MET Parking McDonald’s Gatwick - validate receipt - POPLA APPEAL SUCCESSFUL

Coupon-mad

Yes that's right, but:

- you haven't used a recent MET POPLA Appeal. From 2025, with Airport map (anyone here got a reliable Gatwick Airport map?).

- you haven't started with your bespoke appeal point about the driver not knowing to validate the VRM because there are no signs and no keypad to do this at the drive-thru.

Anything4love

Sorry, I used a successful template from 2024 which you had approved someone else, as I was trying to find a recent date. 

I’ll have another look, this is my first time, so didn’t know I had to add a Gatwick airport map.

Anything4love

So I should be able to use this map, successful in August 2025. 

And just need to amend the wording

Coupon-mad

Perfect! I still think the old Steve Macallen decision is pointless clutter. I would remove that.

Anything4love

I’ve reworked as below, would be really thankful to know that part is correct? 

I know I need to add my bespoke point regarding driver not knowing to validate the receipt as there’s no signs at the drive thru. Brain is not working well for me right now. So I’ll have a think about what I need to say and add in. For clarity, do I just add it into the opening paragraph or does it need to be added in as a point (6)?

PERSONAL NOTE: Sorry so much back and forth, I’m going through treatment atm so I don’t think I can process things as normal. Thanks again. 

Dear POPLA,
 

On the 16 September 2025, this Parking Charge Notice was issued by MET Parking Services at McDonald’s Gatwick (Ring Road North, RH6 0NN) for an alleged failure to validate the vehicle registration. This was issued to me as the registered keeper of the above vehicle. No windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle. 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
 
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 

 
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. 
 
 
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.
 
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).

Under Clause 14.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, the operator is required to provide clear and accurate information about parking restrictions and is prohibited from implying they have statutory enforcement powers, which was not the case here. (Source: BPA Code of Practice, Section 14.1)
 
14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowners), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowners) covering:
the identity of the landowners)

a boundary map of the land to be managed;
such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowners) and the duration of that permission
the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
the means by which parking charges will be issued;

NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
the parking operator's approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.

NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

Anything4love

Happy to write that my appeal has come back from popla as successful. Thank you for your help & assistance!  @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

Thanks for coming back to confirm.

Easy when you know how! 

doubledotcom

Please show us the assessors reasoning and which point of the appeal was the decider.

Anything4love

Please see attached - appeal successful