MET PCN at Mcdonalds - Occupants left premises

eldn

Hello,

The RK received from MET Parking the following "Notice to Keeper" for a car parked in McDonald's premises and whose occupants allegedly left the premises for more than 5 minutes. 

I read a few threads and newbies but I also saw more recent posts where those scammers do reply and challenge the POPLA appeal and it's not clear if appealants still win those cases now. Does it usually go to court now?

 

According to the driver, here is what happened:

- They placed an order from Mcdo app at 11:35am and parked around that time in the parking. They have the receipt.

- They went inside to collect their order and ate on the premises sitting on a table inside.

- A few minutes into eating at the table, an agent (can't recall if McDonald's employee or private parking employee) asked them if they had a car parked and they gave the registration to the person who was carrying a tablet to check. This must have been close to 11:50am because by the time the order was placed, collected and started eating, a few minutes must have passed.

- When they finished, the driver went to the bathroom and then outside to smoke and making a call. They may have stepped outside the premises while walking and talking, although it's not clear what defines the exact premises. There was no map but by checking google map, there is a "See you soon" sign at the exit, no official boundaries though. I included the signage photo with the NtK.

The RK received the NtK below and the provided link shows only photos taken by the agent himself (not security camera) of the empty car at 12:00pm and 12:06pm. What a sneaky guy as the alleged offence started to be recorded at 12:00pm according to the photos and he probably asked the driver about their car just a few minutes before!

The RK went to the McDonald's to dispute this, in a friendly manner, but the manager said he couldn't do anything and only advised to contact MET Parking Services to appeal... He also said there were cameras "all around the premises" as a way to tell the RK not to challenge it if the driver did indeed leave the premises...

I read the topics and I can see that most threads suggest to send a letter about the non compliance of the NtK rather than disputing the facts. However this NtK seems compliant with PoFA, the only doubt is whether the NtK clearly defines a parking period. The photos on the link they provide do have timestamps from 12:00 to 12:06 but the NtK itself just shows one photo with timestamp. Is that a breach? Not sure.

Can this 3rd party company or McDonalds look at CCTV cameras and show that the person who arrived with the vehicle (as they left the vehicle to go inside and collect the order) indeed left the premises and then returned to take their car? 

Anyway, any advice of this specific case or should the RK keep it simple? I understand that complaining to the MET Parking company is likely to fail anyway and that the RK will need to go to the next step after that.

Thank you!

James_Poisson

This is a scam by these idiots to try to get money only one leaving site case that we know of went to court and the judge threatened the solicitor representing the parking company with a night or two at her majesties pleasure.

They won't have any evidence it's just an add on scam, ignore the dimwits and come back if they try a court claim, you are over thinking this.

eldn

Interesting! While everyone with experience in this matter shares your view about them, I'm surprised you suggest to ignore it all until court (if they go that far!).

Most replies I saw on this forum and elsewhere still recommends to appeal to POPLA at least and usually those scammers give up, although I saw a similar case where they still challenged it.

Do you suggest to ignore it all because it is a "occupant left the site" case or is it something you now recommend for any invoice issued by such private companies?

Thanks for your response anyway, it is reassuring.

Coupon-mad

eldn said:

Interesting! While everyone with experience in this matter shares your view about them, I'm surprised you suggest to ignore it all until court (if they go that far!).

Most replies I saw on this forum and elsewhere still recommends to appeal to POPLA at least and usually those scammers give up, although I saw a similar case where they still challenged it.

Do you suggest to ignore it all because it is a "occupant left the site" case 

No because they'll sue you if you ignore it. You appeal and win at POPLA by making them prove the driver left the site. They can't.

But before you do either of the appeals stages (and by the end of next week at the latest - deadline Friday 5th) please please do the government's Public Consultation.

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

ONE WEEK LEFT.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

eldn said:

Interesting! While everyone with experience in this matter shares your view about them, I'm surprised you suggest to ignore it all until court (if they go that far!).

Most replies I saw on this forum and elsewhere still recommends to appeal to POPLA at least and usually those scammers give up, although I saw a similar case where they still challenged it.

Do you suggest to ignore it all because it is a "occupant left the site" case 

No because they'll sue you if you ignore it. You appeal and win at POPLA by making them prove the driver left the site. They can't.

But before you do either of the appeals stages (and by the end of next week at the latest - deadline Friday 5th) please please do the government's Public Consultation.

