DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 60120--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: b789
Date: March 1, 2025, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've asked for it. The adjudicator was Stuart Lumsden and I've
seen a few of his terrible decisions. He's one that is in dire
need of some eduction and training as he has no concept of PoFA
and statutory control/relevant land.
#Post#: 60121--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 1, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent - this site crops up fairly often so having that to
hand will be useful.
#Post#: 60130--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 1, 2025, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks will look around and draft something then come back here.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> A recent POPLA appeal for the same location that was not
successful
>
--- End Quote ---
Is that the exception or the norm for this location at popla?
#Post#: 61259--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 7, 2025, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My first attempt below from stitching together appeals i've seen
here plus some chatgpt help
To POPLA,
I, the registered keeper of vehicle XYZ, received a "Parking
Charge Notice" titled "Notice to Keeper" via post from MET
Parking Services (hereinafter referred to as MET). I appealed
this notice to MET, which acknowledged and subsequently rejected
my appeal without addressing the points I raised. It remains my
position that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have
no liability for the parking charge. My appeal should therefore
be upheld on the following grounds:
The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Operator has Failed to Meet the Requirements of Paragraph 14
of PoFA
Failure to Address Appeal Points
Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of
Driver Identity
1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
MET does not know the identity of the driver and is pursuing me
as the vehicle’s registered keeper. The alleged contravention
occurred at Southgate Park, which falls within the boundary of
Stansted Airport. A Stansted Airport-issued map, provided with
this appeal, confirms this fact. As Stansted Airport is subject
to byelaws, it falls under statutory control.
Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA explicitly states that
"relevant land" excludes any land that is "subject to statutory
control," such as land governed by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate
Park does not qualify as relevant land under PoFA. While the
land may be privately owned and MET Parking Services may have
been contracted to manage the car park, this does not override
the fact that it falls under statutory control.
Since Southgate Park is not relevant land, MET cannot invoke
PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. The only party they
may legally pursue is the driver, whose identity has not been
disclosed. As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver, and thus, there is no keeper liability in
this case.
2. The Operator has Failed to Meet the Requirements of Paragraph
14 of PoFA
Even if Southgate Park were considered relevant land (which is
denied), MET would still be unable to hold me liable as the
registered keeper due to non-compliance with PoFA’s
requirements. PoFA sets out specific conditions that must be met
for an operator to transfer liability from the driver to the
keeper. MET has failed to meet these requirements, and thus, I
cannot be held liable.
3. Failure to Address Appeal Points
In my initial appeal to MET, I explicitly raised the issue that
Southgate Park is not relevant land under PoFA and that MET had
not complied with PoFA’s requirements for keeper liability.
However, MET failed to address these fundamental legal arguments
in its rejection. Instead, MET dismissed the appeal without
properly engaging with the evidence or responding to the legal
basis of my argument. This indicates that the rejection was
issued without due consideration of the facts or applicable
legal framework.
4. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
MET has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and
conditions of parking were clearly displayed and visible to
motorists. For a driver to be bound by a contract, signage must
be legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read
before a contract is formed. MET has failed to provide
satisfactory evidence that:
The signage was adequately positioned and illuminated;
The terms and conditions were clearly legible from a driver's
perspective;
The alleged contravention occurred in an area where sufficient
and visible signage was present.
Without such evidence, MET’s claim is unsubstantiated.
5. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of
Driver Identity
As the keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally required to
identify the driver. MET has provided no evidence to establish
the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged
contravention. Since PoFA does not apply to Southgate Park and
MET has failed to meet PoFA’s conditions for keeper liability,
MET must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without
such identification, their claim against the keeper is baseless.
Additionally, POPLA must not assume or infer that the keeper was
the driver. Established case law supports this position. In VCS
v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], HHJ Mark Gargan stated in paragraph
35.3:
"It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis
whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does
not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this
occasion, because one simply cannot tell... These are all
possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an
inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper
was driving on any given occasion."
Despite this, MET frequently attempts to mislead assessors by
referencing an erroneous note in Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private
Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:
"Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name
and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may
be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or
refusal."
