1
Private parking tickets / Re: Genuine McDonald’s customer fined for 'leaving the site' - seeking advice
« on: October 13, 2025, 08:16:01 pm »
Thanks @Dave65. As requested I’ve attached the PCN, plus the MET rejection and the POPLA decision (all redacted).
Site: McDonald’s Leytonstone (site 134) — allegation: “drivers and passengers must remain on the premises” (not ANPR overstay).
Event: 18/07/2025 at 16:21 (per PCN).
Keeper: I am the Registered Keeper.
Appeals: MET rejected (15/08/2025). POPLA refused (09/10/2025).
Context: The operator alleges the driver left the premises. Passengers were on-site throughout.
Key points: the term is non-prominent and ambiguous (no driver vs passenger distinction); no site boundary is shown to customers; and the operator’s survey (with restaurant staff, including male/female toilet checks) doesn’t prove the driver crossed any defined boundary. Forbidding wording = no contract; CRA transparency/fairness issues; Beavis distinguished.
I can add the toilet-survey sheet and signage/site-plan pages if helpful.
MET PCN:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q_tDv0rogNnOhv0s3gSxYCnXwhwRhtQW/view?usp=sharing
Appeal to MET:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10i7M78dm7eWpRKSdDlYuOlVbzRe2J8bf/view?usp=sharing
MET appeal outcome:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oWGFG-l6PTo6GEMQtAQ_QgSkZw5s-vfC/view?usp=sharing
Popla appeal outcome - page 1:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVY2BfG9PQmhlyiAX5TpqvmNbY0QKfyo/view?usp=sharing
Popla appeal outcome - page 2:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ITWEnAmnyVz8rrGejUAZeA3wjnf5vy3P/view?usp=sharing
McDonald's Signage:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdJ36j-zTQZN2MumRU73TvEElTp0H1dN/view?usp=sharing
Site: McDonald’s Leytonstone (site 134) — allegation: “drivers and passengers must remain on the premises” (not ANPR overstay).
Event: 18/07/2025 at 16:21 (per PCN).
Keeper: I am the Registered Keeper.
Appeals: MET rejected (15/08/2025). POPLA refused (09/10/2025).
Context: The operator alleges the driver left the premises. Passengers were on-site throughout.
Key points: the term is non-prominent and ambiguous (no driver vs passenger distinction); no site boundary is shown to customers; and the operator’s survey (with restaurant staff, including male/female toilet checks) doesn’t prove the driver crossed any defined boundary. Forbidding wording = no contract; CRA transparency/fairness issues; Beavis distinguished.
I can add the toilet-survey sheet and signage/site-plan pages if helpful.
MET PCN:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q_tDv0rogNnOhv0s3gSxYCnXwhwRhtQW/view?usp=sharing
Appeal to MET:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10i7M78dm7eWpRKSdDlYuOlVbzRe2J8bf/view?usp=sharing
MET appeal outcome:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oWGFG-l6PTo6GEMQtAQ_QgSkZw5s-vfC/view?usp=sharing
Popla appeal outcome - page 1:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVY2BfG9PQmhlyiAX5TpqvmNbY0QKfyo/view?usp=sharing
Popla appeal outcome - page 2:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ITWEnAmnyVz8rrGejUAZeA3wjnf5vy3P/view?usp=sharing
McDonald's Signage:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MdJ36j-zTQZN2MumRU73TvEElTp0H1dN/view?usp=sharing