DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80904--------------------------------------------------
Split: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: JulianB
Date: July 14, 2025, 6:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The car of which I am the keeper has also been pictured at
Stansted when McDonald's car park was full parking in what I
thought was a legitimate overflow car park. I have appealed on
the basis that the car park is not 'relevant land' under the
PoFA 2012, Paragraph 3(1)(c) Schedule 4 nor section 2.31(c) of
the BPA "Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice" 27th
June 2024 v1 because it lies within the boundary of Stansted
Airport, and thus on land under 'statutory control'(i.e. land
with bylaws).
I have now found that Met Parking Services are deliberately
playing 'fast and loose' with the POPLA appeal process and in
the process bringing POPLA themselves and their process into
disrepute - here's how:
I have detailed my case for appeal (above) along with boundary
maps of the Stansted perimeter (attached) within which lies
'Southgate Park' on the two occasions open to under the MET
Parking appeal process and on neither occasion have they EVER
RESPONDED DIRECTLY to the actual point I'm making, simply
sending me boilerplate replies about signage and then refusing
my appeal and referring me to POPLA.
Once engaged with the POPLA process, where I only have seven
days to respond (why? and how come MET get to dictate when the 7
days starts by lodging their own evidence?), MET suddenly
respond for the first time, in process terms 'at the last
minute', to my original appeal basis with a complicated legal
argument that I as a working layman need time to respond to.
They're playing the system - waiting till the last possible
minute to respond so I don't have time to put together a
coherent counter argument. I don't have my own legal team and
this isn't my day job, but it is a point of principle with me
and I'll stick it out till the bitter end.
I've been away for 5 days on holiday and not looking at my
email, so here's what I've returned to with 6 hours to compose a
response:
MET Parking Services - EW
Operator Case Summary
In the appeal to POPLA Mr XXX raises the following grounds for
appeal: • No keeper liability/non-relevant land 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) anyland 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 Brearley’s 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. We have not
been contacted by the BPA in relation to this charge. 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). At no point has evidence of custom been provided and
as such Mr Brearley was not entitled to the further discount
when his 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 offer the further
reduction. 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. 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.
[/i][/color]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 14, 2025, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m not reading that wodge of text, sorry. Can you not format it
more nicely?
#Post#: 81365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Split: MET Parking Services ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: July 16, 2025, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just do a search for other identical POPLA appeals here on the
forum and use the response to the operators evidence from one of
those.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1