DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86008--------------------------------------------------
Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless
Victim
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: August 17, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
In the interests of brevity, I refer to an excellent thread -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/msg85962/#msg85962<br
/>
I recently received a similar Notice to Keeper. I appealed
immediately to MET Parking Services 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.
In short, the driver parked in Starbucks area of the site and
went to McDonalds.
Having done further research, I then appealed by telephone to a
McDonalds manager (No joy as its not their carpark) and to a
Starbucks manager in person (no joy as the driver did not enter
Starbucks and was not a customer).
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:
1. If I am obliged under any other legislation to disclose the
name of the driver.
2. If MET can pursue me as keeper (not registered keeper) for
the parking charge without relying on PofA.
3. I understand (now) 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)?
I have pictures of signage if necessary but have not included
them as the argument now centres on 'relevant land'.
Thank you in anticipation and keep up the good work!!
#Post#: 86012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is an unlawful Notice to Keeper (NtK) because it says they
will hold the Keeper liable when they are not allowed to.
Mention of PoFA itself is not a requirement, even if they intend
to try and hold the Keeper liable. They have stated so in the
NtK where they say "...we have the right to recover from
you...".
The location is within the boundary of Stansted Airport and is
therefore land that is under statutory control (airport
byelaws). This means that the Keeper cannot be liable, only the
driver. The only way they would know the identity of the driver
is if the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.
There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the
driver to an unregulated private parking firm. MET will still
try and pursue you as the Keeper, even though you cannot be
liable if the driver has not been identified. Hopefully, you
appealed only as the Keeper and any reference to the driver was
in the third person.
POPLA is not truly independent as it is funded by the very firms
it is adjudicating on. It is not an authority and it is
irrelevant what you used in your initial appeal, but the
operator can use anything the Keeper put in that appeal if it
assists them.
Any POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant, only the
operator. However, POPLA have now latched on to the fact that
the location is within the airport boundary and is therefore
subject to statutory control, even if MET continue to plead that
the land is private and byelaws only apply to the airport
itself.
Have a look for other POPLA appeals for this location and adapt
one of the winning ones to your situation when you receive the
initial appeal rejection. Make sure you use the map that
annotates the location of Southgate Park within the airport
boundary. You also put the operator to strict proof that they
have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits
them to issue PCNs at the location under their own name.
Even if POPLA was unsuccessful, this would never reach a
courtroom. Follow the advice and you will not be paying a penny
to MET.
#Post#: 86024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: August 17, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for the clarification. I am armed and ready to
go!!
I'll post results here to assist others.
#Post#: 87732--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: frenchgooner
Date: August 29, 2025, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
got my appeal decision, it was successful so i thought i'd post
the appeal summery from popla.
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#: 88978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: September 8, 2025, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an update.
Received a response from MET asking for proof of the driver
having attended Starbucks. The letter states:
--- Quote ---
> We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all
respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act
and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in
full and 29 days have passed since we issued the charge and we
still do not know the name and address for service of court
papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered
keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
--- End Quote ---
Responded to MET with:
I refers to your letter dated 1 Sep 25 in which you state that
you are confident that your notice to keeper complies in all
respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA), that you still do not know the name and address of
the driver and that you are entitled (under PoFA) to pursue the
registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
You will be aware, however, that appeals relating to PCNs issued
by you at Southgate car park have been upheld by POPLA because,
where the driver has not been identified, you 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.
POPLA adjudicated that you had failed to do so.
I am the registered keeper. MET cannot hold a registered keeper
liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under
statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well
aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Stansted
Airport is not 'relevant land'.
If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable
under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift
and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not
pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the
Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never
attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's own profit (as
opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and
MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Furthermore, by falsely claiming Keeper Liability under PoFA at
Southgate Park in your NtKs, you are in breach of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.1(d)
"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its
design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held
liable."
Yet you misrepresent liability, issue misleading notices, and
falsely claim the Keeper is liable when you have zero legal
basis to do so. This is not an accident. This is clearly a
deliberate and ongoing breach of industry standards.
Additionally, you are in clear breach of your DVLA Keeper At
Date Of Offence (KADOE) agreement because you are using Keeper
Data to falsely assert PoFA liability where none exists. While
you may have obtained the data lawfully, you are now misusing it
by misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal position. PoFA does not
apply at Southgate Park, yet you have knowingly issued an NtK
that falsely states the Keeper will be liable under PoFA if they
do not provide the driver’s details.
This is a clear breach of KADOE, as the Keeper’s data must not
be used for purposes that are legally invalid. You are not just
issuing unlawful demands; you are misleading the Keeper into
believing they are liable when they are not.
However, the central issue is your complete failure to
understand and apply the law correctly. The DVLA matter, which I
intend to report, is secondary.
Please cancel this PCN immediately and notify me by letter.
#Post#: 88995--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: b789
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you made a formal complaint to the DVLA about METs unlawful
claim in their NtKs for this location that they can hold the
Keeper liable?
#Post#: 89013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: September 8, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not yet but I intend to. I will involve the ICO and my MP too.
They poked the bear!!
#Post#: 90846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: September 21, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an update. I have received a response from MET refusing my
appeal.
They state that Southgate Car Park is private land and does not
fall under airport byelaws.
They also refused to cease processing my data however we are
refusing this as we believe we may continue
to process the 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.
(One for the ICO later as I think that, once they are pursuing
me illegally, they cannot rely on those reasons for processing)
They stated that they ‘are confident that our notice to keeper
complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection
of Freedoms Act’ and that they ‘are entitled to pursue the
registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge’.
They included a POPLA code and I have appealed to POPLA based on
the fact that Southgate Car Park is not relevant land iaw PoFA.
Once I get a reply, I will post the results.
What a waste of everyone's time but, if it helps anyone else,
its worth it.
#Post#: 90864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: b789
Date: September 21, 2025, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you use the POPLA appeal for this location that we already
have on the forum which includes a map evidencing that the
location is within the Stansted Airport boundary?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/8aRkbjb.jpeg
No one told you to just submit POPLA appeal without first asking
us to check it.
What exactly did you put in your POPLA appeal?
#Post#: 90873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
Hapless Victim
DIR By: Speedy809
Date: September 21, 2025, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was going to post it if successful. It is derived from other
useful and successful appeals and I used the suggested map.
Please see below:
I make the following appeal because MET Parking Services have
refused an internal appeal by me regarding Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) Number xxxxx relating to vehicle registration number
xxxxx.
The PCN was issued at Southgate Car Park, Stansted Airport. I
believe that this car park is located within the boundary of
Stansted Airport as demonstrated on the attached map.
Stansted Airport Byelaws (linked here) contain provisions at
Para 5(3) relating to vehicles causing an obstruction and at
Para 6(3) relating to parking, proving that the land is subject
to Statutory Control.
Because Stansted Airport is subject to Statutory Control, it is
not Relevant Land as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4 Para 3(1)(c).
MET Parking Services cannot, therefore, rely on PoFA to pursue
the registered keeper of the vehicle where the driver has not
been identified. MET Parking Services have asserted that the
driver has not been identified and I believe that I am under no
obligation to identify them.
MET Parking Services’ response to my internal appeal states that
they ‘are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all
respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act’ and that they ‘are entitled to pursue the registered keeper
for payment of the outstanding charge’. These are false
statement for the reasons given above and I request that you
uphold this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel
the PCN.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page