DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87457--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: August 27, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
#Post#: 87734--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: frenchgooner
Date: August 29, 2025, 3:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
got my appeal result today, it was successful so thought i'd
post the appeals summery
I am allowing this appeal for the following reason: When an
appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the
operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In
this case the operator has issued the PCN to the driver for
parking without authorisation. The driver has not been
identified, and the operator must meet the requirements set out
in the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 to transfer
liability to the keeper however, POFA can only be used on
relevant land. The PCN has been issued on land under statutory
control as airport land is not considered relevant land unless
the parking operator can demonstrate otherwise. Section 3 (1)
(c) of POFA 2012 discusses the relevant land definition below:
“3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including
land above or below ground level) other than— (a) a highway
maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of
section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b) a parking place
which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c) any
land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the
parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.” The
parking operator has attempted to demonstrate that the land on
which the vehicle was parked is in fact relevant land by
advising that the Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a
penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park and quote
Section 3 (3) which advises: "(3) For the purposes of
sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is
“subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision
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." 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. The
operator has not demonstrated that this is relevant land and
POFA 2012 therefore cannot be applied in this instance. As such,
the PCN is invalid as liability cannot be transferred without
using POFA 2012. I am therefore not satisfied that the PCN has
been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I
acknowledge that the appellant has brought other grounds of
appeal and evidence to POPLA, but as I am allowing this appeal
based on the reasoning above, there is no requirement to address
the additional evidence and grounds as they will not affect the
outcome of this appeal.
#Post#: 88938--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: September 8, 2025, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for posting. Are you able to provide the
text that you wrote to make the appeal?
#Post#: 88939--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: September 8, 2025, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have found the below text for the POPLA appeal and entered my
details (which I've removed for this thread). Please see below
draft - could you let me know if it is correct for my case?
Thank you.
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.
#Post#: 88988--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why would your case be any different? Just submit that appeal.
#Post#: 89055--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: September 9, 2025, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was told to post the draft appeal for checking before making
it.
Thanks
#Post#: 92194--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: September 30, 2025, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
MET parking has submitted the following objections to my appeal.
Are you able to help me challenge these please? I am not sure
that the parking sign states that you do not have to pay when
the shops are closed, but I have no evidence of that.
The keeper 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. The Stansted Airport byelaws do
not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park.
We have included in section E a map showing the boundary of
Stansted Airport, from which it is clear the area occupied by
Southagte Park, outlined in yellow, is not part of the Airport.
This map is the most recent version and was submitted to the
High Court last year, as evidenced by the link provided in
section E. 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. • Appeal points not addressed As demonstrated in
section E, we addressed the appellant’s points regarding the
airport byelaws. • Inadequate evidence of clear and prominent
signage The free 60-minute parking period is only available to
motorists whilst they are a customer of Southgate Park
(Starbucks). At the time the vehicle was on site Starbucks was
closed and therefore the driver was not a customer. As such,
they were not entitled to the free parking period and payment
was required for their stay. For the sake of clarity: this would
not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as there was no
free stay at the time. All motorists were required to make
payment to park on site. We are confident that there are
sufficient signs in place in this car park, that the signs are
prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and
conditions, and that our signage complies with all relevant
legislation and regulations. In Section E of our evidence pack
we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of
the location. 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. In summary, 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 there is a 60-minute free stay for
Southgate Park customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please
note: as the parking event occurred while the on-site business
was closed, there is no free stay. Should the driver have wished
to use the car park while the business is closed, they should
have paid the appropriate tariff. As the evidence we have
provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the
vehicle remained in the car park without payment having been
made. 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#: 92212--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2025, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please host their evidence pack on something like Google Drive
(make the file publicly available). I would need to see this new
evidence they claim they have that says the land at Southgate
Park is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA.
Without that, I can't give you anything to respond to. You have
7 days to respond so do not waste time.
ALso, in future, please edit their response so that we don't
have to read a wall of text.
#Post#: 92222--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 30, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, a few carriage returns or paragraph breaks would be
helpful. I simply don’t want to read what you have posted.
#Post#: 92271--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: October 1, 2025, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The evidence pack includes the personal details of the keeper so
I can't make it publicly available. It's a huge pdf and I can't
delete or amend it. I've amended the text below and I'll try to
attach a screenshot of the map that they are using as evidence.
The keepr 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.
The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for
vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We have included in
section E a map showing the boundary of Stansted Airport, from
which it is clear the area occupied by Southagte Park, outlined
in yellow, is not part of the Airport. This map is the most
recent version and was submitted to the High Court last year, as
evidenced by the link provided in section E.
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.
Appeal points not addressed As demonstrated in section E, we
addressed the appellant’s points regarding the airport byelaws.
Inadequate evidence of clear and prominent signage. The free
60-minute parking period is only available to motorists whilst
they are a customer of Southgate Park (Starbucks). At the time
the vehicle was on site Starbucks was closed and therefore the
driver was not a customer. As such, they were not entitled to
the free parking period and payment was required for their stay.
For the sake of clarity: this would not qualify under F.3(g) of
the Appeals Charter as there was no free stay at the time. All
motorists were required to make payment to park on site. We are
confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car
park, that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state
the terms and conditions, and that our signage complies with all
relevant legislation and regulations.
In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the
signs in place and a site plan of the location. 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. In summary, 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 there is a 60-minute free stay for
Southgate Park customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please
note: as the parking event occurred while the on-site business
was closed, there is no free stay. Should the driver have wished
to use the car park while the business is closed, they should
have paid the appropriate tariff.
As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence
pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without
payment having been made. 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.
 
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page