DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105550--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: SatnavSam
Date: January 12, 2026, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your help and support.
Decision Successful
Assessor Name Amy Cafferty
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for
failing to validate your stay in the car park.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal • they say keeper liability can’t arise due to the
site not being relevant land under Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012; • the operator is pursuing the
registered keeper of the vehicle as the driver hasn’t been
identified but the operator can only transfer liability to the
keeper where the land is relevant; • the land subject to
statutory control including airport byelaws is excluded from the
definition of relevant land set out in PoFA 2012; • they say the
site in question is within Gatwick Airport Byelaws boundaries,
so the site isn’t relevant land and the keeper can’t be held
liable; • they say by asserting keeper liability on such land
the operator has made a prohibited and misleading statement
contrary to the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (The
Code) section 8.1.1(d); • the appellant has provided information
regarding what section 8.1.1(d) of The Code states; • they put
the operator to strict proof that the location doesn’t lie
within the Gatwick Airport Byelaws boundary and that the keeper
can be held liable; • they say without such proof, POPLA must
find that PoFA 2012 doesn’t apply and that the keeper can’t be
held liable; and • once POPLA has concluded that the keeper
can’t be held liable, the appeal must be allowed and the PCN
cancelled. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the
appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has
also provided 2 images showing the airport boundaries and where
the site in question is located within the airport boundaries.
The above evidence will be considered in making my
determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It
is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA
that it has issued a PCN correctly. The appellant has argued as
part of their appeal that keeper liability can’t arise due to
the site not being relevant land under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
and how the operator is pursuing the keeper as the driver hasn’t
been identified. They say the site in question is within Gatwick
Airport Byelaws boundaries, so the site isn’t relevant land and
the keeper can’t be held liable. The appellant has provided 2
images showing the airport boundaries and where the site in
question is located within the airport boundaries. The driver
hasn’t been identified, and the operator must meet the
requirements set out in PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the
keeper, but PoFA 2012 can only be used on relevant land. The PCN
has been issued on land under statutory control as airport land
is not considered relevant land unless the parking operator can
demonstrate otherwise. Section 3 (1) (c) of POFA 2012 discusses
the relevant land definition below: “3(1)In this Schedule
“relevant land” means any land (including land above or below
ground level) other than— (a) a highway maintainable at the
public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the
Highways Act 1980); (b) a parking place which is provided or
controlled by a traffic authority; (c) any land (not falling
within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle
is subject to statutory control.” In this case, I would have
expected the operator to not only rebut the grounds of appeal
submitted by the appellant but to also rebut the evidence
provided. On page four of the operators evidence pack, they say
they ‘are confident that there are no applicable airport byelaws
relating to parking in effect at this location’, and they
explain why. The operators argument appears to state that
byelaws do not apply in areas where Road Traffic Enactments
apply. They have not been clear on boundaries relating to where
Road Traffic Enactments do and do not apply. But in any case, in
places where Road Traffic Enactments apply, the land is under
the statutory control of the Road Traffic Enactments. I note the
operator claims that the only relevant part of the byelaws is
the part labelled parking – and that this is in relation to
cargo and baggage. However, other areas seek to restrict more
general parking activities. For example, the byelaws include:
“5(3) Obstruction – Except in an emergency, no person shall
leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in
excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of
waiting is restricted by a Sign.” I am not satisfied that the
operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal or their
evidence provided. The operator has provided no evidence to
suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the
appellant is incorrect. That is not to say the site is certainly
located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from
the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But
I have made my decision based on the evidence before me.
Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. The appellant has raised
other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal,
it is not necessary for me to address these.
#Post#: 105621--------------------------------------------------
Re: McDonald's Gatwick, MET PCN, Failure to validate ticket
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 13, 2026, 1:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good skills by the Assessor in ducking the issue of MET Parking
issuing PCNs which are in clear breach of the Code of Conduct!
8) 8) 8) 8)
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page