declined to contest your appeal"

or in other words "the operator hoped you would pay the discount/full charge after they rejected the first appeal but now they realise they can't win so they withdrew from the process."