Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - maxi54

Pages: [1]
1
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

2
I was a genuine customer at McDonald’s Leytonstone but still received a PCN for “leaving the site” despite proof of purchase and family dining inside. POPLA rejected my appeal and McDonald’s refused to intervene.

I’m now considering raising this publicly with the press, as it seems many others have had similar experiences. If anyone has advice on final steps or is willing to share their story (even anonymously), please reply or DM me.

3
Private parking tickets / Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
« on: October 11, 2025, 10:55:31 pm »
I posted about this before but my comment may have been missed, so I’m posting again here for visibility.

I’m in the same situation, a genuine customer at McDonald’s, received a PCN for “leaving the site,” appeal rejected, and McDonald’s declined to help even with proof of purchase.

I’m now considering raising the issue with the press and other public channels, as I know many others have been affected too.

If anyone has advice on any final steps before doing that, or if you’ve experienced the same and might be willing to share your story I’d really appreciate hearing from you.

4
Private parking tickets / Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
« on: October 11, 2025, 09:48:01 pm »
It’s really interesting to read how this case was ultimately resolved, especially after the BPA and MP got involved, and I was quite shocked to learn about the reference to a “survey” inside McDonald’s toilets mentioned in the PCN.

In my own situation, I haven’t gone down the BPA route yet, but I’ve already exhausted the usual steps: appeal rejected by POPLA and McDonald’s refusing to intervene despite proof that we were genuine customers dining inside.

At this point I’m considering raising the issue publicly through the press and consumer channels, as it’s clear many people are being treated unfairly under the “leave the premises” rule.

If anyone here has had a similar experience and might be willing to share their story (even anonymously) for a press piece, or if there’s any advice you’d recommend before I go down that route, I’d really appreciate it.

Pages: [1]