Mcdonalds Gatwick, MET parking NTK's

Jughead_2024

Hi all,

So I've done a lot of reading in the newbies thread last night and I think I know what I need to send into MET to appeal against this but I wanted to check first as per the advice on here.

Basically there were 8 of us in 2 cars after we got back from holiday we stopped in at mcdonalds to feed the kids before heading home but none of us saw the time limit was only an hour so we overstayed, 1 car by 17 minutes and the other by 24 minutes.

Both NTK's are almost identical to the ones supplied by others on here for this same location but it appears they have amended them to now include the 28 day warning that was missing previously.

I will copy and paste what I think I need to submit in my next post. Any advice greatly received. Thanks.

Jughead_2024

Apologies I'm totally new to this and still trying to wrap my head around it all.

"Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner."

Would this be enough on its own or should I elaborate more at this stage?

Jughead_2024

I could go with this but the NTK does comply with POFA as far as I can tell despite it not applying due to it being airport land. Which is better to go with?

"This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw."

LDast

It cannot be compliant with PoFA as PoFA does not apply on that land. The location of that McDonalds is on land under statutory control. If they've mentioned PoFA in their PCNs, report them to the BPA compliance team.

This appeal has always worked and explains it clearly:

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 the McDonalds at 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 your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's 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.

Jughead_2024

LDast said:

It cannot be compliant with PoFA as PoFA does not apply on that land. The location of that McDonalds is on land under statutory control. If they've mentioned PoFA in their PCNs, report them to the BPA compliance team.

This appeal has always worked and explains it clearly:

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 the McDonalds at 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 your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's 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.

Yes I read that elsewhere on here and now that you have posted that response I remember seeing it as well. I read so much on here last night I think that one slipped my mind, was a bit brain fogged by the end of it all.

Thank you for the assistance.

Coupon-mad

You're doing fine, @Jughead_2024

It was a breath of fresh air to read in just a couple of concise posts that you had done the research needed, read a few threads and sussed that these are non-POFA NTKs.

Dead easy to win at POPLA if MET bother to push it that far! 

Jughead_2024

So they've pushed it onto POPLA, based on what has been sent to them before this is what I'll send to POPLA: 

"Dear POPLA,

On the 15th April 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 “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. 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 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

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

3.Unclear signage

4.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)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).

2) 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.’

3) 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.

4) 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

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME"

Jughead_2024

date in the above needs changing but that should be it I think...

LDast

Be very careful how you word anything that could give rise to suspicion that the keeper was also the driver. You said above:

On the 15th April 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 “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

Whilst not identifying the driver is perfectly legal, the above highlighted sentence could give rise to a suspicion that the keeper was also the driver. Unless clarified, only the driver would know whether a windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle or not. 

It is superfluous and not required and introduces an element of doubt in the appellants statement. Whilst it may not be obvious to the appellant/keeper, it is obvious to  anyone who is familiar with PoFA that the operator would have referred to PoFA paragraph 8, not 9, if the NtK was issued after a “windscreen” ticket (Notice to Driver) had been issued. 

Coupon-mad

You should add a point to explain to the POPLA Assessor how the NTK is non-compliant with the POFA (the wording omissions from Schedule 4 paragraph 9).

Jughead_2024

Coupon-mad said:

You should add a point to explain to the POPLA Assessor how the NTK is non-compliant with the POFA (the wording omissions from Schedule 4 paragraph 9).

That relates to the 28 day warning does it not? Mine has that on it. Will check in a bit if I'm thinking of the correct paragraph.

I can remove the ticket part, I copy and pasted from elsewhere on these boards.