Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks, b789.
Have responded as you said.

Thanks, b789. Have now attached. Was not able to edit earlier on my phone.

MET's "evidence" to POPLA.

Operator Name
MET Parking Services - EW
Operator Case Summary
In the appeal to POPLA Mr Sam states that this is not relevant land and PoFA 2012 cannot be applied to hold him liable as the registered keeper. As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. As stated in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Relevant Land is any land that is not a) a highway maintainable at the public expense, b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority, or c) any land excepting the aforementioned on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. Paragraph 3 subsection 3 states that parking is subject to statutory control if any statutory provision imposes a liability in respect of the parking of vehicles on that land. The Gatwick Airport byelaws, which may be viewed online via the link below, do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within McDonalds: https://www.gatwickairport.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Gatwick-Library/default/dw08f809e7/images/Corporate-PDFs/Regulation/Byelaws 2015 reprint.pdf In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land. Turning to the charge itself: As the photographic evidence in section E demonstrates, the driver pressed the button to exit and therefore incurred the parking charge. The signage throughout the site clearly advises motorists of the requirement to use a validated ticket to raise the barrier, and that pressing the button to exit may lead to a charge being issued, as is the case in this instance. Should a motorist approach the barrier and realise it will not accept their ticket they should return to the restaurant to seek assistance from a staff member. By pressing the button to raise the barrier the driver breached the terms and conditions and the charge was duly issued as a result. Please note that there was only a total of 32 charges issued to vehicles for this contravention for the whole of 25/09/2025 (see section E). Had there been an issue with the barrier or validation machines there would have been a significant number of charges issued, as approximately 1500-2000 vehicles visit the premises each day. Our client also did not contact us to inform us of any issues on this date. In line with F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter, we requested evidence of custom as this is a customer-only car park. Mr Sam did not provide the requested evidence and as such he was not entitled to the further discount. PLEASE NOTE: regarding the further reduction of a charge under Annex F, the Sector Single Code of Practice specifically states that ‘in all cases the Appeals Charter would require the motorist to provide the evidence.’. As such, without the appellant providing supporting evidence then there is no requirement for an operator to offer the further reduction. To summarise, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that parking is for McDonald’s customers only and that motorists must validate their car park stay in the restaurant with proof of purchase prior to exiting the car park and use their validated ticket to raise the exit barrier. Pressing the barrier button to exit may lead to a charge notice being issued. The photographic evidence in Section E demonstrates that the driver did not use a validated ticket to raise the exit barrier and instead exited the car park by pressing the button on the barrier to raise it. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

I have 7 days to respond to this.

Got a quick refusal with POPLA code.

Just had response from MET
https://postimg.cc/jWKJJ2Tx

https://postimg.cc/jWKJJ2Tx

Relevance of a 16 year old article?