DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 27, 2025, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got the final answer and a POPLA code, so i assume the next
steps are to formulate a letter to POPLA based on the location
argument. Are there any existing templates i can amend?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/5mv0PNG.jpeg
#Post#: 64408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: March 27, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can do a search on this forum as there are a few POPLA
appeals for the same location.
You should also make formal complaint about MET to the DVLA as
they have breached their KADOE contract because they are issuing
PCNs in breach of section 8.1.2(d) of the PPSCoP which 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]
You can include this map which shows that the location is within
the boundary of Stansted Airport and therefore subject to
statutory control and there can be no Keeper liability:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Hp2CEV0.jpeg
#Post#: 64901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 30, 2025, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have found this from another topic, one from b789.
Could i use this if i slash it a bit? Apologies if this doesnt
format the quote properly.
--- Quote ---
>
> Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued by MET
Parking Services
>
> PCN Reference: [Insert reference number]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert vehicle registration]
> Date of Alleged Contravention: [Insert date]
>
> This is an appeal by the Keeper of the vehicle and I raise the
following points for POPLA to consider:
>
> 1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
> 2. Failure to Address Appeal Points
> 3. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
> 4. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of
Driver Identity
>
> Grounds for Appeal:
>
> 1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
>
> The alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which is
located within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This boundary
is confirmed by a Stansted Airport-issued map provided with this
appeal. Stansted Airport is governed by airport byelaws, which
constitute statutory control over the land. 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 covered by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate Park is not
relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.
>
> While the land may be private and MET Parking Services may
have been contracted by the landowner’s agents to manage the car
park, this does not negate the fact that it is within the
airport boundary and subject to byelaws. The existence of
byelaws over the land places it under statutory control, as
established by law. MET Parking Services’ argument that the land
is not covered by byelaws is incorrect and does not override the
statutory framework. As a result, MET Parking Services cannot
rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the registered Keeper.
They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been
disclosed. As the Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver, and there can be no Keeper liability in
this case.
>
> 2. Failure to Address Appeal Points:
>
> In my initial appeal to MET Parking Services, I specifically
raised the issue of the site being under statutory control and
therefore not relevant land under PoFA. Despite this, MET
Parking Services failed to address this critical legal argument
in their rejection. Instead, they dismissed the appeal without
engaging with the evidence or addressing the legal basis of my
argument. This omission suggests their decision to reject my
appeal was not based on a proper consideration of the facts or
the applicable legal framework.
>
> 3. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage:
>
> MET Parking Services has not provided sufficient evidence that
the terms and conditions were clearly displayed and visible to
motorists. For a driver to have agreed to any contractual terms,
the signage must have been legible, prominently positioned, and
capable of being read before entering into a contract. Without
evidence of the signage’s visibility and clarity at the time of
the alleged contravention, the claim is unsubstantiated.
>
> 4. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of
Driver Identity:
>
> As the registered Keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally
obligated to identify the driver. MET Parking Services has
provided no evidence to identify the driver at the time of the
alleged contravention. Since liability cannot be transferred to
the Keeper under PoFA due to the site’s statutory control, MET
Parking Services must pursue the driver—if they can identify
them. Without such identification, their claim against the
Keeper is baseless.
>
> Furthermore, the POPLA assessor must not assume or infer that
the Keeper was also the driver. There is extensive persuasive
case law on this matter. In VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], HHJ
Mark Gargan in his conclusion, 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. For example, there
will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where
many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time.
There will be individual employers who are the registered keeper
but who allow a number of people to drive their vehicles. There
may be situations where husband and wife are each registered
keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive
the other. 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.”
>
> The appellant is explaining this point in detail because some
assessors have in the past erroneously allowed MET Parking
Services to claim that the Keeper was likely the driver without
any evidence. MET attempts to mislead assessors by relying on a
misleading and erroneous note in Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private
Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:
>
> “Liability
> It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge.
> NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or
the hirer. 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 the law, as explained in VCS v
Edward. The Keeper’s refusal to identify the driver does not
permit any assumption of driver identity. Any such inference
would be legally baseless and improper. POPLA assessors must
adhere to established legal principles and not be misled by
incorrect interpretations provided by rogue parking operators.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Southgate Park’s location within Stansted Airport places it
under statutory control and excludes it from being considered
relevant land under PoFA. The wording of Paragraph 3(1)(c) of
Schedule 4 of PoFA is clear: land subject to statutory control,
such as land covered by byelaws, is not relevant land. The
official map of the airport boundary provided with this appeal
confirms this fact beyond any doubt. Additionally, the
registered Keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver, as
supported by persuasive case law. MET Parking Services cannot
hold the registered Keeper liable for the alleged parking
charge. Their failure to address this fundamental point in their
rejection of my initial appeal further demonstrates the
inadequacy of their claim. I therefore request POPLA to uphold
this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the
Parking Charge Notice.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: April 1, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please can i have an opinion if above is a good start with
POPLA.
