DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61954--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 11, 2025, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What popla category do i pick on the form? I was not the driver
or other?
#Post#: 61955--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 11, 2025, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Other. Let your POPLA appeal PDF do the talking for you.
#Post#: 61956--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 11, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
thank you so much, submitting now
#Post#: 63518--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 20, 2025, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So MET have uploaded their evidence and a case summary PDF to
POPLA now. I have about 3 days left to respond with my comments.
The comments are this:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/GlkgpEn.png
The PDF is over 30 pages of stuff, the original PCN, appeals,
signs, maps and site photos.
#Post#: 63622--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: b789
Date: March 21, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Use DropBox or Google Drive to his the files so that we can see
their response.
#Post#: 63625--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: b789
Date: March 21, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Never mind... just copy and paste the following into the POPLA
response webform. It is under the 10,000 character limit:
--- Quote ---
> This response addresses MET Parking Services' submission to
POPLA and highlights the flaws in their arguments. MET Parking
Services has failed to rebut key points raised in the appeal,
and their attempt to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA) is legally flawed.
>
> 1. The location is not relevant land under PoFA
>
> The appellant has provided an official airport boundary map
from Stansted Airport, which clearly shows that Southgate Park
is within the official airport boundary. This map was submitted
with the appeal as direct evidence of the statutory control over
the land.
>
> MET has completely ignored this map and has not rebutted the
obvious evidence that the location falls within the airport
boundary. Instead, they attempt to dismiss the argument by
making vague assertions about whether the byelaws apply to
parking but fail to provide any evidence contradicting the
airport's official boundary.
>
> MET has provided a link to the airport byelaws, but this link
does not contain any map of the airport boundary. In contrast,
the official map submitted by the appellant confirms that the
car park is within the airport's jurisdiction. The fact that MET
has ignored this map and provided no counter-evidence is a clear
failure to rebut a key piece of evidence in this appeal.
>
> Since PoFA does not apply to land that is under statutory
control, MET has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable. They
can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been
disclosed.
>
> 2. The location is under statutory control
>
> MET Parking Services has failed to properly respond to the
core argument that Southgate Park is under statutory control.
The appeal clearly stated that PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph
3(1)(c) excludes land if the parking of a vehicle on that land
is subject to statutory control, such as land covered by airport
byelaws. The Stansted Airport byelaws contain a provision that
regulates where vehicles may be parked within the airport
boundary. Since the byelaws impose statutory control over
parking, this means the location is not relevant land under
PoFA.
>
> The airport byelaws do contain a provision stating:
>
> “No person shall leave any cargo or baggage or park any
vehicle or equipment elsewhere than in a place provided by the
airport company for the accommodation of such cargo or baggage
or the parking of such vehicle or equipment.”
>
> This confirms that the parking of a vehicle is subject to
statutory control because it dictates where vehicles may and may
not be parked. The fact that the byelaws regulate where vehicles
can be parked means that parking is subject to statutory
control, satisfying the exclusion in PoFA
>
> MET Parking Services has failed to acknowledge or rebut the
official airport boundary map provided in this appeal, which
confirms that Southgate Park is within the airport boundary and
thus subject to these byelaws. They have also failed to explain
why they believe that parking at this location is not subject to
statutory control, despite the clear wording of the byelaws.
>
> The byelaws provided in MET’s evidence pack confirm that they
apply to any land within the boundary of Stansted Airport,
meaning it is subject to statutory control.
>
> MET Parking Services’ argument that byelaws only apply to
areas where road traffic enactments do not apply is incorrect
and misleading. The wording of PoFA does not require byelaws to
specifically mention parking. It simply states that land under
statutory control is not ‘relevant land.’ Byelaws exist over
Stansted Airport, which means PoFA does not apply, and MET
cannot transfer liability to the Keeper.
>
> MET has failed to provide any legal argument or evidence to
counter this point. Their response simply states that they are
“confident” that byelaws do not apply to parking in this
location. Confidence is not evidence. Their failure to address
the specific wording of PoFA means that they have not rebutted
the fundamental legal argument that this land is not ‘relevant
land.’
