DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95290--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: October 23, 2025, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is like pulling teeth! No one needs to know who the driver
was.
OP, are YOU the person named on the NtK? In other words, are YOU
the Registered Keeper of the vehicle?
Because you say that you are an individual but the NtK is
addressed to "The Company Secretary", does it also name the
company? If so, and that company has nothing to do with you,
what is the name of the company?
Is the vehicle leased or was it purchased?
#Post#: 95325--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: October 23, 2025, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the person named on the NtK and the Registered Keeper of
the vehicle. The notice is addressed to ‘The Company Secretary’
followed by my name and address, but no company name is
included. The vehicle is a Motability car.
#Post#: 95350--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: October 23, 2025, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, just to clarify, when you say you "lease" the vehicle, that
is through Motability. As far as I am aware, a vehicle leased
through Motability is registered in your name and address but
Motability keep hold of the actual V5C. So, for all intents and
purposes, you are the Keeper.
In which case you appeal with the following, ONLY as the Keeper.
Do not identify the driver.
--- Quote ---
> To: MET Parking Services Ltd
>
> Subject: Appeal against Parking Charge Notice [insert
reference number]
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and dispute
your allegation. The charge must be cancelled for the following
reasons.
>
> 1. No evidence of breach or liable party
> Your allegation that “the occupants left McDonald’s premises”
is unsupported by evidence. The photographs merely show the
vehicle parked within the car park; they do not identify who
left, when, or where. The term “occupants” is undefined, and you
have not shown which individual is alleged to have breached any
term. The registered keeper cannot be held liable for the
movements of unnamed individuals.
>
> 2. Unclear and undefined boundaries
> Your allegation depends on the notion of “leaving the
premises,” but no physical or contractual boundary is defined
anywhere on site. A driver or passenger cannot know when they
are supposedly leaving the premises unless clear lines,
markings, or signage warn them that they are crossing into a
restricted area. You are put to strict proof of:
> [indent]• the exact boundaries of what you consider
“McDonald’s premises”;
> • how these are demarcated; and
> • what signage warns users they are about to breach a boundary
that triggers a charge.[/indent]
>
> Without that clarity, no term exists that a motorist could
knowingly accept and then breach. Contractual certainty is
essential for enforceability.
>
> 3. Signage fails to communicate a clear contractual term
> The signs at the site (as in your own evidence) merely state
“For use by customers while on site only” and “Drivers and
passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle remains
in the car park”. There is no definition of “site” or
“premises”, and no notice explaining what area constitutes
McDonald’s property or at what point a person is deemed to have
left it. This wording is vague, ambiguous, and incapable of
forming a contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
>
> 4. No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012
> Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
because it does not include the required invitation for the
keeper to pay the charge. You have therefore forfeited the right
to pursue the keeper.
>
> 5. Lack of landowner authority
> You are put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, written
agreement with the landowner that explicitly authorises MET
Parking Services Ltd to issue and enforce parking charges for
“leaving site” incidents at this location.
>
> For all the reasons above, your charge is unsustainable and
must be cancelled. If you reject this appeal, please supply the
POPLA verification code so the matter may be escalated for
independent review.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name of Keeper]
> [Postal Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95351--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 23, 2025, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> As far as I am aware, a vehicle leased through Motability is
registered in your name and address but Motability keep hold of
the actual V5C. So, for all intents and purposes, you are the
Keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's also my understanding. One of the very few lease
arrangements where the hirer of the vehicle is the registered
keeper.
#Post#: 95355--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: October 23, 2025, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your appeal regarding parking charge number
**********
A response will be sent to you within 28 days from the date that
the appeal was received.
We will however endeavour to respond to your appeal within 14
days but this may not always be possible.
If you have not received a response to your appeal after 28 days
then please e-mail us to check the status of your appeal at
customer.services@metparking.com
Any correspondence and decisions from the Appeals Department
will be in writing and may be emailed or posted using the
contact details you have provided. If you have provided a valid
e-mail address with your appeal, the appeal response will
normally be sent to the e-mail address provided. Please ensure
that you check your junk mail in case the appeal response is
diverted there. We recommend that you add our email address
customer.services@metparking.com to your safe senders list to
ensure delivery.