Also, if the appeal with POPLA fails, will the outcome be simply
to ignore it or pay £100?
#Post#: 65207--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: April 1, 2025, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'd rather appeal on a single point that is
irrefutable, namely that the location is not relevant land for
the purposes of PoFA.
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal Submission – Grounds: Land is not ‘relevant land’
under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
>
> I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not
done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.
>
> This appeal is made on the basis that MET Parking Services is
attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is
not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore,
MET has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
>
> The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within
the boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative
assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit with this
appeal a map produced by Stansted Airport that clearly shows the
official airport boundary. I have marked on this map the
location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the blue
boundary line of Stansted Airport.
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/57P2tH5.jpeg
>
> The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land.
Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to
which byelaws apply — such as Stansted Airport — it is by
definition under statutory control and therefore excluded from
the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4 of PoFA. Unless
the Secretary of State has formally revoked the application of
the byelaws to this specific parcel of land (which there is no
evidence has occurred), then the land cannot lawfully be treated
as relevant land. This remains true even if the land is used by
a private company, such as MET Parking Services, or contains
commercial outlets such as Starbucks.
>
> I first raised this point directly with MET in my original
appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating
only: “The charge was not incurred at the Airport, it was
incurred at Southgate Park (Starbucks).” This is wholly
inadequate and avoids the key legal issue. Southgate Park being
“not the terminal” is legally irrelevant. The only test that
matters is whether byelaws apply to the land — and they do.
>
> I then sent a further written response to MET explaining
clearly (again) why Southgate Park is under statutory control,
why PoFA does not apply, and why their assertions of Keeper
Liability are legally baseless. In summary, that correspondence
set out the following:
>
> [indent]1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
>
> The map now submitted is produced by Stansted Airport and
shows the area in question within the airport’s official
boundary. Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land
subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” under PoFA.
Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at Southgate Park.
>
> 2. “Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant Land”
>
> MET appear to believe that all private land is automatically
“relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA specifically
excludes land subject to statutory control, regardless of
whether it is privately owned. For example, train station car
parks are also private land, but are not “relevant land” under
PoFA because they fall under Railway Byelaws. The same principle
applies to Southgate Park due to Airport Byelaws.
>
> 3. MET Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)
>
> By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper
Liability under PoFA, MET is in breach of the PPSCoP Section
8.1.1(d), which 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]
>
> MET has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to
hold the registered keeper liable in a location where this is
not legally possible.
>
> 4. Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach
>
> MET is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it
to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply
at Southgate Park, yet the NtK sent by MET falsely states that
the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. This
misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will
be reported.[/indent]
>
> Following my second letter, MET responded again, entirely
ignoring the issue of land status. Their response merely
restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to
address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land
under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.
>
> It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site is
relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not rebutted
the airport boundary map. They have not provided any evidence
from the landowner, the airport authority, or the Secretary of
State, to show that statutory control does not apply. They have
not met the legal threshold.
>
> Conclusion
>
> [indent]• The land in question is under statutory control and
not “relevant land.”
> • MET cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4.
> • The Keeper is not liable.
> • The NtK is misleading and non-compliant with both PoFA and
the PPSCoP.
> • MET’s conduct raises further concerns regarding KADOE misuse
and must be brought to the attention of the relevant
authorities.[/indent]
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: April 1, 2025, 4:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much, do you think i need to add exactly which section
of schedule 4 refers to not relevant land, would that help?
( Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA )
#Post#: 65343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: April 2, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't bother. They know perfectly well which section of
PoFA applies. They've had since 2012 to get this right and they
haven't bothered because they know that too many of their NtK
recipients have no clue about their rights under PoFA.
This issue is being raised with the DVLA right now through a
request for a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State
to clarify why the DVLA are not investigating this breach of the
KADOE contract by MET.
You can do the same by asking your MP the same question. You can
adapt this template to send to your MP. It consists of a
covering letter and briefing document:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Request for Parliamentary Question Regarding DVLA’s
Failure to Enforce KADOE Contract with MET Parking Services
>
> Dear [MP’s Title and Surname],
>
> I am writing as your constituent to ask you to raise a
parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Transport
regarding the DVLA’s failure to investigate clear and repeated
breaches of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract by MET
Parking Services Ltd.
>
> Specifically, MET Parking continues to issue Notices to Keeper
(NtKs) that falsely assert liability for parking charges under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) at
locations that are not “relevant land” under that legislation.
These sites fall within the boundaries of airports and are
therefore subject to statutory control by virtue of airport
byelaws.
>
> The DVLA has been provided with clear evidence—including
official airport boundary maps—proving that the car parks in
question fall within land that is subject to statutory control
under airport byelaws. Despite this, the Agency continues to
provide MET Parking with access to registered keeper data and
has not taken enforcement action under the KADOE contract.
