DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65419--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: April 2, 2025, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair point, thanks both. 8)
#Post#: 67554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: April 17, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay so MET has replied to POPLA with their "evidence".
They have also included a big PDF document with their evidence,
which i can upload if needed? Ive replaced the name with KEEPER
- FYI.
POPLA only give you 7 days to reply!
--- Quote ---
> In the appeal to POPLA KEEPER states that this is not relevant
land and therefore PoFA 2012 does not apply, so we cannot seek
registered keeper liability. As we have not been provided with
the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are
pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice
to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a
full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper
under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.
As stated in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, Relevant Land is any land that is not a) a
highway maintainable at the public expense, b) a parking place
which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority, or c)
any land excepting the aforementioned on which the parking of a
vehicle is subject to statutory control. Paragraph 3 subsection
3 states that parking is subject to statutory control if any
statutory provision imposes a liability in respect of the
parking of vehicles on that land. The Stansted Airport byelaws
do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate
Park. We have included in section E of this evidence pack
excerpts from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and also the
Airport byelaws. The full airport byelaws may be viewed online
at:
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf<br
/>In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions
laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land. In
this instance, the driver was not entitled to the free parking
period as they were not a customer and had not registered the
vehicle. As advised on the signs, only customers are entitled to
the free parking period, and they must register their vehicle on
arrival. The driver did not make payment for their stay as an
alternative and as such the parking charge was issued. This
would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as only
Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free, and at no
point has KEEPER claimed that the driver was a customer or
provided evidence to demonstrate that they were. The terms and
conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are
prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car
park. These include that the car park is for the use of
Southgate Park customers only and that to receive the 60-minute
maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their
vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors that are not Starbucks
customers may pay to park for up to 3 hours by using the pay by
phone service. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of
our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car
park without being registered for the free parking period and no
payment was made as an alternative. It remains the driver’s
responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply
with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that
the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be
refused.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 67563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: April 17, 2025, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just copy and paste this rebuttal from a previous POPLA appeal
over the exact same location and reasons:
--- 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.
> - hey 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#: 67633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: April 18, 2025, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank You.
#Post#: 67798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 19, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, it's not as simple as b789 suggests.
MET manage the site and were clearly nonplussed by the quoted
POPLA decision. But they have a contract and IMO won't surrender
all income easily.
Previously, the assessor stated that they had allowed the appeal
in question because MET had failed to rebut the appellant's
claim that the land was not relevant land.
But now they are and their evidence makes their argument clear
in that there is NO statutory provision which 'imposes a
liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of
a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the
parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a
description that includes the vehicle in question.' Therefore
although subject to the byelaws, it is 'relevant land'.
I suggest the OP deals with this argument in detail rather than
generalities.
The creditor claims and states that there were numerous and
clear signs setting out the terms of parking.
The landowner is the 'Airport Company'.
Byelaw 3(28) states that 'no person shall..fail to comply with a
..sign exhibited by or on behalf of the Airport Company?
Byelaw 2 deals with Penalties and byelaw 2(3) states that the
penalty for contravention..of any other byelaw shall not exceed
level 3 on the standard scale.
It seems quite clear that the creditor's evidence is seeking to
disapply the byelaws in favour of their contract with Starbucks,
the lessee. (OP, I haven't seen the landowner authority. Is it
Starbucks and are they a lessee? I'm assuming they are.)
That the land is not 'relevant land' cannot be disputed as the
byelaws are clear, and this is a matter for the assessor.
MET's attempt to disapply the byelaws is a different matter
which the appellant will address with the Airport Company
direct.
My thoughts.
#Post#: 76421--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: June 13, 2025, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks like we did it! (Mostly you guys...)
--- Quote ---
> In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle
parked on the site on the day of the parking event. The
appellant has advised that the operator cannot rely on PoFA
Schedule 4 to transfer liablity as the land in question is not
relevant. The operator has provided excerpts from Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the airport byelaws in
the evidence file. The Byelaws describe areas within Stansted
Airport in two ways: areas subject to traffic enactments, and
areas not subject to traffic enactments. In either case, the
land described would be subject to statutory control and not
relevant land as defined within the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. In this case the driver of the vehicle is not known and as
the operator has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that
the land is relevant land I am not satisfied that it can apply
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 to transfer liability.
Accordingly, I am allowing this appeal. I note that the
appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case,
however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not
considered them.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: August 16, 2025, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Juicymarbel - Thank you for a concise an informative thread.
Likewise to all who assisted you.
I recently received a similar Notice to Keeper. I appealed
immediately as the vehicle was only parked for 30 minutes and,
like so many others, I was unaware of the nuances of the
carpark. I responded as keeper, refusing to name the driver.
The NTK that I received makes no mention of PofA Schedule 4. It
simply says that I am now invited to either pay the charge or,
if I was not the driver, to notify MET of the name and address
of the driver and pass the NTK on to them.
In anticipation of the appeal rejection by MET, may I ask if:
1. I am obliged under any other legislation to disclose the
name of the driver.
2. MET can pursue me as keeper for the parking charge without
relying on PofA.
I understand the arguments relating to relevant land but did not
mention them in my appeal to MET as I did not know about this
issue at the time. Can I still rely on this argument when
appealing to POPLA (which I certainly intend to do).
Thank you in anticipation and keep up the good work!!
#Post#: 85976--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 17, 2025, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Speedy809 link ---
>
>
> I recently received a similar Notice to Keeper.of the driver.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
@Speedy809
Please to have a read of
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
and start your own topic with a brief account of the
circumstances and copies of the redacted paperwork. By all means
include there a link to this thread.
#Post#: 86009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: August 17, 2025, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Done. Thank you and apologies for my ignorance of the Forum
Rules.
#Post#: 93891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: JulianB
Date: October 13, 2025, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear HC Anderson, I have just read your well stated case but I
have just won my POPLA appeal on precisely the point you claim
will fail - "their evidence makes their argument clear in that
there is NO statutory provision which 'imposes a liability
(whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or
charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on
that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description
that includes the vehicle in question.' Therefore although
subject to the byelaws, it is 'relevant land'."
I got a copy of the actual bylaws applicable at Stansted and it
does mention that parking restrictions and penalties DO exist on
Stansted land in Section 2 and the assessor concluded the same
and said the following:
"The appellant has then reviewed the operator’s evidence and
questioned whether this claim is sufficient as there are
penalties imposed on the land under said byelaws within The
Stansted Airport - London Byelaws, 1996. Having reviewed the
same document I can confirm that penalties are being imposed on
the land to vehicles as stated in Section 2, 5(3), 6(1) and 6(3)
of the byelaws as provided by the operator. They have provided
no evidence that shows that the area of Southgate Park does not
fall within the airport jurisdiction. I am therefore satisfied
that the land can be considered under statutory control......."
Please keep at these people - you can probably win!
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page