DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97220--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 7, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hand delivered to leytonstone McDonald's manager and posted
"signed for" to head office.
Do I go to POPLA now?
#Post#: 97255--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: November 7, 2025, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can dump this on POPLA. You only appeal as the Keeper:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: POPLA Appeal – MET Parking Services – PCN [reference]
– Vehicle [VRM] – McDonald’s Leytonstone – Alleged “occupants
left premises”
>
> I am the registered keeper of [VRM]. I appeal this charge.
Liability is denied. The operator has not established that a
contract was formed or breached, nor that keeper liability
applies. The charge must be cancelled for the reasons below.
>
> 1. No evidence of breach – “occupants left premises” is
unproven
> The operator’s photos show only a stationary vehicle in a
marked bay. There is no evidence that the driver left the
premises. The operator relies on an internal “Driver & Vehicle
Site Presence Survey” that merely records tick-boxes and
assumptions. The survey provides no images of any person
leaving, no witness statement from restaurant staff, and no
contemporaneous log linking any identified driver to a supposed
breach. “Occupants” are not identified; the term is vague and
cannot support a charge.
>
> 2. The survey is not contemporaneous and is contradicted by
its own timestamps
> The operator’s bundle includes a “survey” sheet photographed
at 18:59:46/18:59:59 on 29/09/2025, while the vehicle photograph
is earlier. The survey lists an alleged check at 17:54, after
the photo of the car. The operator has not proved the vehicle
was still on site at 17:54, nor that any driver was absent at
that time. A document photographed at the end of a shift is
self-serving and cannot prove a real-time observation or a
breach.
>
> 3. Undefined “premises” and absence of boundary definition
> The only signs evidenced say variations of “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.” No plan, map, line, boundary, or marker is identified
anywhere. Motorists are not told where “premises” begin or end,
nor warned when crossing an undefined point becomes a £100
event. An uncertain, unmarked boundary cannot form part of a
fair or enforceable contract. Any alleged breach dependent on
undefined geography fails for uncertainty.
>
> 4. Signage fails requirements of clarity, prominence and
transparency
> The “remain on the premises” clause is embedded in dense text,
not brought prominently to the driver’s attention before or at
the point of parking. There is no signage positioned at any
perimeter to warn users they are leaving “the premises”. The
operator has not met the standards of clear communication
required for contractual terms and for consumer fairness and
transparency.
>
> 5. Only the driver could conceivably breach; “occupants”
cannot bind the keeper
> A parking contract, if any, is formed (if at all) by the
driver when parking. Passengers (“occupants”) are not parties to
any contract and cannot breach a parking term. The operator has
not identified the driver. It is improper and illogical to issue
a charge on the basis of what unidentified “occupants” allegedly
did.
>
> 6. No keeper liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Schedule 4 not met
> The Notice to Keeper fails Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
because it does not include the required invitation for the
keeper to pay the charge; instead it demands payment from the
driver. Where PoFA is not met in full, the operator cannot
transfer liability from driver to keeper. As the operator has
not identified the driver, and PoFA is not complied with, I (as
keeper) cannot be held liable.
>
> 7. No evidence of landowner authority for “leaving site”
enforcement
> The operator is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous,
unredacted contract with the true landholder (not merely a
managing agent or franchisee) expressly authorising the issue
and enforcement of charges for alleged “leaving the premises”
incidents at this specific site, and authorising litigation. A
witness statement or generic letter is insufficient.
>
> 8.Disproportionate and unfair term
> Even if a term existed (which is denied), imposing £100 for an
undefined “leaving the premises” allegation in a free customer
car park is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of
loss. It is an unfair term and fails basic fairness and
transparency tests for consumer contracts.
>
> 9. Privacy and safeguarding – toilet “search” practices are
intrusive and unacceptable
> The operator’s paperwork refers to “checking
male/female/disabled toilets” to decide whether a vehicle’s
occupants have “left the premises”. Toilets are among the most
private spaces and frequently used by children and vulnerable
adults. A private parking contractor has no legitimate or
proportionate reason to enter or monitor restrooms in order to
enforce a parking rule. Any such practice is inherently
intrusive, raises obvious safeguarding concerns, and cannot be
relied upon as evidence of a breach. POPLA should give no weight
to any allegation grounded on toilet “checks”. For the avoidance
of doubt, the appropriateness and lawfulness of these practices
have been raised with the relevant authorities. If POPLA were to
endorse such material as probative, that decision will be
referenced in any subsequent regulatory or media reports
concerning these practices.
>
> 10. Burden of proof not discharged
> The operator bears the burden to show a clear, prominently
communicated contract; a clearly defined area; identified
parties; a contemporaneous observation of breach; and full PoFA
compliance if keeper liability is pursued. The evidence bundle
does none of these things. Assumptions and a retrospective
tick-sheet do not prove a breach by the driver, nor any keeper
liability.
