PCN from Gatwick McDonalds

SolBl

Hi All,

So I've been reading around a fair bit here, and found some information about fighting a McDonalds Gatwick PCN issued by MET.

The driver stayed for 90 minutes with a max allotted time of 60 minutes, where can I (the owner) stand?

I've read up on how to appeal it, and it appears I almost have to go through POPLA in the end. I think I understand everything that I need to do, but I want to check here before I go through with anything, to ensure I don't make anything worse for myself. 

From what I understand, the correct appeal response is "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."

Then where do I go from there please?

LDast

Use the following in your initial appeal to MET, who will reject it but you then get a second bite at POPLA where, hopefully, you don't get one of the more moronic assessors and can explain why the Keeper cannot be liable:

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 Gatwick Airport (and McDonalds within it s boundary) is not 'relevant land'.

If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, 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 bylaws 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.

Here is the Gatwick Airport boundary map which indicates where Byelaws apply, irrespective of METs usual argument that McDonalds is private land:

SolBl

Thank you so much! I've sent that here then I'll come back here should I need a hand with POPLA as this is my first time fighting a PCN, thank you!

SolBl

So unsurprisingly MET rejected my appeal, what's next with POPLA? I've got my POPLA verification code, but I'm unsure how to go from there?

Le_Kirk

The NEWBIE sticky third post contains advice on writing a POPLA appeal and there is a  post of POPLA decisions, pick a successful one to copy.

Coupon-mad

Or just read any other MET POPLA thread. That's your two search keywords right there.

SolBl

Thank you both, I've had a look both on the Newbies thread and around the forums for MET POPLA. I've struggled a little bit to find much that's entirely relevant, I've taken this from another post and slightly adjusted it, as after looking through the Popla Decisions thread I couldn't find one relevant to me. Any feedback would be great please;

Dear POPLA,

On the 28th of November 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”.

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

1.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability

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.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) 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.

MET is in breach of the new joint CoP by issuing a PoFA NtK for an alleged breach of contract on land that is under statutory control. PoFA simply does not apply on this land, whether the NtK is compliant or not.

By breaching the CoP, they have breached the KADOE contract and therefore obtained the keepers data unlawfully.

Map showing LGW boundary:

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) 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 car park 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,

my name

Coupon-mad

Good. Has all you need, but...

...I think you need to show where the map came from; is it part of the Airport Byelaws document found online?

POPLA may otherwise accept MET just saying this is relevant land.  They did in a recent case.  Not that it matters; nobody pays.

SolBl

So MET have now attached their evidence pack to the POPLA appeal. Apologies for continuing to post on this thread but it is still relavant. Any feedback on my comments to this evidence pack would be appreciated, I've read through the Newbies post and this is my first time writing one, so any help would be great.

04/02/25

RE: MET Evidence Pack

The evidence pack confidently shows the "clarity" of the signage around the car park. These signs may be clear during the day, however as can be seen by the night time images, these are not at all clear. According to the parking ticket, the contravention occurred at night, early in the morning when it was still dark. As can be seen from these images, most of the night time images have had them taken using flash or have had the signs enhanced. 

MET claims "[the signs] have been illuminated by car headlamps".

My Response;

According the the driver, there were few cars in the car park, all with their engines and exterior lights off, so although this may be true in some cases, in this case specifically, this is not true and should be disregarded when the case is assessed. 

Next, "[the signs are] illuminated by the light posts they are fixed to"

My Response;

As can be very clearly viewed on all of the images, not a single lamppost is actually working to illuminate the signs, most of them aren't on at all, these signs are dark and unlit making them impossible to notice, let alone read in detail on arrival, therefore this claim should also be overlooked as it is false.

"these photographs have been taken without camera flash"

My Response;

As can be clearly seen in the image with the ticket machine and some of the other images, this is also not true. The only kind of light that will project like that in an image is a camera flash, making this point complete false and a lie in the evidence pack.

Inside of this evidence pack there is nothing to suggest how close the vehicle was parked to a sign, therefore it is unknown how close the nearest unlit, difficult to read sign is, if there was one close at all, bearing in mind the lack of light on the carpark or from the surroundings.

MET Says "there are no applicable airport Byelaws relating to parking in effect at this location"

My Response;

The location of this car park and McDonalds is controlled by Gatwick airport, as can be seen in my original appeal document, with a clearly marked map, with the McDonalds & Car Park clearly within the boundary of Gatwick Airport's control, because of this car parks location, the byelaws are applicable in this instance and the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

In the evidence pack, MET provides the letter of authority,

My Response;

There is no expiry date from this 15 year old letter of authority, so there is nothing here to prove that this contract is even still valid at this time. 

