DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78487--------------------------------------------------
met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: frenchgooner
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HI,
i had a pcn from MET parking at southgate park, stanstead
airport. Followed the usual advice, did not disclose driver
details and submitted an appeal to popla. this is METs
response, and looking for advice on an appropriate response.
many thanks
In the appeal to POPLA Mr Knowles raises the following grounds
for appeal:
• No 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. For
the sake of clarity: Southgate Park is a pay-by-phone car park,
by definition a place in which to park vehicles. The Stansted
Airport byelaws do not impose a liability in respect of parking
vehicles within the Southgate Park car park. In light of this we
believe 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.
• Breach of KADOE As stated above, we have complied with all
aspects of PoFA 2012 and therefore there has been no such
breach. We believe we may continue to process Mr Knowles’ data
under the following legal bases:  Contract – The
processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been
entered into when vehicles enter and remain in the location.
 Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to
protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring
the car park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking
tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of
the location.
• Unclear signage We are confident that there are sufficient
signs in place in this car park and that the signs are
prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and
conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included
images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. We
are confident that our signage complies with all relevant
legislation and regulations. A motorist does not have to have
read the terms and conditions of parking to enter into a parking
contract, there is only the requirement that the parking
operator affords them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we
are confident that there is sufficient signage at the site in
order to afford motorists the chance to read the terms and
conditions that are in place. Upon entry to the site, it is the
motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that
may be in place before choosing to park or remain on site.
• No evidence of landowner authority We have included a copy of
our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence
pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and
highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract
with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with
motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual
breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v
Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking
operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be
found at
HTML https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl<br
/>
Turning to the charge itself: In this instance, the driver had
not registered the vehicle for the free parking period. 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. In line with F.3(g)
of the Appeals Charter, we requested evidence of custom during
the initial appeal process (as only customers are entitled to
park for free). We did not receive this and as such the
appellant was not entitled to the further discount when the
appeal was rejected.
PLEASE NOTE: regarding the further reduction of a charge under
Annex F, the Sector Single Code of Practice specifically states
that ‘in all cases the Appeals Charter would require the
motorist to provide the evidence.’. As such, without the
appellant providing supporting evidence then there is no
requirement for an operator to allow a further reduction. 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 may extend their stay
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.
#Post#: 78493--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: b789
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just goes to show you how idiotic and moronic POPLA assessors
can be. I have had many successful POPLA appeals for this
location because it's not relevant land and is under statutory
control of airport byelaws.
I don't know where you got the advice for your POPLA appeal but
did you include the official map that shows the airport boundary
and the location of Southgate Park within the airport boundary?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/uKLRIXF.jpeg
Anyway, a POPLA decision is not binding on you and has no effect
on anything going forwards. Just ignore all the debt recovery
letters you are going to receive. Debt collectors are powerless
to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit
on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will
assist in dealing with this scam.
#Post#: 78494--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A POPLA decision hasn't been received, that's MET's response to
his appeal, not POPLA's assessment.
#Post#: 78495--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: b789
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Doh! My bad. I can't be bothered to read the usual wall of text.
Can the OP please break it up into coherent sentences and
paragraphs so that someone can decipher it.
#Post#: 78498--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Doh! My bad. I can't be bothered to read the usual wall of
text. Can the OP please break it up into coherent sentences and
paragraphs so that someone can decipher it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Agreed, I couldn’t read it either ….
#Post#: 78504--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: b789
Date: June 27, 2025, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just fed it into an AI app and got that to decipher it for me.
Simply copy and paste the following into the POPLA webform for
the response:
--- Quote ---
> The operator’s claim that PoFA applies because “THE BYELAWS
DON’T IMPOSE A PENALTY” would be comical if it weren’t being
paraded around in what passes for evidence. To be absolutely be
clear, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
Paragraph 3(3), states that land is not “RELEVANT” if any
statutory provision imposes liability in relation to parking.
Not “ONLY IF IT RESULTS IN A FINE”. Not “only if someone gets
clamped”. Any STATUTORY CONTROL. That’s it. That’s the standard.
>
> The operator even admits that Southgate Park sits within
Stansted Airport’s boundary and is therefore subject to Stansted
Airport byelaws—a statutory instrument created under the
Airports Act. That makes the land “SUBJECT TO STATUTORY
CONTROL”, no ifs, buts or words that evidence the intellectual
malnourishment of their author. PoFA simply does NOT apply. No
amount of rhetorical gymnastics from the operator changes that
reality.
>
> The operator’s attempt to rewrite PoFA so they can pretend
keeper liability magically exists is farcical. It’s the kind of
argument that wouldn’t make it past the first five minutes in an
actual court—but here we are, playing pantomime in front of a
body that doesn’t even require legal qualifications from its'
assessors.
>
> There is NO KEEPER LIABILITY. End of. If the operator can’t
identify the driver, they’re out of luck. Perhaps next time they
should try reading the legislation before quoting it.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 78532--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 27, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, where is the operator's statement as to their 'Relationship
with the Landowner', para. 14.1.c refers?
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
As regards your response..I suggest perhaps..
The operator acknowledges that the area managed by them on which
the alleged breach of a relevant obligation occurred falls
within the boundary of Stansted Airport. However, they assert
that 'The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for
vehicles parking within Southgate Park'.
Clearly this cannot withstand scrutiny because the scope of
byelaw 2(Penalties) covers every byelaw and byelaw 6(3) states
the following:
6(3) No person shall ...park any 'Vehicle' ..elsewhere than in a
place provided by the 'Airport company' ..for the parking of
such vehicle.
Therefore, instead of sending the assessor off to discover the
substance of their assertions by posting hyperlinks(as opposed
to quoting and referencing in detail as I have done here) all
the operator needs to do to prove their claim is to produce
evidence that the land is a place 'provided by the Airport
company' for the parking of vehicles. Given that s14.1.c of the
Code of Practice requires the operator to have in writing
confirmation as to 'such byelaws which apply to the land' then
the assessor need look no further than this.
I was unable to find such confirmation in the operator's
evidence.
....
#Post#: 78743--------------------------------------------------
Re: met parking at starbucks southgate park appeal response
DIR By: frenchgooner
Date: June 29, 2025, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
i did provide that map of stanstead, although MET have admitted
in their evidence the car park is within the boundry. I drafted
something up based on what i found on this site as i had to
respond to the appeal to be within the 7 days.
i find it incredulous the POPLA waste their time dealing with
these cases against MET and southgate park, as surely the
outcome is always the same. why doesn't something change to
stop wasting everyones time
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1