URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 93289--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: Speedy809
       Date: October 7, 2025, 2:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Update - POPLA have disclosed METs response which hinges on
       their assertion that Southgate Car Park is no longer part of
       Stansted Airport, based on a High Court ruling dated 5 Jul 24
       that post-dates that of the map relied on in this forum (2023).
       That High Court ruling is provided here:
  HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1*vi0z7d*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE
       I have 7 days to respond and would be incredibly grateful for a
       framework answer as it appears that they can, in fact, rely on
       Schedule 4 of PoFA to pursue the registered keeper of the
       vehicle.
       #Post#: 93313--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: b789
       Date: October 8, 2025, 1:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Utter testicles from MET! That is an injunction taken out by
       Manchester Airport Plc (Stansted owner) and only covers the land
       owned by them. Southgate Park is owned by Tabacon and so the
       injunction does not cover their land. Irrespective of that, the
       land owned by Tabacon is within the Stansted Airport boundary
       and is covered by bylaws.
       Parcels of land within the Stansted Airport boundary can be
       owned by anyone. It does not remove the fact that that land sits
       within the bylaws boundary of the airport
       Have a look at this very recent thread which includes the
       response to submit to their mendacious evidence:
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-airport-met-southgate-park-starbucks/
       Just copy the same response as given there.
       #Post#: 93371--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: Speedy809
       Date: October 8, 2025, 8:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you so much. I have responded using that thread and will
       update idc.
       Its refreshing people prepared to help strangers in this way. It
       really is humbling. Thanks again!
       #Post#: 93389--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: October 8, 2025, 10:22 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Let's be clear here, what MET Parking are doing on this site
       must be very close to fraud.
       I mean, how can a firm set up a legitimate parking enforcement
       operation without FIRST establishing the nature of the ground on
       which the enforcement activity will take place?
       For a start, you cannot establish the correct wordings for your
       NtK unless the nature of the land is clearly established.
       An incorrect NtK is also a breach of their DVLA agreement with
       potential ramifications for misuse of data. Further misuse can
       then occur if that data is passed to a third party 'debt
       collector.'
       At each stage MET appear to completely over state their true
       legal position - this isn't an accident.
       It is highly questionable if parking companies actually have
       sufficient reasoning for accessing keeper data at locations like
       this - with no keeper liability + VCS v Edward (no assumption
       that the keeper was the driver), there is no legitimate legal
       pathway between obtaining driver details and a successful County
       Court Claim. Meaning, all they can do is use the keeper details
       to intimidate and play a game of statistical chess.
       #Post#: 108593--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: Speedy809
       Date: February 3, 2026, 2:54 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Another update: APPEAL SUCCESSFUL!! They took their time
       though!!
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sincere thanks to 'b789' who walked me through this and without
       who's help I would not have succeeded.
       The details of the adjudication are below.
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I now intend to complain to:
       My MP - To see what can be done to stop this disgusting
       practice.
       DVLA - Because MET are obtaining my data under the false or
       implied assertion that POFA applies when it clearly does not.
       The ICO - Because I already demanded that MET cease processing
       my data and they refused to do so.
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I urge anyone else getting a PCN from MET under similar
       circumstances to go through the steps in this thread AND make
       similar complaints.
       Thanks again and keep up the good work!!
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Assessor summary of your case
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds
       of appeal: • Southgate Park is within the boundary of Stansted
       Airport, therefore it is not relevant land as defined by PoFA •
       This means Met Parking cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the
       registered keeper In their comments, they expand on their appeal
       grounds. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided:
       1. A map of the airport boundary
       2. A copy of the Stansted byelaws
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Assessor supporting rational for decision:
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This decision relates to PCN: xxxxx It is the operator’s
       responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the
       PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning
       outlined below: In this case, the appellant says the car park
       lies within the Stansted Airport land, where byelaws apply, and
       therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) cannot be
       used to hold them liable as the registered keeper. I note the
       operator’s claim that the only relevant part of the byelaws is
       the part labelled parking – and that this is in relation to
       cargo and baggage. However, other areas seek to restrict more
       general parking activities. For example, the byelaws include:
       “5(3) Obstruction - Except in an emergency, no person shall
       leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in
       excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of
       waiting is restricted by a Sign.” The operator’s own terms and
       conditions are about parking in an area restricted for a
       permitted time. They also include not obstructing others.
       Accordingly, the operator has not persuaded me that the byelaws
       are not relevant to general parking at the Stansted site. Due to
       this, I am not satisfied that the operator can use PoFA to
       pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle, and therefore I
       allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further
       grounds, however, as I am allowing this appeal, I do not need to
       consider those further grounds.
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Woohoo!!
       #Post#: 108641--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: February 4, 2026, 1:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       When you complain to the DVLA you need to keep your complaint
       ENTIRELY focused on the fact that MET Parking issued you with a
       PCN which stated PoFA keeper liability at a site where PoFA does
       not apply.
       If you include extra elements to your complaint then DVLA will
       spend a side of A4 drawing your complaint AWAY from the crux of
       the issue - in other words, you'll receive a 'fob off' in
       response.
       I'll lay odds now that your Stage 1 reply will be a reply that
       both explains how PoFA works and never addresses your misuse of
       data claim against the operator.
       #Post#: 108742--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another
       Hapless Victim
   DIR By: Speedy809
       Date: February 4, 2026, 1:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks. I'll take it all as far as I can. Watchdog is worth a
       shout too!
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page