>
> Conclusion
> The operator has failed to prove a contractual breach by the
driver, has not complied with PoFA to pursue the keeper, has
offered no credible contemporaneous evidence, and relies on
vague, undefined signage. The reliance on intrusive toilet
“checks” underscores the unreliability and unacceptability of
the operator’s methods. This charge is unsupported and must be
cancelled.
>
> I request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct MET Parking
Services to cancel PCN [reference].
>
> Name: [Keeper’s full name]
> Address: [Keeper’s postal address]
> Date: [date of submission]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97370--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 7, 2025, 8:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/MacDonalds/popla_received.PNG[/img]
#Post#: 98033--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 13, 2025, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jade (McDonald’s Customer Services)
13 Nov 2025, 15:38 GMT
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for contacting the McDonald’s Customer Services Team.
Your reference number is 5470221
We just wanted to let you know our team are currently reviewing
your feedback and we would be grateful if you could provide a
copy of the document you mention in your correspondence so we
can investigate accordingly.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Jade
Customer Services Team
McDonald's UK Customer Services
11 - 59 High Road
East Finchley
London
N2 8AW
Kind regards
McDonald’s Customer Services Team
#Post#: 98205--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 14, 2025, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph (McDonald’s Customer Services)
14 Nov 2025, 14:41 GMT
Dear *****,
Thank you for contacting the McDonald’s Customer Services Team.
We do apologise however we're unfortunately limited within
Customer Services and are unable to overturn parking charge
notices.
We would advise reaching out to the store to ask if they're
happy to help you they may be able to contact the issuing party
that have issued the parking charge notice to request for this
to be cancelled however we must advise this is the stores
discretion if they chose to assist.
Please find the stores contact details below for you:
020 8530 7796
00268@uk.mcd.com
Kind regards,
Joseph
Customer Services Team
McDonald's UK Customer Services
11 - 59 High Road
East Finchley
London
N2 8AW
Kind regards
McDonald’s Customer Services Team
#Post#: 98260--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: November 15, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jade’s message is the important one. She is asking for the
document because the issue you raised is serious. This is not a
parking ticket query to them; it is a privacy and safeguarding
complaint. You should reply to Jade only and attach the redacted
survey.
Joseph’s message is the standard script they send when they
think someone is just trying to get a PCN cancelled. His reply
has nothing to do with your complaint and can be ignored.
Respond to Jade as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Complaint – MET Parking Services Toilet Checks –
Ref 5470221
>
> Dear Jade,
>
> Thank you for your response. I have attached the redacted copy
of the document from MET Parking Services. This document shows
that both MET staff and McDonald’s staff carried out checks of
the male, female and disabled toilets to decide whether the
“occupants” of a vehicle had remained on the premises.
>
> To be clear, my complaint is not about cancelling a parking
charge. It is about the intrusive, unsafe and likely unlawful
practice of allowing staff or contractors to check customer
toilets for the purpose of enforcing a private parking rule.
Toilets are private areas used by children and vulnerable
people. There is no way to justify this practice. I am
particularly concerned that a vulnerable child could be an
“occupant” of a vehicle and that an unknown, unvetted contractor
may be entering toilets to look for them. No parent would ever
accept this.
>
> Please escalate this immediately to your internal
safeguarding, legal and compliance teams. I would like
confirmation that McDonald’s does not authorise this behaviour
and that action is being taken to stop it.
>
> I look forward to your response.
>
> Yous sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
What about referring this to the media? Any results yet?
#Post#: 98407--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 16, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t had any results yet. I tried submitting the story to a
major newspaper, but their process was complicated. I couldn’t
get it through. Next, I’ll try a local paper. I’ll update the
thread if anything comes of it.
#Post#: 98705--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 18, 2025, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jade (McDonald’s Customer Services)
18 Nov 2025, 15:55 GMT
Dear Zeki,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I apologise for
any misunderstanding regarding previous correspondence.
I shall look into this matter further for you, and provide you
with an update as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Jade
Customer Services Team
McDonald's UK Customer Services
11 - 59 High Road
East Finchley
London
N2 8AW
Kind regards
McDonald’s Customer Services Team
#Post#: 98731--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: b789
Date: November 19, 2025, 12:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh good. An actual response to the main point. I detect a
“twitch” from McD’s.
Make sure you follow up on this. If no response within 10 days,
let me know.
#Post#: 98875--------------------------------------------------
Re: MacDonald's Leytonstone PCN for leaving premises
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 19, 2025, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The operator has contacted us and told us that they have
withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason
your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot
pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s
involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to
request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your
appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has
reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As
the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has
now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page