McDonald's Southall PCN

intex310

I received this PCN: hxxps://imgur.com/a/p9Rk6sG

Hope I can send your template. Please advise.

Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. Your photographic evidence provided through www.paymetparking.com does not corroborate with your claim. It simply shows the vehicle was parked from 1902 till 1907 hrs. on that date.

Your claim does not substantiate if the vehicle belonged to a paying customer of the McDonald's. I can provide the receipt/bank statement which can be verified McDonald's in Southall.

Le_Kirk

Is that the template you found written in blue text in the NEWBIE sticky that you were advised to use? If so, use it. Did the PCN come to you in your name as keeper?

intex310

Yes, it came as notice to keeper.

intex310

I have received the rejection today.

MET parking rejection_page-0001.jpg

MET parking rejection_page-0002.jpg

MET parking rejection_page-0003.jpg

MET parking rejection_page-0004.jpg

MET parking rejection_page-0005.jpg

intex310

Good morning.

Please advise the grounds I can use to appeal this.

James_Poisson

It's just the usual leaving site scam, they have no evidence, just a supposed check of people in the restaurant and a supposed disturbing claim that people were accosted in the toilets by their employee.

If you appeal to POPLA just refute their evidence, you never left site, say no one approached you, and if they had you would have told them you were a paying customer that does not speak to strangers while enjoying a private meal or in toilets which would be a disgusting invasion of privacy if it had happened.

Also point out that those signs evidenced are just undated generic office masters that are not from that site.

All this along with the usual POPLA stuff, but they will huff and puff but it will not get any where near court, leaving site claims never do it's an add on bluff.

Coupon-mad

Except that you don't admit to driving. Talk about the driver in the third person, unless the MET NTK was POFA worded.

intex310

Here's my draft:

Appeal re POPLA Code: —— v MET Parking Services.

Vehicle Registration: —-

POPLA REF: ——

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 14 Jan 2026 acting as a notice to the registered keeper claiming that Vehicle was left on 09 Jan 2026 in McDonald's car park while the occupants left McDonald's premises. My appeal to the operator, MET Parking Services, was submitted and acknowledged on 08 Feb 2026. Subsequently on 10 Feb 2026, asking me for additional comments claiming vehicle was observed as left in McDonald's car park while the occupants left McDonald's premises.

On 25 Feb 2026, my appeal was rejected asking me to make a POPLA appeal.

Therefore, I, as a registered keeper, would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - As the Notice to Keeper is non‑PoFA compliant, MET Parking Services has no lawful basis to pursue me as the registered keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and have not done so.

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 - In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK. Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 states: "A notice to keeper shall not be issued if the keeper was not driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence."

3. Appeal rejection:

14/01/2026: Appeal rejection submitting that the car park is for the use of customers while they are on the premises only. - Please see my bank transaction which proves to be paying customer (Please see insert 1) on that day. We as a paying customer of this McDonalds on that day didn't leave the premises as assumed by the MET Parking Services Limited.

25 Feb 2026: A survey was carried out by our parking attendant with a member of the restaurant's staff of all customers in the restaurant, including the toilets, to check if the drivers were present in the restaurant prior to the charge being issued. - My wife went to use the toilet whilst I was sat in the vehicle in the car park enjoying the food that was bought in that McDonalds. No one approached me.

There was no-one on the premises when the survey was conducted taking responsibility for your vehicle, therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. - Completely incorrect and absolute assumption. Did they survey or patrol the car park? Does the car park not belong to the premises? The log sheet provided to me during the rejection does not confirm that. How did they confirm the vehicle make and registration to anyone inside the toilet invading the privacy of a paying customer?

Based on the facts I have mentioned, this PCN needs to be appealed with you directly for your consideration.

Insert 1:

4. Site presence survey: As provided by the MET Parking Services, I am bit confused as it can be read as Start time 10 PM with a completion at 07 AM whilst the claimed contravention as mentioned on NTK was at 1708 on 09 Jan 2026.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK but remove this as I think you used AI which has made this 'ghost' quote up!

"Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 states: "A notice to keeper shall not be issued if the keeper was not driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence."

No, it really, really doesn't!!

intex310

Thank you @Coupon-mad.

intex310

Good morning all.

"The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal."