Mcdonalds Gatwick MET Parking services

Coupon-mad

take the part out about the map

Why?! That's the winning point.

j05hr

doubledotcom said:

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?

Thanks for your reply,

coupon-mad said this

And I could not see a mention of a map? 

I thought coupon was saying why put it in the appeal if there was nothing about it in the original appeal. 

I'm confused what I need to do about the map.

doubledotcom

This map shows that McDonald's Gatwick is within the airport boundary and is therefore on land covered by statutory byelaws and therefore, there can be NO Keeper liability:

Coupon-mad

All I meant was I couldn't see the important map. Not to remove it!

Are you embedding it into your Word doc before saving the appeal as a PDF to upload as a single illustrated document, to make it fairly easy for the Assessor? 

j05hr

Ah ok, I'm with you now thanks so much. Yes I will embed it all into a word document and send it as a PDF to upload as one single document.

Is the map placement ok here or should I move it to the end of the document or somewhere else?

ParkingMad

Paragraph 2 mentions Highview’s Notice to Hirer, rather than Met Parking’s NTH.

j05hr

Well spotted, thanks. Replaced it

Coupon-mad

Can't really read that but para 3 makes no sense.

j05hr

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,

It's exactly the same as I posted here apart from removed the into that you told me to remove and added the map

Coupon-mad

I don't expect the landowner clause is still paragraph 7 these days. Look at the current 2025 CoP. Quote the current words.

Remove all this which makes no sense:

"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."