DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96790--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: November 4, 2025, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just been told my appeal has failed and I now have to pay
£100. Reasons given are below if you are interested:
POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and
independent of the sector. When assessing an appeal, POPLA
considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge
notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and
conditions for the use of the car park on the day. Our remit
only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The appellant
has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the
parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am
considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the
registered keeper. I note the appellant claims that the car park
is not relevant land and has provided a map of Stanstead Airport
to show where the car park is situated. The parking operator has
provided a map of the boundary of Airport Byelaws, and I am
satisfied that the site does not fall within land under
statutory control. Therefore, I am satisfied that the parking
operator can pursue the PCN under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA). For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the
PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9.2, it needs to state that if
the details of the driver during the time of the contravention
are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is
liable for the unpaid parking charge. It must also have been
issued to the keeper within the relevant time period. I am
satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred
liability to the registered keeper. I note the appellant has
raised that this was not addressed in their initial appeal.
POPLA’s remit does not have any authority over the parking
operator’s process. If the appellant wishes to pursue any
dispute regarding this matter, they will need to follow the
parking operator’s complaints process found on its website. The
Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice sets the
standards that parking operators are required to comply with.
Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the
requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The
signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have
the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their
vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous,
using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible.
The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car
park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who
are not registered within Starbucks for 60 minutes of free
parking. The parking operator has provided evidence of a system
searches, to show that there was no terminal entry for the
vehicle’s duration of stay. The vehicle was captured on site for
35 minutes. The parking operator confirms that at the time the
vehicle was on the site, Starbucks was closed, so they would not
have been able to register for free parking. As the appellant
confirmed they understood there was 60 minutes of free parking
on the site, I am satisfied they saw the signs and the terms and
conditions were adequately brought to motorists’ attention. The
driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and
conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the
requirement that the driver is given the opportunity to read and
understand the terms and conditions of the contract before
accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the
signs, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the
contract and parking. After considering the evidence from both
parties, the motorist parked without authorisation and therefore
did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As
such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued
correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved
with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries
regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the
parking operator directly.
#Post#: 96812--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: b789
Date: November 4, 2025, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You DO NOT have to pay a penny! That decision is NOT binding on
you and has no bearing on anything going forward.
Just because a POPLA assessor does not have the intellectual
malnourishment to understand the law, does not mean that a judge
would not. Not that this will EVER get as far as a hearing.
However, you must send formal complaint to POPLA about this
decision. Not that it will change it, but it does put them on
record for their incompetent assessors and the failures to
understand basic principle of civil contract law.
Send the following as your formal complaint and let us know when
you receive a response:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Material Error of Fact and Failure
to Engage with Evidence (POPLA Ref: [insert reference])
>
> To: POPLA Complaints Team
>
> I am filing a formal complaint regarding the conduct and
quality of adjudication in my POPLA appeal decision. This is not
an attempt to reargue the merits, but to highlight clear service
failings, factual errors, and a total failure to engage with the
rebuttal evidence I provided.
>
> 1. The Assessor Ignored Core Rebuttal Evidence
> In my rebuttal (Section E), I demonstrated that the operator’s
“boundary” map was not an airport boundary plan but a High Court
interim protest injunction map. The assessor’s decision entirely
ignored this, falsely stating that it was a “map of the boundary
of Airport Byelaws”.
>
> The injunction map was never created to define the byelaws
boundary. It simply defines land the airport company owns or
controls for the limited purpose of an injunction against
protestors. The decision shows that the assessor neither read
nor understood my rebuttal.
>
> I provided URLs for:
> [indent]• The injunction map –
HTML https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/
> • The airport operator’s official planning document (Design &
Access Statement, July 2023) showing the true airport boundary
(page 8 ‘Site Plan’) –
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf[/indent]
>
> The assessor’s reasoning does not mention or address these
sources. Instead, they blindly accepted the operator’s
irrelevant map and declared that the site “does not fall within
land under statutory control”. That conclusion is factually
wrong and legally indefensible.
>
> 2. The Assessor Misunderstood Ownership and Statutory Control
> The reason Southgate Park is omitted from the injunction
perimeter has nothing to do with the byelaws. The omission is
due solely to ownership. The land is held by Tabacon Stansted 2
Limited (company no. 06408287), which holds the leasehold title
EX22286 for “Plot 4B Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, London
Stansted Airport”.
>
> (Companies House record:
HTML https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06408287/charges)
> Tabacon’s own project record confirms it purchased 2 acres at
Stansted from BAA in 2007 and let the drive-thru plots to
McDonald’s in the South Gate Amenity Area
(
HTML https://tabacon.webnode.page/projects/stansted-airport-mcdonalds-tabacon-stansted-ltd-and-tabacon-stansted-2-ltd-/).
>
> Because the injunction can only bind land the claimant owns or
controls, Southgate Park is excluded. However, the Stansted
Airport Byelaws 1996
(
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf)<br
/>apply to all land within the defined byelaws boundary,
irrespective of ownership.
>
> The byelaws are a statutory instrument under the Airports Act
1986; they do not depend on who owns the land. The assessor
failed to recognise this distinction and wrongly equated
ownership with statutory control.
>
> 3. The Legal Consequence – Land Is Not “Relevant Land”
> Under Schedule 4 Paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, “relevant land” excludes any land where parking is subject
to statutory control, such as airport byelaws. Ownership is
irrelevant; statutory control is decisive.