This statement is contrary to established legal principles, as
explained in VCS v Edward. A keeper's refusal to identify the
driver does not justify an assumption that the keeper was the
driver. Any such inference would be legally unsound, and POPLA
must not be misled by MET’s misinterpretation of liability
rules.
Conclusion
Southgate Park is within Stansted Airport’s boundary and is
therefore subject to statutory control, excluding it from being
classified as relevant land under PoFA. The explicit wording of
Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that land
governed by byelaws does not meet the definition of relevant
land. The official airport boundary map provided with this
appeal removes any doubt about this fact.
Even if the site were relevant land, MET has still failed to
comply with PoFA’s keeper liability requirements. Furthermore,
there is no legal basis for assuming the keeper was the driver.
Established case law confirms that such an assumption is
improper.
MET has also failed to provide evidence of adequate signage and
dismissed my initial appeal without addressing my legal
arguments. Given these fundamental flaws, POPLA must uphold my
appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking
Charge Notice.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
#Post#: 61264--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 4:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the vehicle leased or hired? If not, then PoFA paragraph 14
has nothing to do with this. If you're going to mention various
paragraphs or sections, you have to make sure they apply to your
situation.
For example, because the land is under statutory control, PoFA
cannot apply. However, on their NtK, they refer to Keeper
liability under PoFA. Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP states:
[indent]"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in
its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held
liable."[/indent]
So, there is a breach of the PPSCoP which invalidates the PCN.
#Post#: 61280--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 8, 2025, 2:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
no it's not leased or hired, I guess I quoted an incorrect
section. which bit shall I remove?
#Post#: 61505--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 9, 2025, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So is my response correct and polished enough to submit?
#Post#: 61531--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: b789
Date: March 9, 2025, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a slightly more coherent version that you should send to
POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> I, the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM], received a "Parking
Charge Notice" (PCN) titled "Notice to Keeper" via post from MET
Parking Services (hereinafter referred to as MET). I appealed
this notice to MET, which acknowledged and subsequently rejected
my appeal without addressing the points I raised. It remains my
position that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have
no liability for the parking charge. My appeal should therefore
be upheld on the following grounds:
>
> [indent]1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
>
> 2. MET Cannot Transfer Liability to the Keeper and Cannot
Assume Keeper Liability for the Charge
>
> 3. MET’s Notice to Keeper Breaches the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and their KADOE Contract with the DVLA
>
> 4. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage[/indent]
>
> 1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
>
> MET does not know the identity of the driver and is pursuing
me as the vehicle’s registered keeper. The alleged contravention
occurred at Southgate Park, which falls within the boundary of
Stansted Airport. A Stansted Airport-issued map, provided with
this appeal, confirms this fact. As Stansted Airport is subject
to byelaws, it falls under statutory control.
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/NINSBCa.jpeg
>
> Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA explicitly states that
"relevant land" excludes any land that is "subject to statutory
control," such as land governed by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate
Park does not qualify as relevant land under PoFA. While the
land may be privately owned and MET may have been contracted to
manage the car park, this does not override the fact that it
falls under statutory control.
>
> Since Southgate Park is not relevant land, MET cannot invoke
PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. The only party they
may legally pursue is the driver, whose identity has not been
disclosed. As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver, and thus, there is no keeper liability in
this case.
>
> Furthermore, MET continues to mendaciously claim that because
the location is "private land" or "not at the airport," then it
must be relevant land. However, the POPLA assessor cannot deny
the obvious fact that an official Stansted Airport map, with the
airport boundary clearly marked in blue and the location of
Southgate Park marked in red, shows that it is within the
airport boundary and therefore is land under statutory control
(airport byelaws). I put MET to strict proof that this is not
the case.
>
> 2. MET Cannot Transfer Liability to the Keeper and Cannot
Assume Keeper Liability for the Charge
>
> Even if Southgate Park were considered relevant land (which is
denied), MET would still be unable to hold me liable as the
registered keeper due to non-compliance with PoFA’s strict
statutory conditions. PoFA sets out clear requirements that an
operator must meet in order to transfer liability from the
driver to the keeper. MET has failed to meet these requirements,
meaning I cannot be held liable.
