Gatwick McDonald's PCN

MoneySavingNonExpert_2

Hello, I've read the threads and so apologise if I've missed something but couldn't find anything specific to my situation.

I received a PCN from MET as my vehicle was parked in a disabled space for no more than 5 minutes at the Gatwick McDonalds whilst the driver was awaiting a call from their passengers to say they were ready to be collected from Arrivals.

I don't condone parking in disabled spaces, however I wondered if there is a way around paying the PCN using the wording others have used when it comes to overstaying that I've seen on this forum? Thank you for the help

Coupon-mad

You've missed the fact it's non-POFA.  Easily seen off.

LDast

the driver is always liable. The driver is unknown. MET have sent the NtK to the keeper who is known. Because of the location, PoFA does not apply and so MET cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

As long as the known keeper doesn't blab, inadvertently or otherwise, the identity of the unknown driver, then MET going to spit feathers but that's about all.

Send the following to MET (verbatim):

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 McDonalds Gatwick Airport is not on 'relevant land'.

If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, 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 doesn't even have a contract with the airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for METs own profit (as opposed to a byelaws 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.

MoneySavingNonExpert_2

Amazing, you are all fantastic people - thank you so much!

MoneySavingNonExpert_2

As expected I've received a response rejecting my appeal, should I now contact POPLA using the wording of take 3 here? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6524058/mcdonalds-gatwick-met-parking-charge-am-i-doing-this-right-please-guys-and-girls/p3

Thanks again for the help

LDast

You now realise you are dealing with intellectually malnourished individuals at MET. Put together your POPLA appeal with primary point about no keeper liability and follow on with a point about how the burden of proof in on MET to prove that the keeper was also the driver. No assumptions or inference can be made.

Show us what you have before you send it to POPLA.

Personally (because I'm combative when it comes to dealing with ex-clamper thugs) I'd respond to that letter in  a very condescending tone along the following lines:

Dear Appeals Dept.,

I note that in your appeal rejection, you have failed to answer my main appeal point in that, as the keeper of the vehicle, I am not and cannot be liable for your PCN. I explained it in fairly simple language in order to be sure that your level of education is sufficient to understand these things.

Obviously, it was not simple enough. Here it is again, in a format that I hope will at least register a glimmer of understanding on your part.

I am the keeper of the vehicle. I am not going to tell you who was driving because I don't have to. You cannot hold me, the keeper liable because the location of the car park is under statutory control. That means that airport bylaws apply. If airport bylaws apply, you can only hold the driver liable. There is nothing else you can do about it if I choose not to tell you who was driving.

I don't think I can make it any clearer to you unless you require a pictogram. Do you?

As I have no intention of paying into your scam and you have no way of holding me, the keeper, liable for your speculative invoice, I will now take my appeal to POPLA where you will either stupidly pay for a decision or simply withdraw your PCN before you waste any more of your money on this.

Cancel now or prove to me and the POPLA assessor that we are dealing with a Neanderthal level of comprehension.

Love and kisses,

Registered Keeper

MoneySavingNonExpert_2

Excellent response, I will very likely do just that!

In terms of what to send to POPLA, I was thinking of sending this - I'm afraid almost word for word the same as the person in the other thread but given it worked for them...

Dear POPLA,

On the 6th June 2024, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “parking or waiting in a disabled bay without displaying a disabled badge”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2f, and is therefore not POFA compliant.

2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

4. Unclear signage

5.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

Please see below for details

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to not giving the warning required under schedule 4 paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 2f.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2f) of the POFA, the notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

An operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraph 9. MET Parking Services have failed to fulfil these conditions in the NTK issued.

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have MET Parking Services provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

4) I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event.

I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. 

As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

5) As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Many thanks,

NAME

Coupon-mad

Yes - do both. MET will fold.

MoneySavingNonExpert_2

Thank you again - I'll keep you posted

Zbubuman

Just a word of warning. My appeal is still ongoing, But on my case MET have tried to submit OLD and and obsolete stock photos of their signs and site plan as part of their evidence. So if possible, i would recommend to go to the car park again and take some photos of the signs and layout ( in-case they contradict what MET will submit)

MoneySavingNonExpert_2

Zbubuman said:

Just a word of warning. My appeal is still ongoing, But on my case MET have tried to submit OLD and and obsolete stock photos of their signs and site plan as part of their evidence. So if possible, i would recommend to go to the car park again and take some photos of the signs and layout ( in-case they contradict what MET will submit)

Oh sorry to hear this! Was it the same carpark?