>
> By accepting an injunction map as proof of exclusion from the
byelaws, the assessor committed a material error of law and
wrongly concluded that PoFA applies. Keeper liability cannot
exist for parking alleged to occur on land within the Stansted
Airport byelaws boundary.
>
> 4. Requested Actions
> I therefore request that POPLA:
> [indent]1. Conduct a service review for failure to engage with
material rebuttal evidence and for misapplication of law.
> 2. Confirm whether any quality assurance or legal oversight
occurred before the decision was issued.
> 3. Provide a written explanation of:
> [indent]• Why a protest injunction map was treated as a
byelaws boundary plan.
> • Why the official airport operator planning document and
byelaws were ignored.
> • Why the assessor failed to understand the difference between
ownership and statutory control.[/indent]
> 4. Confirm the name of the assessor and reviewer responsible
for this decision.[/indent]
>
> 5. Summary
> The assessor accepted an irrelevant document without scrutiny,
ignored authoritative evidence, and reached a conclusion
contrary to statutory definition and common sense. This
represents a clear failure of competence, accuracy, and
impartiality. The matter requires internal investigation and
retraining to prevent repetition.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Address or POPLA Reference]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96875--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: November 5, 2025, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this, but unfortunately I didn't see your reply
yesterday and I paid the fine. I found it all very stressful.
#Post#: 96900--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 5, 2025, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: willowweb link ---
>
> Thanks for this, but unfortunately I didn't see your reply
yesterday and I paid the fine. I found it all very stressful.
>
--- End Quote ---
Unfortunately, you've been subject to a complex and well worked
fraud - you should consider reporting it as such to your bank
(assuming that you paid using a debit or credit card.)
This PCN was never a 'fine' - it is in fact a speculative
invoice.
Parking companies who operate on airport land know full well
that their legal position is very weak. As a result they
consistently project a false narrative in an effort to persuade
recipients to pay their speculative invoices.
In this particular case, the parking company could quite easily
clarify the precise boundary of the area under statutory
control... but they choose not to as it is not in their interest
to do so. Ditto POPLA.
In your case, POPLA where confronted with conflicting evidence
with regard to the area under statutory control - but they
immediately took the side of the parking company and discounted
your evidence. The POPLA assessor was clearly too lazy to make
some simple checks himself / herself. I wonder why that was?
Notice how the assessor is very careful to tiptoe around the
conflicting evidence - he / she makes absolutely no effort to
explain why he / she feels that the parking company evidence is
stronger than your evidence.
As well as contacting your bank, you should still submit the
formal complaint.
#Post#: 96902--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 5, 2025, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's a successful appeal at POPLA using the same evidence
which you submitted.
Arguably, your evidence was much stronger because we provided
reasoning as to why the parking company map was not relevant.
HTML https://onedrive.live.com/?redeem=aHR0cHM6Ly8xZHJ2Lm1zL2IvYy9iNGM0ZGMxNzE1NzRmNmU1L0VibXhFa0hta185RXFRcDlpME1hcmFVQldha2N0c3M4OHJEcGRqNzdYaFJpM2c%5FZT05ZVVVeU0&cid=B4C4DC171574F6E5&id=B4C4DC171574F6E5%21s4112b1b993e644ffa90a7d8b431aada5&parId=B4C4DC171574F6E5%21sb6cab9fc165b4fcdaaaa196d7b793888&o=OneUp
#Post#: 96936--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: b789
Date: November 5, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Send the POPLA complaint anyway. It needs to be on the record.
Why would stress over a speculative invoice from a firm of
ex-clampers? Maybe I should send you a speculative invoice for
£50 and offer you a 20% discount if you pay it within 14 days.
They got you thinning, wrongly, that this is some sort of "fine"
and you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
#Post#: 97009--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: willowweb
Date: November 6, 2025, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I did send it. I appreciate the help on here, but you seem to
assume that everyone has the same level of knowledge &
understanding of these processes and the law as you do. We
don't. If you are going to give up your time to help, it would
be nice if you could do it in a less condescending manner. It's
one of the reasons I found it stressful.
#Post#: 97020--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: Dave65
Date: November 6, 2025, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, these PPN`s can be stressful to some to work
through.
The regulars give their time and experience and sometimes it may
seem stressful.
But, it may take this to get the advise over to some posters.
#Post#: 97039--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: November 6, 2025, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The whole industry runs on the fear that threats of fines and
potential court action creates in people who don’t have the
knowledge of how to fight back. I know for example that it would
work in relation to some of my family if I wasn’t there to
reassure them.
It’s disappointing when someone finds their way here but then
lets this fear over rule the advice and pays anyway. It will
happen I guess, but hopefully only very infrequently.
I’ve been involved helping family/friends in a few cases, so
only very limited experience compared to our regular posters but
over time you do build confidence and get into the rhythm of the
nature of the posts. Unfortunately for many I guess a visit here
is a one off or at least only very occasional so I can
understand why some find the responses more challenging.
But we do have to always remember that the posters here, provide
their considerable time and expertise for free and with their
help we build a bigger and stronger body of people who can help
people fight back against what is an inherently dishonest
industry.
#Post#: 97044--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET Stansted PCN not sure which car park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 6, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It happens.
People also come here and seem to expect personal service for
their unique problem, which is in fact a common problem well
documented on the forum. They get a response, but sometimes it’s
going to be terse albeit factual.
Most of the people who contribute to this forum don’t have
unique specialised knowledge but are trying to help and have
learned by reading and understanding what others have said.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page