Mcdonalds Gatwick MET Parking services

j05hr

Hi,

My friend received a parking ticket for briefly stopping in a disabled bay at McDonald’s Gatwick. He says that as soon as he realised it was a disabled space, he moved the car and was parked there for less than a minute.

The notice only states the time, but not the duration the car was parked. Is there any basis for appeal on the grounds that no duration was specified?

If not, he rents the vehicle as a PCO driver, so would it be best to follow the hirer/leasee appeal process outlined in the Newbies Thread?

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Definitely follow the lease advice by Edna Basher,  if the victim is a hirer or lessee and if the hire company named them as hirer, bearing in mind that's the hirer would normally appeal a Notice to Hirer,  with their own name on the pcn

Plus there is no keeper liability om airport land,  so no blabbing about who was driving 

Car1980

This is all based on contract law, so you are actually permitted to park where you like and go and view the contract on the signage. Then you can view the contractual offer and decide whether to accept or refuse. How else are you going to do so? Park outside the premises, walk across and then go and retrieve you car?

Was the full contract on that small sign? I doubt it. Yes it might have indicated some sort of restriction with it being a disabled bay, but even then you could leave your car and go to view the contract on foot. They should have put the full contract on the sign so you could view from the driver's seat if they wanted to reduce the time people were using up disabled bays unnecessarily. 

You have a grace period of 5 minutes before paying. A logical extension of this would be a similar time to walk to a sign, read, understand and accept or refuse the contract and walk back to your car (and open the door, put seatbelt on, turn engine on etc. if you were refusing the contractual offer). So less than a minute to read that sign - even though it isn't the actual contract - and leave the space would be entirely reasonable.

At the end of the day, no contract exists between your friend and Met.

doubledotcom

Just make a formal complaint to the DVLA that MET is using your Keeper data unlawfully. Why? Because the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) states:

The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

As they state that they can hold the Keeper liable, they are therefore relying on the provisions of PoFA 2012. This location is within the boundary of Gatwick Airport and is therefore not relevant land as it is under statutory control of Airport Byelaws.

Any breach of the PPSCoP is also a breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA. Whilst they may have had reasonable cause to request the Keepers data, their subsequent processing of it is unlawful. The DVLA being the data controller, is responsible for how that data has been used.

If more people make these complaints, which will be initially fobbed off by the DVLA, but can be raised to a Step 2 complaint, there will start to be a paper trail that will eventually become evident in future FOI requests.

I already have some Step 2 fob-offs and have raised this to the ICA who have responded that they are now investigating the DVLA for these obfuscations.

j05hr

Hi all,

I sent this, 

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Met Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.
 
You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Met's Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.
 
Given that Met has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

And received this back

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. 

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed around the car park. These include that vehicles parked or waiting in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled badge face up in the front windscreen. When your vehicle was observed there was no valid disabled badge clearly displayed therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. 

We note your comments however we are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions. 

We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act. 

This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:

1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471. 

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: 3861905094 Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above. 

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.

Is this the right template to send to POPLA?

Dear POPLA,

 

On the 17th June 2025, 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 clearly displaying a disabled badge”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

 

As the hirer of the vehicle. I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Met Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

 

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Highview’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

 

Given that Met has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

 

 

 

As well as the hirer 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 hirer 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.

 

 

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,

Coupon-mad

Can't tell. Is it the newest winning one with the Airport map as seen in POPLA Decisions recently?

j05hr

I think so but not entirely sure if it's from the newest winning one

j05hr

j05hr said:

Hi all,

I sent this, 

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Met Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.
 
You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Met's Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.
 
Given that Met has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

And received this back

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge. 

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed around the car park. These include that vehicles parked or waiting in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled badge face up in the front windscreen. When your vehicle was observed there was no valid disabled badge clearly displayed therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. 

We note your comments however we are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions. 

We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act. 

This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:

1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471. 

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: 3861905094 Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above. 

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.

Is this the right template to send to POPLA?

Dear POPLA,

 

On the 17th June 2025, 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 clearly displaying a disabled badge”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

 

As the hirer of the vehicle. I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Met Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

 

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Highview’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

 

Given that Met has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

 

 

 

As well as the hirer 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 hirer 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.

 

 

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,

Anyone with advice if the above is what I should send to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

Remove this intro because you aren't the rk you are the hirer and this para is superfluous:

"On the 17th June 2025, 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 clearly displaying a disabled badge”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post."

And I could not see a mention of a map? 

j05hr

Thank you so much for the reply. So remove the intro and take the part out about the map and good to go?

I just saw a reply that was to the same place but didn't know what was relevant and what wasn't re: the map. 

Dear POPLA,

As the hirer of the vehicle. I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Met Parking Services as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Highview’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

Given that Met has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA. 

As well as the hirer 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 hirer 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.’

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.

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

Many thanks,

doubledotcom

The part about the map (and embedding it into your appeal) is the evidence that you need. Why would you want to remove that when you've been told that it is crucial?