Due to the extreme lack of lighting and inability to see these signs during the night, the appropriate Byelaws that are applicable and the lack of an expiry date for the Letter of Authority, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld.

LDast

The map you have used is from page 152 of the Gatwick Airport Master Plan 2019.

https://www.gatwickairport.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Gatwick-Library/default/dw5fa1fcde/images/Corporate-PDFs/Masterplan/Gatwick_Airport_Masterplan_2019.pdf

There are plenty of other maps in the document that clearly show that the location of the McDonalds lies within the airport boundary. MET can try and plead that the land they are operating on is private land, and it may well be. However, that does not negate the fact that any land, private, leased or whatever, as long as it is within the airport boundary it comes under the statutory control of the airport byelaws and, is therefore NOT relevant land for the purpose of PoFA.

Use it and the official maps inside to make your point to counter METs utter male bovine excrement about the land not being subject to statutory control to make your point.

This Crawley Borough Submission Local Plan, 2024 shows the official boundary on page 13. Again on pages 20 and 21 there are maps/images showing the official airport boundary. 

https://crawley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/Topic%20Paper%202%20Gatwick%20Airport.pdf

SolBl

Great, thank you! I've updated that section now, with the new updated part in bold.

04/02/25

RE: MET Evidence Pack 04/02/25

The evidence pack confident shows the "clarity" of the signage around the car park. These signs may be clear during the day, however as can be seen by the nighttime images, these are not at all clear. According to the parking ticket, the contravention occurred at night, early in the morning when it was still dark. As can be seen from these images, most of the nighttime images have had them taken using flash or have had the signs enhanced. 

MET claims "[the signs] have been illuminated by car headlamps".

My Response;

According the the driver, there were few cars in the car park, all with their engines and exterior lights off, so although this may be true in some cases, in this case specifically, this is not true and should be disregarded when the case is assessed. 

Next, "[the signs are] illuminated by the light posts they are fixed to"

My Response;

As can be very clearly viewed on all of the images, not a single lamppost is actually working to illuminate the signs, most of them aren't on at all, these signs are dark and unlit making them impossible to notice, let alone read in detail on arrival, therefore this claim should also be overlooked as it is false.

"these photographs have been taken without camera flash"

My Response;

As can be clearly seen in the image with the ticket machine and some of the other images, this is also not true. The only kind of light that will project like that in an image is a camera flash, making this point complete false and a lie in the evidence pack.

Inside of this evidence pack there is nothing to suggest how close the vehicle was parked to a sign, therefore it is unknown how close the nearest unlit, difficult to read sign is, if there was one close at all, bearing in mind the lack of light on the carpark or from the surroundings.

MET Says "there are no applicable airport Byelaws relating to parking in effect at this location"

My Response;

The location of this car park and McDonalds is controlled by Gatwick airport, as can be seen in my original appeal document, with a clearly marked map, with the McDonalds & Car Park clearly within the boundary of Gatwick Airport's control, because of this car parks location, the byelaws are applicable in this instance and the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

The map that I provided in my original appeal to POPLA is from page 152 of the Gatwick Airport Masterplan from 2019, which can be found here (https://www.gatwickairport.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Gatwick-Library/default/dw5fa1fcde/images/Corporate-PDFs/Masterplan/Gatwick_Airport_Masterplan_2019.pdf). In this document there are plenty of maps that clearly show this McDonalds & Car Park is within the airport boundary. Regardless of whether the land is private, leased or anything in between, it still comes down to the fact that this piece of land is very clearly within the airports boundaries, and because of this it does come under the statutory control of the airport byelaws and therefore is NOT relevant land for the purpose of PoFA.

If a newer version of the boundaries is needed, please see this link to the Crawley Borough Submission Local Plan from 2024, which clearly shows the airports boundaries on pages 14 (figure 1), 21 (figure 2) & 22 (figure 3) (https://crawley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/Topic Paper 2 Gatwick Airport.pdf)

In the evidence pack, MET provides the letter of authority,

My Response;

There is no expiry date from this 15 year old letter of authority, so there is nothing here to prove that this contract is even still valid at this time. 

Due to the extreme lack of lighting and inability to see these signs during the night, the appropriate Byelaws that are applicable and the lack of an expiry date for the Letter of Authority, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld.