MET Parking McDonald’s Gatwick - validate receipt

Anything4love

Hey all! 

Hoping for some help and guidance. 

As per other members past and present, been stung by not validating my receipt at the Gatwick McDonald’s. We went through the drive thru, it was late and dark after 10pm. We had no idea that we needed to validate the receipt. Also I feel that the McDonald’s staff could at least give you a heads up on the drive thru section. Can’t say for sure, but I thought I remembered that you got a white card receipt at the barrier but I could also be remembering that wrong! 

Appealed with MET. They changed the fine from £100 to £20 (to be paid in 14 days). I’ve ignored that & will appeal to POPLA. 

I searched the newbies thread & also through the forum as it said find something similar, but everything in my instance was dated from 2018 and not sure if the legal details are still valid. 

One other thing I noticed, is the car park seemed to have updated their signage since the 2018 appeals. The signs are large - however my issue was the car park was dark & you genuinely couldn’t see them (signs aren’t backlit). 

I have written a draft if someone can cast their eye over. Would it be best to first post the MET reply & my original appeal? 

Have also emailed McDonald’s Gatwick but no reply. 

Also I replied as the registered keeper (MET acknowledged in their reply they do not yet know the driver). 

Any help appreciated! TIA 

Coupon-mad

Appeal to POPLA using similar wording used in other MET Airport POPLA Appeals.

If your search is showing you 2018 results it's because you haven't changed the results to show NEWEST. 

Anything4love

@Coupon-mad forgive me if I’m wrong, but I have changed the filter to newest first. I searched through for over 2 hours. And looked into any post that had a more vague title (ie didn’t say over stayed parking) so that I could try to find a similar scenario. 

Do you mean to say, I can still use any of these airport popla templates if it’s for overstaying the parking time limit? That didn’t seem right to me, but if I can use that then of course I shall go back to the search again. Thanks 

Anything4love

@Coupon-mad - I meant amending the wording (not actually stating that I overstayed for example) but I’m thinking more for the legality terms. This is all feeling like another language to me, so keen to understand what I am allowed to use. Thanks! 

Coupon-mad

Two hours of searching?! Should take two minutes if searching for MET POPLA Airport, or similar words. 

You then copy the structure and points made by someone this year about the fact Gatwick is an Airport and not 'relevant land'. You need this year only because the Joint Code of Practice has different clauses than in 2024.

Then you add a FIRST point, bespoke to your case ... but without naming the driver of course. Anyway, your case isn't about an overstay. It's about the driver not knowing to validate the VRM because there are no signs and no keypad to do this at the drive-thru.

No contract or agreement was capable of being formed or breached without signs and a way to exempt cars at the drive-thru itself because by its very nature, a drive-thru means the occupants stay in the vehicle. They'd have to have the term and obligation drawn fairly & squarely to their attention in situ at the drive-thru kiosk, with a scanner or keypad physically handed to them, or (ideally) the simple remedy to avoid unfair PCNs like this should be addressed proactively, by the operator placing an exempting camera at the drive-thru window to exempt the VRMs of all food purchasing users, who would never leave the car and would absolutely not be expected to see terms on poles elsewhere in the darkness.

Anything4love

@Coupon-mad yes around 2 hours, I read almost all cases that didn’t specify that it was for a reason not like mine, just in case. I read the Newbies threads, following prompts from other posts because I noticed people would refer others in that direction. I was worried about asking the wrong questions on here and was being conscious not to waste anyone’s time. 

Thank you for your time and assistance, that’s really helped to answer the questions I had. The car park did have signs, and when you see the photos from the MET cameras they are in bright lights from their camera technology which is such a contrast to the reality at night. 

One last question I had,  am I meant to wait until the end of the 28 days before appealing to popla? 

Maybe I’ve picked that up wrong somewhere. 

Coupon-mad

But there are always signs. In every case.

Your case is the same as all other MET cases. Copy the usual POPLA appeal points, add your bespoke one at the top as the first point, and show us your draft.

No you don't wait. That's not what Post 3 of the NEWBIES thread (about POPLA) says! Except:

Not unless you are still trying landowner complaint, which is PLAN A: always tried & exhausted before POPLA, or you could shoot yourself in the foot by actually blocking your chances of landowner cancellation (see the ParkingEye thread I just replied on where the OP ruined the easy route of landowner cancellation, by doing POPLA FIRST). Beware of rushing to do POPLA if there's a chance of the retailer or the site agent stepping in.

Take the steps in the right order: press the easy route to cancellation first, every time.

Anything4love

@Coupon-mad thanks, I did reach out to McDonald’s via email on 2 Oct and 6 Oct. But no response. 

I can try to search the landowner, I wasn’t sure if it was still to do with Gatwick but I’ll check. 

I’ll try that first and then send  my appeal draft. 

Anything4love

I just wanted to check regarding the POPLA appeal letter draft please. 

Should I add in the below point (or something of this nature) into section 4, along with photos from the online photos from the MET website of the vehicle in question. Or is this not needed? TIA 

The operator asserts that “the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed.”
However, photographic evidence (IMG_2198 and IMG_2202) shows that the signage fails to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice:

• The “entrance” sign is obscured by a large “No Entry” sign and barrier equipment, creating visual confusion and preventing drivers from reading any terms on approach.

• The text is small and densely worded, contrary to BPA requirements for clear core terms.

• The wall-mounted sign (IMG_2198) is unlit, rendering it illegible during hours of darkness.

Although photographs may appear bright, this is due to automatic exposure adjustment by modern cameras. In reality, the car park is significantly darker at the time stated on the PCN (at night) and the signage is not legible to the human eye under normal conditions.

The operator’s images are therefore not a reliable representation of actual visibility.

The BPA Code of Practice (Sections 19.3–19.4) requires:

“Entrance signs must be clearly visible to drivers on entry to the site. Where parking is invited during hours of darkness, signs should be illuminated or there should be sufficient lighting for the signs to be easily readable.”

Given the 24-hour operation of this site, the signage does not meet BPA standards and no contract could have been formed.

Dear POPLA,

On the 16 September 2025, MET Parking Services issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to me as the registered keeper of the above vehicle, alleging “Failure to validate stay in car park.”
No windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle; the notice to keeper was sent by post.

As the registered keeper I refute this charge and request that POPLA cancel the PCN 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 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. 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. 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 carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100. 

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

Coupon-mad

Looks a bit old? Nobody cites an ancient Steve MacAllan POPLA Decision or quotes Martin Cutts these days.

The most important thing is your evidence of the map of the Airport. as seen in recent winning MET POPLA appeals.

Anything4love

I was just going on the basis of this “ Your case is the same as all other MET cases. Copy the usual POPLA appeal points, add your bespoke one at the top as the first point, and show us your draft”