>
> I enclose a short briefing note explaining the matter further,
including the key locations involved: Southgate Park at Stansted
Airport, and McDonald's Gatwick.
>
> I would be grateful if you would ask the Secretary of State
for Transport to explain:
>
> [indent]• Why the DVLA has failed to act against MET Parking
for breaching its KADOE contract;
> • What steps are being taken to ensure that DVLA data is not
misused to unlawfully pursue liability under PoFA at sites where
it cannot apply;
> • Whether the Secretary of State will order a review of all
Notices to Keeper issued by MET Parking at these sites and
require them to cease using DVLA data in this manner.[/indent]
>
> Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I would
appreciate a copy of any response you receive.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
And here is the briefing document that goes with the letter:
--- Quote ---
> Briefing Note: MET Parking Services – Misuse of DVLA Data and
Breach of KADOE Contract
>
> Background
>
> MET Parking Services Ltd is an unregulated private parking
operator that accesses DVLA vehicle keeper data via the KADOE
(Keeper At Date Of Event) contract. Under this agreement,
parking operators must use keeper data lawfully and only in
accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA), which permits “keeper liability” for unpaid private
parking charges only on relevant land.
>
> Issue
>
> Despite clear legal restrictions, MET Parking continues to
issue postal Notices to Keeper (NtKs) asserting that the vehicle
keeper is liable under PoFA at sites where PoFA does not apply.
These locations are within the boundaries of UK airports and are
therefore subject to statutory control (airport byelaws), which
makes them not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of PoFA.
>
> Key Locations of Concern
>
> Southgate Park, Stansted Airport (CM24 1PY)
> – This car park is within the boundary of Stansted Airport, as
shown by official airport maps.
> – A POPLA appeal has upheld that the site is not “relevant
land” for the purposes of PoFA.
>
> McDonald's, Ring Road North, Gatwick Airport (RH6 0NN)
> – Located within the Gatwick Airport perimeter road.
> – Gatwick Airport is a designated area subject to airport
byelaws under statutory control.
>
> Airport boundary maps are attached withe the locations clearly
marked within those boundries.
>
> In both cases, MET Parking has continued to issue NtKs
alleging that the keeper is liable under PoFA, despite being
unable to lawfully do so.
>
> Legal Reference
>
> PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 3(1)(c) excludes from the definition
of “relevant land”:
>
> [indent]“any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is
subject to statutory control.”[/indent]
>
> Paragraph 3(3) clarifies:
>
> [indent]“The parking of a vehicle on land is ‘subject to
statutory control’ if any statutory provision imposes a
liability … in respect of the parking on that land.”[/indent]
>
> It is therefore irrelevant whether the land is operated by a
private business. If the land falls within the jurisdiction of
statutory airport byelaws—and those byelaws have not been
formally revoked by the Secretary of State—then it cannot be
relevant land for the purpose of PoFA.
>
> Why This Matters
>
> [indent]• The DVLA is under a duty to enforce the terms of its
KADOE contract.
> • Continued access to keeper data for unlawful use undermines
public trust in data handling.
> • Registered Keepers and Hirers of vehicles are being wrongly
told they are legally liable when they are not.[/indent]
>
> The DVLA’s current position misrepresents the legal test under
PoFA and shifts responsibility away from its own enforcement
obligations.
>
> Suggested Parliamentary Question
>
> [indent]To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what
steps the Department is taking to ensure that the DVLA enforces
compliance with the KADOE contract in cases where private
parking operators, such as MET Parking Services Ltd, have been
shown to issue Notices to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 at locations that are not
relevant land due to their being within the boundary of airports
subject to statutory control.[/indent]
>
> Optionally:
>
> [indent]... and whether the DVLA will review the lawfulness of
such Notices to Keeper issued at Southgate Park (Stansted) and
McDonald's Gatwick, and consider suspension of data access where
misuse is identified.[/indent]
>
> Location maps
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Hp2CEV0.jpeg
>
>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/z560i7d.jpeg
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: April 2, 2025, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank You.
I just sent it off.
Although i don't think my local PM would care about Stansted,
its useful to know how you would formulate such letter, i may
need this in the future!
Waiting game now...
#Post#: 65367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: April 2, 2025, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter whether your MP cares about Stansted or not.
You are their constituent and you have a right to ask for their
assistance, especially as you are a recipient of one of these
problematic PCNs. Simply adjust the letter to explain that you,
their constituent, have received won of these PCNs and that MET
are therefore using your DVLA data unlawfully and the DVLA is
doing nothing about this!
#Post#: 65378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 2, 2025, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If I were contacting my MP, I would be minded to draw attention
to the fact that whilst the incident may have taken place
outside of their constituency, this unscrupulous firm will also
almost certainly be operating within their constituency.
Whilst not necessary, as b789 notes, I find there's little harm
in trying to draw a link to constituency matters where you can.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page