DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98456--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: November 17, 2025, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
MET's "evidence" to POPLA.
Operator Name
MET Parking Services - EW
Operator Case Summary
In the appeal to POPLA Mr Sam states that this is not relevant
land and PoFA 2012 cannot be applied to hold him liable as the
registered keeper. As we have not been provided with the name
and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the
registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B
of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why
we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA
2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. As stated in paragraph 3
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Relevant
Land is any land that is not a) a highway maintainable at the
public expense, b) a parking place which is provided or
controlled by a traffic authority, or c) any land excepting the
aforementioned on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to
statutory control. Paragraph 3 subsection 3 states that parking
is subject to statutory control if any statutory provision
imposes a liability in respect of the parking of vehicles on
that land. The Gatwick Airport byelaws, which may be viewed
online via the link below, do not impose a penalty for vehicles
parking within McDonalds:
HTML https://www.gatwickairport.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Gatwick-Library/default/dw08f809e7/images/Corporate-PDFs/Regulation/Byelaws<br
/>2015 reprint.pdf In light of this, the site is not excluded by
the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered
Relevant Land. Turning to the charge itself: As the photographic
evidence in section E demonstrates, the driver pressed the
button to exit and therefore incurred the parking charge. The
signage throughout the site clearly advises motorists of the
requirement to use a validated ticket to raise the barrier, and
that pressing the button to exit may lead to a charge being
issued, as is the case in this instance. Should a motorist
approach the barrier and realise it will not accept their ticket
they should return to the restaurant to seek assistance from a
staff member. By pressing the button to raise the barrier the
driver breached the terms and conditions and the charge was duly
issued as a result. Please note that there was only a total of
32 charges issued to vehicles for this contravention for the
whole of 25/09/2025 (see section E). Had there been an issue
with the barrier or validation machines there would have been a
significant number of charges issued, as approximately 1500-2000
vehicles visit the premises each day. Our client also did not
contact us to inform us of any issues on this date. In line with
F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter, we requested evidence of custom
as this is a customer-only car park. Mr Sam did not provide the
requested evidence and as such he was not entitled to the
further discount. PLEASE NOTE: regarding the further reduction
of a charge under Annex F, the Sector Single Code of Practice
specifically states that ‘in all cases the Appeals Charter would
require the motorist to provide the evidence.’. As such, without
the appellant providing supporting evidence then there is no
requirement for an operator to offer the further reduction. To
summarise, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly
stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the
entrance to and around the car park. These include that parking
is for McDonald’s customers only and that motorists must
validate their car park stay in the restaurant with proof of
purchase prior to exiting the car park and use their validated
ticket to raise the exit barrier. Pressing the barrier button to
exit may lead to a charge notice being issued. The photographic
evidence in Section E demonstrates that the driver did not use a
validated ticket to raise the exit barrier and instead exited
the car park by pressing the button on the barrier to raise it.
It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where
they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In
light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued
correctly and the appeal should be refused.
I have 7 days to respond to this.
#Post#: 98458--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 17, 2025, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The text you have shown us makes several references to an
evidence pack - it would help to see this.
#Post#: 98473--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: November 17, 2025, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DWMB2, PM sent.
#Post#: 98494--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: November 17, 2025, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT send PMs with evidence if you want advice! However,
without even seeing their 'evidence' you can just copy and paste
the following into their webform for the response:
--- Quote ---
> Response to the operators evidence:
>
> This “relevant land” argument from MET is not just wrong, it
is hopelessly, embarrassingly wrong, and POPLA needs to see it
for exactly what it is: a bare assertion with no evidence,
flatly contradicting both the statutory wording and the maps I
provided as evidence.
>
> MET’s entire case on keeper liability rests on chanting
“private land” as though that magic phrase somehow overrides the
airport boundary and rewrites Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. It does not. PoFA does not care who owns the
freehold or who holds the lease. PoFA cares where the land is
and whether the parking there is subject to statutory control.
If the land sits within an airport byelaws boundary, that is the
end of the matter: it is not relevant land, and keeper liability
cannot arise.
>
> In this case, two official maps have been provided which
clearly mark McDonald’s Gatwick within the Gatwick Airport
boundary. Those maps are objective evidence. MET, by contrast,
have provided no boundary plan, no cartographic evidence, no
statement from Gatwick Airport Limited, nothing at all that
could sensibly be called proof. They simply point at the byelaws
and say “these do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking
within McDonald’s” and then announce, as if by magic, that the
land must therefore be relevant.
>
> That is not how Schedule 4 works. Paragraph 3 excludes land
“on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory
control”. It does not say “only if there is a clause
specifically naming this exact car park and setting out a
bespoke penalty regime”.
>
> The existence of airport byelaws governing conduct and parking
within the boundary is what brings the land within statutory
control; the maps show McDonald’s within that boundary. MET’s
attempt to read PoFA as requiring a personalised “McDonald’s
clause” in the byelaws is a fiction of their own making.
>
> Worse, MET are not just mistaken, they are asserting keeper
liability where the statute does not allow it. That is precisely
the rogue behaviour addressed by the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice section 8.1.1(d), which states that an operator MUST
NOT “state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable”. That is exactly what
MET are doing here: trying to dress airport land up as relevant
land and hoping no one notices the difference.
>
> I put MET to strict proof that this location lies outside the
Gatwick Airport byelaws boundary. “Proof” in this context means
an authoritative boundary plan or formal documentation from
Gatwick Airport, not yet more wishful thinking and repetition of
“private land”. Unless and until MET can produce such proof, the
only rational conclusion available is that McDonald’s Gatwick is
within the byelaws boundary, the land is under statutory
control, and so it is not relevant land for PoFA purposes. In
that situation, keeper liability is legally impossible. Once
that threshold point is reached, every other issue MET raises
about signs, buttons, validation and alleged driver conduct
becomes irrelevant to this appeal.
>
> Faced with the wording of Schedule 4, the Code of Practice and
the mapping evidence, any conclusion that the land is “relevant”
would require ignoring the statute, disregarding the objective
plans and instead accepting an unsubstantiated narrative from a
mendacious operator with a clear financial interest in
pretending that airport land is something it is not. That would
not be a defensible application of the law or the facts.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 98508--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: November 17, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/bD230HM3/MET_Evidence_pack_redacted.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/bD230HM3
Thanks, b789. Have now attached. Was not able to edit earlier on
my phone.
#Post#: 98521--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: November 17, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It matters not what contravention they are alleging. They can
only pursue the driver. If they don't know the drivers identity,
they cannot pursue the Keeper. End of!
#Post#: 99085--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: November 20, 2025, 8:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, b789.
Responded as you said.
#Post#: 99086--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: November 20, 2025, 8:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, b789.
Have responded as you said.
#Post#: 99108--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 21, 2025, 2:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Only one item is showing in the evidence pack.
In a pervious MET case they showed some kind of form from the
restaurant operator where the operator had ticked a checkbox
saying something along the lines of 'land suitable for PoFA
enforcement' or similar. POPLA just believed it out of
convenience. If that form is present then it may need specific
rebuttal.
#Post#: 99117--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: November 21, 2025, 3:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve seen that contract (I have a copy of it somewhere) but it’s
irrelevant. If they’ve included it in their evidence pack, then
point out that it matters not one iota what their contract says.
It does not change the fact that the land is not relevant
because of its location.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page