>
> Since PoFA does not apply, MET has no legal basis to hold the
Keeper liable. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity
has not been disclosed.
>
> 3. MET Parking Services has failed to address the core legal
argument
>
> The appeal highlighted that MET’s rejection of the initial
appeal ignored the argument about statutory control. In their
response to POPLA, MET again fails to provide any legal argument
refuting this point. Instead, they attempt to deflect the issue
by claiming that PoFA applies because the byelaws do not
explicitly mention parking.
>
> MET’s failure to address this key issue is a clear indication
that they do not have a legal basis to enforce the parking
charge. They have not cited any law, case law, or legal
precedent to contradict the appellant’s argument. Their silence
on this issue speaks volumes.
>
> 4. No Keeper liability under PoFA
>
> MET states that they are pursuing the registered Keeper under
PoFA because the driver has not been identified. However, this
argument is entirely dependent on PoFA being applicable, which
it is not. Since Southgate Park is subject to byelaws and
therefore statutory control, PoFA does not apply, and MET cannot
hold the Keeper liable.
>
> MET has completely failed to explain how PoFA can apply when
the location is not ‘relevant land.’ They have not addressed the
clear wording of PoFA that excludes land under statutory
control. Instead, they rely on a misleading and legally
incorrect interpretation.
>
> 5. Misleading reliance on BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code
of Practice
>
> MET attempts to rely on Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking
Single Code of Practice, which suggests that if a Keeper does
not identify the driver, they can be assumed to be the driver.
This assumption has no basis in law and contradicts established
legal precedent.
>
> The appeal referenced the persuasive appeals case of VCS v
Edward (2023), which confirms that the Keeper cannot simply be
inferred or assumed to be the driver. MET has completely ignored
this case and has not attempted to rebut it. Instead, they rely
on a non-statutory industry code that contradicts established
legal principles. POPLA must follow the law, not a misleading
interpretation from a trade body.
>
> 6. Inadequate signage evidence
>
> MET claims that their signage is clear and sufficient.
However, they have failed to provide evidence that the signs
were visible to motorists at the time of the alleged
contravention. The burden of proof is on MET to show that their
signage was clear, legible, and positioned in such a way that a
contract could be formed.
>
> The appeal specifically challenged MET to prove that:
>
> - Signs were visible before entering the car park
> - The terms were legible from a driver’s perspective
> - The signs clearly stated PoFA compliance
>
> MET has failed to provide any evidence to rebut these points.
They have simply asserted that the signage is sufficient without
addressing the specific concerns raised in the appeal. This is
another example of their failure to properly engage with the
arguments made.
>
> 7. No obligation to prove customer status
>
> MET states that the appellant has not provided proof that the
driver was a customer of the businesses on-site. However, the
burden of proof is on MET to prove that a parking contract was
formed and breached. The appellant is not required to prove
anything.
>
> MET’s attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the appellant
is a clear indication that they have no actual evidence of a
contract being formed. They must prove their case, not demand
that the appellant provide evidence in their defence.
>
> Conclusion
>
> - MET Parking Services has failed to rebut the core legal
argument that Southgate Park is under statutory control and is
not relevant land under PoFA.
> - They have not provided any legal justification for
attempting to enforce Keeper liability under PoFA.
> - MET has ignored the case law referenced in the appeal,
failing to address binding legal principles that refute their
position.
> - Their signage evidence is inadequate and does not address
the specific concerns raised.
> - Their attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the
appellant is legally flawed.
>
> Given these failures, MET Parking Services has not
demonstrated that they have any legal basis to enforce the
parking charge against the Keeper. Therefore, the appeal must be
allowed, and the Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 63693--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: March 22, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much submitted my comments
#Post#: 78606--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Parking Services - Southgate Park - Stansted Airport
Starbucks/McDonalds - Notice To Keeper
DIR By: whydothistome
Date: June 27, 2025, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal successful - "The operator has not persuaded me that the
byelaws are not relevant to general parking at the stanstead
site. I am not satisfied that the operator can use POFA to
pursue the keeper of the vehicle"
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page