Please note, if you have submitted your appeal during the
discount period, the value of the charge will be placed on hold
while your appeal is considered. If your appeal is refused you
will have the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate for
a further 14 days following the appeal decision being given.
#Post#: 96839--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 4, 2025, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/MacDonalds/appeal-reply/1.png
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/MacDonalds/appeal-reply/2.png
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/MacDonalds/appeal-reply/3.png
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/MacDonalds/appeal-reply/4.png
#Post#: 96844--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 4, 2025, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Aside from it being nonsense, the "site survey" lists a time of
17:54, that's 6 minutes after they photographed the vehicle.
There's no evidence provided that the vehicle was still present
at the time the apparent check was done.
For all we know, the reason the driver wasn't present when the
check was done could be because they'd already left.
#Post#: 96847--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: November 4, 2025, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The timestamps (18:59:46–18:59:59) prove that the “survey” was
finalised and photographed at the end of the shift, not at the
time of the alleged contravention. The listed 17:54 “check” is
uncorroborated and likely inserted after the fact.
The McDonald’s staff signature is redacted, no contemporaneous
observation, and no proof that the driver was not inside the
restaurant.
Therefore, MET’s “survey” is manufactured administrative
paperwork, not evidence.
It fails to establish that a breach occurred, who committed it,
or that the vehicle was even present at the alleged check time.
I would also question why this is most likely illegal and
certainly unacceptable:
[indent]1. Privacy law: Toilets are the most private places in
any venue. Checking who is inside amounts to monitoring. Under
UK GDPR, any monitoring must be necessary and proportionate.
Enforcing a private parking rule in a free car park is not a
good enough reason. It fails the necessity and proportionality
tests.
2. Fairness and notice: No normal customer expects that a
company might look for them in the toilets to enforce a parking
term. There is no fair warning or transparent notice that such
checks could happen.
3. Safeguarding: Toilets are used by children and vulnerable
adults. “Checking” who is inside risks harassment and raises
obvious safeguarding red flags.
4. Responsibility: If McDonald’s staff assist, McDonald’s can be
responsible for what their agent does. A reputable brand should
not endorse toilet checks to chase £100 invoices.[/indent]
Why the rule itself is nonsense in contract terms:
[indent]1. Only the driver contracts. Passengers (called
“occupants”) never agreed to any parking terms, so they cannot
breach them.
2. The keeper can only be pursued for the driver’s actions if
the operator’s paperwork is fully compliant. You cannot fine the
keeper because a passenger walked somewhere.
3. Proof is missing. A photo of a parked car and a tick-box
“survey” does not prove the driver left the site, nor that the
car was still there when the “check” happened.
4. No clear boundary. Signs saying “remain on the premises” do
not define where the premises start or end, or warn where
crossing a line becomes a £100 event. If you cannot tell where
the rule bites, it is not a fair or enforceable term.[/indent]
Safeguarding example that shows how intrusive this is:
Imagine a vulnerable child is an occupant of the vehicle. The
parent allows the child to use the toilet. A stranger employed
by the parking company decides to “check” the toilets to see if
the driver is on the premises. The parent has no idea who this
person is, what training they have, or whether they are safe to
be around children. For all the parent knows, the person could
be someone with a concerning background. The idea that an
unknown adult is searching the toilets at McDonald’s for
“occupants” so they can issue a £100 invoice is exactly the sort
of behaviour privacy and safeguarding rules are meant to
prevent. Ordinary people would find this shocking.
I would send the following formal complaint to McDonalds and I
would definitely contact the media to expose this clear breach
of privacy:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Intrusive and Unlawful Conduct by
MET Parking Services Acting as McDonald’s Agent
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am making a formal complaint regarding an extremely
disturbing practice carried out by your appointed parking
contractor, MET Parking Services Ltd (“MET”), at your
Leytonstone branch.