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

ONE WEEK LEFT.

Unfortunately unlike UKCPS, MET use CCTV especially the ones in the London area 

eldn

Thank you for your replies.

Coupon-mad said:

No because they'll sue you if you ignore it. You appeal and win at POPLA by making them prove the driver left the site. They can't.

But before you do either of the appeals stages (and by the end of next week at the latest - deadline Friday 5th) please please do the government's Public Consultation.

I am definitely completing the consultation, I have some free time so don't mind going through it all.
I'm still educating myself on all those PCN thing, I had one before that got cancelled by landowner but it's the first time I start reading about Claim Court as it seems that this one from MET will eventually reach that stage according to the multiple posts I read on here. One or 2 days going through this and I will complete the consultation before the deadline!

So do you suggest to appeal to MET first, then of course they will reject, and then I submit to POPLA? According to the posts involving MET, this will also fail and so then we go to Claim Court and wait for them to drop the case before the hearing.
I know this is in the NEWBIES post but just a bit confused by lots of posts also saying to ignore until Court because the first steps above would be a waste of time with MET.

ChirpyChicken said:

Unfortunately unlike UKCPS, MET use CCTV especially the ones in the London area 

Was there a confirmed case where they pulled out the CCTV footage to win a case? I believe that to prove that, they need to show the person arriving with the car, leaving the car, going into the mcdonalds then leaving the premises and returning to the car and drive away.
From what I read, if I ignore everything from them and the debt collectors, we will reach the Court Claim stage, it may be a few years between the alleged offence and the court. Would they still have the CCTV footage still available? 

Also I am not sure what CCTV would that be? There are definitely CCTVs from McDonalds for security purposes, would McDo share that with a third party company without the police requesting it? The MET Parking company itself does not have CCTV on the premises I believe.

Car1980

I wouldn't worry about CCTV. A lot of effort for them, and a long way down the line as you say. Anyway, that would only be a factor if you were adamant you never left, in which case you'd welcome CCTV backing you up. You could of course say you didn't think you left to be best of your recollection, at which point they would on the back foot.

But forget that, and look at the site and signage. Presumably there are exit pathways on these premises.

Are there signs or anything on the tarmac to form a contractual offer as you leave?

"Exit the undemarcated premises and you agree to pay £100" is such an onerous offer, a nearby sign with the clause listed third and in a much smaller font than "90 minutes maximum stay" would be insufficient. 

You have to make it crystal clear if you physically installed exit pathways but have decided you don't wish anyone to use them. A fat red line, words on the tarmac and big sign. The onus is on them to make restrictions clear. And the clearer they make things the less money they make. They're always trying to balance maximum money with barely clear enough to get away with it.

hockeybeaver

Can they define what "leaving the premises" means?  Surely the premises for this is the whole car park they control or you would never be able to leave McDonalds to get back to your car!

Castle

hockeybeaver said:

Can they define what "leaving the premises" means?  Surely the premises for this is the whole car park they control or you would never be able to leave McDonalds to get back to your car!

Very "Hotel California"

The_Slithy_Tove

Where was the clear signage stating that CCTV footage may be used to track individuals (not just the cars) for use in parking enforcement? Bet there was no such signage (a sign simply saying CCTV in use is probably not sufficient). Which would put both McD's and Met on the back foot when you complain to the ICO about use of such footage without either warning or consent.

eldn

Indeed, one of my favourite songs!

It's quite clear what to do, still reading some threads to make sure I use up-to-date templates.
I will update this thread as I make some moves but as mentioned by many of you, I will try not to ask "next step" questions. As it may take months or even years, I will use that thread to keep record for myself but more importantly for others, until hopefully a discontinuation of the case.

I have already tried Plan A: complaint to McDonalds but they didn't even bother to read what I said, they replied that if I "overstayed" then I need to complain to the parking company. It was clear in my message that it was about leaving the premises, not overstaying so I suspect it was a robot answer...

I am therefore moving to Plan B, which will be to the PPC itself. I expect a rejection of course. Then will move to POPLA and I expect rejection too. I will focus on the premises boundaries issues as well as signage. Then will wait for months/years to receive debt collector letters and finally a Court Claim that hopefully won't reach the hearing stage.

Thanks again for your help so far. I didn't forget about the online consultation, will work on that too!