>
> Additionally, as the keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally
required to identify the driver. MET has provided no evidence to
establish the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged
contravention. Since PoFA does not apply to Southgate Park and
MET has failed to meet PoFA’s conditions for keeper liability,
MET must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without
such identification, their claim against the keeper is baseless.
>
> Furthermore, POPLA must not assume or infer that the keeper
was the driver. Established case law supports this position. In
VCS v Edward [2023] (H0KF6C9C), HHJ Mark Gargan stated in
paragraph 35.3:
>
> [indent]"Simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it
does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on
this occasion, because one simply cannot tell... These are all
possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an
inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper
was driving on any given occasion."[/indent]
>
> This legal principle confirms that MET cannot assume keeper
liability unless they provide direct evidence that the keeper
was the driver. POPLA must not be misled by any attempt to
suggest otherwise.
>
> 3. MET’s Notice to Keeper Breaches the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and their KADOE Contract with the DVLA
>
> Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) clearly states:
>
> [indent]"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in
its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held
liable."[/indent]
>
> Since Southgate Park is not relevant land under PoFA, MET is
in clear breach of this section by continuing to issue Notices
to Keeper (NtKs) that falsely imply or directly state that the
registered keeper can be held liable. This is a serious breach
of the Code of Practice.
>
> By knowingly issuing such unlawful notices, MET is also in
breach of their Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with
the DVLA, which only permits them to obtain registered keeper
details for lawful and Code-compliant purposes. Handling and
processing keeper data in this manner is therefore unlawful, and
MET has no legitimate grounds to retain or use my personal data.
>
> As a result, MET’s entire basis for issuing this PCN is
fundamentally flawed. Their breach of both the PPSCoP and the
KADOE contract means that the PCN is invalid on that ground
alone. The assessor must acknowledge that MET has no legal right
to issue or enforce this charge. The PCN must be cancelled
immediately.
>
> I will be reporting MET’s conduct to the DVLA separately, but
the key point for POPLA to consider is that MET’s non-compliance
invalidates this charge entirely.
>
> 4. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
>
> MET has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and
conditions of parking were clearly displayed and visible to
motorists. For a driver to be bound by a contract, signage must
be legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read
before a contract is formed. MET has failed to provide
satisfactory evidence that:
>
> [indent]• The signage was adequately positioned and
illuminated;
> • The terms and conditions were clearly legible from a
driver's perspective;
> • The alleged contravention occurred in an area where
sufficient and visible signage was present.[/indent]
>
> Without such evidence, MET’s claim is unsubstantiated.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Southgate Park is within Stansted Airport’s boundary and is
therefore subject to statutory control, excluding it from being
classified as relevant land under PoFA. The explicit wording of
Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that land
governed by byelaws does not meet the definition of relevant
land. The official airport boundary map provided with this
appeal removes any doubt about this fact.
>
> Even if the site were relevant land, MET has still failed to
comply with PoFA’s keeper liability requirements. Furthermore,
MET’s Notice to Keeper breaches the PPSCoP and their KADOE
contract with the DVLA, meaning they have no lawful basis to
handle or retain keeper data. This renders the PCN invalid on
this ground alone.
>
> MET has also failed to provide evidence of adequate signage.
Given these fundamental flaws, POPLA must uphold my appeal and
instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge
Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 61533--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 9, 2025, 6:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
b789, is this the same site on which another case you were
involved in led to the lead assessor agreeing (after a
complaint) that it wasn't relevant land? If so, worth throwing a
reference to that in there?
#Post#: 61537--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: b789
Date: March 9, 2025, 6:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the appellant in that case didn't provide the
assessors name or the POPLA reference number. It can be
referenced but without those two details, it will hold little
weight for the assessor of this appeal.
I think that there should be enough in this appeal to persuade
the POPLA assessor but, as always with POPLA, you don't know who
is doing the assessment and they have some truly moronic
assessors on staff at the moment, who have shown incredible lack
of understanding of the law and the PPSCoP.
Anyway, if POPLA don't accept the appeal, it would be very
easily defended in court if MET are going to play silly buggers
and try and escalate it that far.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page