Oh dear. Please tell us that you have not yet had any contact with MET. At no time must you reveal the identity of the driver. Only the driver is liable and they have no idea who that is.
Simply appeal with the following (verbatim) and wait for them to either cancel it or reject it and provide a POPLA code.
I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because the McDonalds at Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land'.
If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for METs own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
After they reject the appeal, you can use the above and the fact that they have breached the following sections of the BPA Code of Practice: 2.4, 2.15, 20.4, 21.6 and 21.13, 21.27 and 22.6 to name a few. A complaint to the BPA pointing out METs continued use of PoFA to try and hold the keeper liable when the location is under statutory control. It is illegal and a breach of multiple BPA CoP sections.
