DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94405--------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 16, 2025, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the RK of the vehicle and have received this PCN for
failure to validate the parking ticket.
The driver did not see any information about how to validate the
ticket, nor did the staff in the restaurant mention it.
Any information on the best way to proceed would be gratefully
received
#Post#: 94406--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 16, 2025, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/ThHTqL2M/Screenshot-20251014-202155-Gallery.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/ThHTqL2M
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/fkgMjtW4/Screenshot-20251014-202238-Gallery.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/fkgMjtW4
#Post#: 94422--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: October 16, 2025, 5:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You appeal to MET with the following and then come back when
they reject that so you can finally get it quashed at POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered
keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is
under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will
be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because
Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land'.
>
> If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable
under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift
and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not
pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the
Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never
attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET’s own profit (as
opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and
MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
You DO NOT identify the driver. They have no idea who the driver
is unless you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise. You
only ever refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did
this or that",only "the driver did this or that".
#Post#: 95976--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 28, 2025, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
Sorry for not replying earlier. I thought I had posted, but
obviously not.
Appeal sent as above. Awaiting response. Will post back when it
arrives.
#Post#: 96088--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 29, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just had response from MET
HTML https://postimg.cc/jWKJJ2Tx
HTML https://postimg.cc/jWKJJ2Tx
HTML https://postimg.cc/jWKJJ2Tx
#Post#: 96093--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: October 29, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Parking Charge Notice [ref] – Misrepresentation of
Keeper Liability / Breach of KADOE Contract
>
> Dear MET Parking Services,
>
> Thank you for your letter dated 29/10/2025. Your request for a
McDonald’s receipt is irrelevant, as before any alleged
contravention can be pursued, you must first establish that the
registered keeper was the driver. You cannot.
>
> Your continued assertion that the registered keeper may be
pursued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is
entirely without legal basis. The site in question, McDonald’s
Gatwick, is located within the statutory boundary of Gatwick
Airport and is subject to the Gatwick Airport Byelaws. Land
subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” for the
purposes of PoFA Schedule 4. Consequently, you cannot transfer
liability from the driver to the keeper, and your suggestion
that you can do so is false and misleading.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) at section 8.1.1(d)
expressly prohibits an operator from stating or implying that
the keeper is liable under PoFA where such liability cannot
apply. Your letter of 29/10/2025 and the NtK itself, constitute
a clear breach of that requirement and of your DVLA KADOE
contract, which mandates full compliance with the Code.
>
> Accordingly, you are now formally notified that this breach
will be reported to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Investigations Team
for misuse of my keeper data. A full copy of your NtK and letter
will be provided as evidence.
>
> You are required to either:
> [indent]• Cancel this charge immediately; or
> • Issue a POPLA verification code without delay.[/indent]
>
> Any further attempt to pursue the keeper on the basis of PoFA
liability will be retained as further evidence of non-compliance
and will be submitted to both the DVLA and the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96094--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 29, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much, b789. Will do.
Edit: reply sent by email, cc'd to me.
#Post#: 96239--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 30, 2025, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Got a quick refusal with POPLA code.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/FdZcf8Gz/appeal-reply-33183982edited.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/FdZcf8Gz
#Post#: 96251--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A single point appeal to POPLA is all that this requires.
Irrespective of whatever alleged contravention took place, they
can only pursue the driver. If the driver has not been
identified, they cannot chase the Keeper.
Whilst they may squeal on about the fact that the location is
"private land" that does not negate the fact that the location
is covered by airport byes and is therefore not relevant and for
the purposes of PoFA. You can attach either or both of the maps
below that shows the location of McDonalds and the airport
byelaws boundary.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/PGKqg3Xn/LGW-gatwick-boundary.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Z1Lxytm7/McD-LGW.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Ground: Keeper liability cannot arise because the site is not
“relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA). Therefore, irrespective of any alleged
contravention by the driver, the appeal must be allowed.
>
> The operator is pursuing the Registered Keeper and the driver
has not been identified. PoFA can only transfer liability from a
driver to a keeper where the land is “relevant land”. Land
subject to statutory control (including airport byelaws) is
excluded from PoFA’s definition of relevant land. McDonald’s
Gatwick lies within the Gatwick Airport byelaws boundary, so the
site is not relevant land and keeper liability cannot arise. A
boundary map is provided showing the location within the airport
perimeter.
>
> MET’s claim that because the land is “private” it must be
“relevant” is legally illiterate. Ownership or title
(private/public) is immaterial. Relevance under PoFA is
determined by location and status: if the land sits within an
airport byelaws boundary, it is under statutory control and
cannot as a matter of law be “relevant land”, however much the
operator wishes it were.
>
> By asserting keeper liability on such land, MET has made a
prohibited and misleading statement contrary to the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice section 8.1.1(d), which states:
“The parking operator must not serve a notice or include
material on its website which in its design and/or language: d)
state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 where they cannot be held liable.”
>
> Strict proof: MET is put to strict proof that the location
does not lie within the Gatwick Airport byelaws boundary. Mere
assertion is insufficient. The operator must produce
contemporaneous, authoritative evidence (for example, an
official boundary plan from Gatwick Airport Limited or other
primary source) demonstrating that the site is outside the
byelaws area and not subject to statutory control. In the
absence of such proof, POPLA must find that PoFA does not apply
and that keeper liability cannot arise.
>
> Conclusion: Because the site is within the airport byelaws
boundary and therefore not relevant land, POPLA must first
conclude that the keeper cannot be liable. Once that is
established, all questions about signage, validation procedures,
or alleged driver conduct are irrelevant. The appeal must be
allowed and the charge cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96302--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: October 31, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal submitted.
Thanks, b789.
Now we await POPLA.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page