Mcdonalds Gatwick MET Parking services

j05hr

Coupon-mad said:

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."

I got the message from this thread which was from this year https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6575589/pcn-from-gatwick-mcdonalds/p1

Where do I find the 2025 CoP? Is it on this forum or from google?

Le_Kirk

j05hr said:

Where do I find the 2025 CoP? Is it on this forum or from google?

Auntie Google is always a good starting point; if the COP is on this forum Auntie Google will find it anyway.

Gr1pr

j05hr said:

Coupon-mad said:

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."

I got the message from this thread which was from this year https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6575589/pcn-from-gatwick-mcdonalds/p1

Where do I find the 2025 CoP? Is it on this forum or from google?

Google is good and shouldalwaysbe searchedbeforeasking, , but it's always on the BPA & IPC websites anyway,  because its a 2025 Joint CoP,  by both trade bodies,  hence why they host it

You definitely need the map, plus adapt the popla appeal so that everything is relevant,  dont just copy and paste blindly,  do a fact check like news corporations do

j05hr

Thanks all for your help, I have been doing a lot of reading and learning a lot.

How is this?

Dear POPLA,

On 17th June 2025, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle), stating that the above vehicle was recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system as “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 (“NTK”) was sent by post.

I am the hirer of the vehicle and, as such, the registered keeper for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). I hereby formally challenge the validity of this Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by MET Parking Services.

Schedule 4 of POFA sets strict requirements that parking operators must follow to rely on keeper liability. MET Parking Services’ NTK fails to comply with these requirements for the reasons set out below. I ask that you carefully consider Schedule 4, particularly Paragraphs 13 and 14.

Grounds for Appeal

1. The NTK is not POFA-compliant
   The NTK does not include the mandatory warning required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of POFA. This warning must state that if after 28 days the charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity and address, they may recover the unpaid amount from the keeper. MET Parking Services failed to include this warning, invalidating the NTK.

2. No proof of driver identity
   MET Parking Services has not provided any evidence as to the identity of the driver who allegedly committed the contravention. I have not provided driver details and do not intend to do so. Without this, keeper liability cannot be established.

3. The land is not ‘relevant land’ under POFA
   The parking event took place on airport land subject to statutory bylaws, not private parking contract terms. Under Schedule 4 POFA, such land is excluded from keeper liability.

I enclose a map from the airport authority clearly showing that the area where the vehicle was parked lies within airport land governed by statutory bylaws. This confirms the land does not qualify as ‘relevant land’ under POFA (see attached Exhibit 1: Airport Land Map). I am happy to provide further evidence if required.

I hereby require the operator to provide full documentary evidence from the Airport Authority to prove otherwise.

POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan in case 6062356150 (September 2016) confirmed that land under statutory control, such as airport land, is not ‘relevant land’ for POFA, and liability cannot be transferred to the hirer/keeper.

1. Unclear and insufficient signage
   I require clear evidence, including a site map and dated photographs of signage present at the time of parking. The signs must adequately inform drivers of parking terms and potential consequences, as per the legal standards set in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts (2011). I contend that signage fails this test.

2. No evidence of landowner authority
   As MET Parking Services does not own or have proprietary interest in the land, I put the operator to strict proof of their contractual authority from the landowner or airport authority. This proof must include an unredacted copy of any contract or written agreement defining their enforcement rights and limitations.

It cannot be assumed that mere placement of signs and issuance of PCNs equates to full enforcement authority or legal standing to recover charges from keepers. The operator must provide proof of legitimate authority to act on behalf of the landowner.

Summary

MET Parking Services have not met the statutory conditions to enforce keeper liability under POFA. In particular, the NTK is not compliant, the operator has failed to prove driver identity, the land is not relevant for POFA, signage is unclear, and no proof of landowner authority has been provided.

For these reasons, I request that the PCN be cancelled.

Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. I look forward to your confirmation of cancellation or a full response addressing each ground raised.

Coupon-mad

"If you reject this challenge, please provide me with full details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), including contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference, so I may escalate this matter accordingly."

What?!   

j05hr

That was pasted from an earlier appeal by mistake, wasn't meant to be included. I have edited it out

doubledotcom

"I am the hirer of the vehicle and, as such, the registered keeper for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)."

No. You are NOT the Keeper for the purposes of PoFA. You are the "Hirer" for the purposes of PoFA! 

j05hr

So just remove the keeper part?

I am the hirer of the vehicle and, as such, for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). I hereby formally challenge the validity of this Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by MET Parking Services.

Anything else? I need to send this off today as it's the final day

doubledotcom

I am the hirer of the vehicle and as your NtH does not comply with all the requirements PoFA paragraph 14, cannot be liable. I hereby formally challenge the validity of this Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by MET Parking Services.

                

j05hr

Thanks, ready to send now?

Dear POPLA,

On 17th June 2025, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle), stating that the above vehicle was recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system as “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 (“NTK”) was sent by post.

I am the hirer of the vehicle and as your NtH does not comply with all the requirements PoFA paragraph 14, cannot be liable. I hereby formally challenge the validity of this Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by MET Parking Services.

Schedule 4 of POFA sets strict requirements that parking operators must follow to rely on keeper liability. MET Parking Services’ NTK fails to comply with these requirements for the reasons set out below. I ask that you carefully consider Schedule 4, particularly Paragraphs 13 and 14.

Grounds for Appeal

1. The NTK is not POFA-compliant
   The NTK does not include the mandatory warning required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of POFA. This warning must state that if after 28 days the charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity and address, they may recover the unpaid amount from the keeper. MET Parking Services failed to include this warning, invalidating the NTK.

2. No proof of driver identity
   MET Parking Services has not provided any evidence as to the identity of the driver who allegedly committed the contravention. I have not provided driver details and do not intend to do so. Without this, keeper liability cannot be established.

3. The land is not ‘relevant land’ under POFA
   The parking event took place on airport land subject to statutory bylaws, not private parking contract terms. Under Schedule 4 POFA, such land is excluded from keeper liability.

I enclose a map from the airport authority clearly showing that the area where the vehicle was parked lies within airport land governed by statutory bylaws. This confirms the land does not qualify as ‘relevant land’ under POFA (see attached Exhibit 1: Airport Land Map). I am happy to provide further evidence if required.

I hereby require the operator to provide full documentary evidence from the Airport Authority to prove otherwise.

POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan in case 6062356150 (September 2016) confirmed that land under statutory control, such as airport land, is not ‘relevant land’ for POFA, and liability cannot be transferred to the hirer/keeper.

1. Unclear and insufficient signage
   I require clear evidence, including a site map and dated photographs of signage present at the time of parking. The signs must adequately inform drivers of parking terms and potential consequences, as per the legal standards set in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts (2011). I contend that signage fails this test.

2. No evidence of landowner authority
   As MET Parking Services does not own or have proprietary interest in the land, I put the operator to strict proof of their contractual authority from the landowner or airport authority. This proof must include an unredacted copy of any contract or written agreement defining their enforcement rights and limitations.

It cannot be assumed that mere placement of signs and issuance of PCNs equates to full enforcement authority or legal standing to recover charges from keepers. The operator must provide proof of legitimate authority to act on behalf of the landowner.

Summary

MET Parking Services have not met the statutory conditions to enforce keeper liability under POFA. In particular, the NTK is not compliant, the operator has failed to prove driver identity, the land is not relevant for POFA, signage is unclear, and no proof of landowner authority has been provided.

For these reasons, I request that the PCN be cancelled.

Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. I look forward to your confirmation of cancellation or a full response addressing each