>
> I am in possession of a copy of MET’s so-called “Driver &
Vehicle Site Presence Survey”, produced as evidence in response
to a parking appeal. The document openly records that MET’s
operative and McDonald’s staff “checked male/female/disabled
toilets” in order to determine whether a vehicle’s occupants had
“left the premises”.
>
> This raises grave concerns about (a) the lawfulness of these
actions, (b) breaches of privacy and decency, and (c) McDonald’s
complicity in authorising such practices.
>
> 1. Unlawful and intrusive conduct
> No private parking contractor has any lawful authority or
legitimate purpose to enter or monitor customer toilets to
verify the presence of a vehicle’s occupants. Toilets are among
the most private areas of any premises and are subject to
heightened privacy expectations and safeguarding considerations.
Entering or checking toilets to look for members of the public
constitutes a serious intrusion into private life, contrary to
Article 8 ECHR and the principles of the UK GDPR.
>
> 2. Vicarious liability and agency
> McDonald’s, as the principal, is fully responsible for the
conduct of its agent MET Parking Services when acting on its
behalf. If McDonald’s staff have assisted MET operatives in
performing these intrusive “checks”, that involvement amounts to
corporate endorsement of potentially unlawful behaviour.
>
> 3. Breach of decency and safeguarding duties
> Any practice involving the inspection of restrooms, especially
those accessible to children and vulnerable adults, poses a
serious safeguarding risk. Consider, for example, that the
“occupant” of a vehicle might be a child. The idea that an
unknown adult — possibly an unvetted contractor — could be
entering or inspecting toilets to determine whether a child or
their parent is “still on the premises” is appalling. No parent
would consent to a stranger checking toilets while their child
was inside. Such conduct risks violating basic safeguarding
principles and public trust.
>
> 4. Illogical and misleading enforcement
> Furthermore, the parking company’s policy of penalising
“occupants leaving the premises” is fundamentally flawed. Only a
driver can enter into a parking contract, and “occupants”
(passengers) have no contractual obligations. Attempting to
enforce penalties against a keeper or driver on the basis of a
passenger’s movements is both irrational and legally unsound.
>
> 5. Intention to refer to regulatory and media bodies
> I am now considering referring this matter to the Information
Commissioner’s Office, the Health and Safety Executive, and the
relevant local authority safeguarding board. I also reserve the
right to highlight this publicly through the press and social
media, as the public has a right to know if McDonald’s condones
or enables such intrusive monitoring of its customers.
>
> Required action
> I require written confirmation within 14 days of:
> [indent]1. What McDonald’s policy is on restroom monitoring or
involvement in MET Parking’s so-called “presence checks”;
> 2. Whether McDonald’s authorises, trains, or permits its staff
to assist MET operatives in checking toilets or any other
private area; and
> 3. What action will now be taken to ensure this practice
ceases immediately across all franchised and company-owned
sites.[/indent]
>
> If I do not receive a substantive response, I will escalate
this complaint formally to your Data Protection Officer and the
ICO.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full Name]
> [Address / contact details]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96859--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 4, 2025, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Imagine a vulnerable child is an occupant of the vehicle. The
parent allows the child to use the toilet. A stranger employed
by the parking company decides to “check” the toilets to see if
the driver is on the premises. The parent has no idea who this
person is, what training they have, or whether they are safe to
be around children. For all the parent knows, the person could
be someone with a concerning background. The idea that an
unknown adult is searching the toilets at McDonald’s for
“occupants” so they can issue a £100 invoice is exactly the sort
of behaviour privacy and safeguarding rules are meant to
prevent. Ordinary people would find this shocking.
--- End Quote ---
Absolutely!
--- Quote ---
> I would send the following formal complaint to McDonalds and I
would definitely contact the media to expose this clear breach
of privacy:
--- End Quote ---
I am going to hand deliver to the Macdonald's manager and notify
local media 👍
#Post#: 96871--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: November 4, 2025, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The formal complaint would also have to go to McDonald's head
office here in the UK.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page