URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 93756--------------------------------------------------
       Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: maxi54
       Date: October 11, 2025, 5:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I was a genuine customer at McDonald’s Leytonstone but still
       received a PCN for “leaving the site” despite proof of purchase
       and family dining inside. POPLA rejected my appeal and
       McDonald’s refused to intervene.
       I’m now considering raising this publicly with the press, as it
       seems many others have had similar experiences. If anyone has
       advice on final steps or is willing to share their story (even
       anonymously), please reply or DM me.
       #Post#: 93787--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: Dave65
       Date: October 12, 2025, 4:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Can you post up a copy of the PPN and details of your appeals to
       both.
       #Post#: 93794--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: mickR
       Date: October 12, 2025, 5:15 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=7089]maxi54[/member]
       READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**,
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
       #Post#: 93803--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: jfollows
       Date: October 12, 2025, 7:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       “Leaving the site” is pretty much unenforceable nonsense and is
       just another tactic to scare people into paying. Plenty of cases
       on this forum. Let’s see the PCN as requested but in general
       it’s nonsense and won’t pass muster in court, as long as you’re
       prepared to go down that route initially.
       #Post#: 93929--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: maxi54
       Date: October 13, 2025, 2:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks [member=1555]Dave65[/member]. As requested I’ve attached
       the PCN, plus the MET rejection and the POPLA decision (all
       redacted).
       Site: McDonald’s Leytonstone (site 134) — allegation: “drivers
       and passengers must remain on the premises” (not ANPR overstay).
       Event: 18/07/2025 at 16:21 (per PCN).
       Keeper: I am the Registered Keeper.
       Appeals: MET rejected (15/08/2025). POPLA refused (09/10/2025).
       Context: The operator alleges the driver left the premises.
       Passengers were on-site throughout.
       Key points: the term is non-prominent and ambiguous (no driver
       vs passenger distinction); no site boundary is shown to
       customers; and the operator’s survey (with restaurant staff,
       including male/female toilet checks) doesn’t prove the driver
       crossed any defined boundary. Forbidding wording = no contract;
       CRA transparency/fairness issues; Beavis distinguished.
       I can add the toilet-survey sheet and signage/site-plan pages if
       helpful.
       MET PCN:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q_tDv0rogNnOhv0s3gSxYCnXwhwRhtQW/view?usp=sharing
       Appeal to MET:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/10i7M78dm7eWpRKSdDlYuOlVbzRe2J8bf/view?usp=sharing
       MET appeal outcome:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oWGFG-l6PTo6GEMQtAQ_QgSkZw5s-vfC/view?usp=sharing
       Popla appeal outcome - page 1:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVY2BfG9PQmhlyiAX5TpqvmNbY0QKfyo/view?usp=sharing
       Popla appeal outcome - page 2:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ITWEnAmnyVz8rrGejUAZeA3wjnf5vy3P/view?usp=sharing
       McDonald's Signage:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdJ36j-zTQZN2MumRU73TvEElTp0H1dN/view?usp=sharing
       #Post#: 93931--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: jfollows
       Date: October 13, 2025, 2:34 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The PCN fails to comply with PoFA 2012 to transfer liability
       from the driver to the keeper, but the appeal identifies the
       driver. Oh well.
       #Post#: 93952--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' -
       seeking advice
   DIR By: b789
       Date: October 13, 2025, 5:17 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Oh dear! FUBAR! All the Keeper had to do was put the operator to
       strict proof that any breach of the terms occurred and then
       refer them to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971)
  HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)&ved=2ahUKEwjx6qyNmaKQAxUsHjQIHcj_I8cQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1DqWM-lONiONI43WaefGwz.<br
       />Sadly, that appeal gave them their decision on a plate with a
       cherry on top.
       What evidence do you think they have that the driver left the
       premises? Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant so
       they cannot hold the Keeper liable if the driver is unknown.
       Never mind, you are where you are and all that means is that you
       will now have to go through the lengthy process of ignoring all
       their useless debt recovery letters and wait for them to issue a
       county court claim, where this will easily be defeated when they
       discontinue just before they have to ay the trial fee.
       The POPLA decision is not binding on the Keeper and you should
       not pay it. You a safely ignore all debt recovery letters as
       debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and
       intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into
       paying out of ignorance and fear.
       Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will
       advise on how to respond. If you follow the advice given here,
       you will not be paying a penny to MET.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1