DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92565--------------------------------------------------
Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: itsgif
Date: October 2, 2025, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Following advice on this forum, I have gone through the process
of appealing a PCN received at this location as a Registered
Keeper. For POPLA, I said the following:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not
done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.
This appeal is made on the basis that MET Parking Services is
attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is
not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4.
Therefore, MET has no lawful basis to pursue the registered
keeper.
The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within the
boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative
assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit with
this appeal a map produced by Stansted Airport that clearly
shows the official airport boundary. I have marked on this map
the location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the
blue boundary line of Stansted Airport.
The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land.
Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to
which byelaws apply — such as Stansted Airport — it
is by definition under statutory control and therefore excluded
from the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4
of PoFA. Unless the Secretary of State has formally revoked the
application of the byelaws to this specific parcel of land
(which there is no evidence has occurred), then the land cannot
lawfully be treated as relevant land. This remains true even if
the land is used by a private company, such as MET Parking
Services, or contains commercial outlets such as Starbucks.
I first raised this point directly with MET in my original
appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating
only: “Please note that this is private land and does not
fall under airport byelaws.” This is wholly inadequate and
avoids the key legal issue. Which is whether byelaws apply to
the land at Southgate Park, and they do.
I then sent a further written response to MET explaining clearly
(again) why Southgate Park is under statutory control, why PoFA
does not apply, and why their assertions of Keeper Liability are
legally baseless. In summary, that correspondence set out the
following:
1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
The map now submitted is produced by Stansted Airport and shows
the area in question within the airport’s official
boundary. Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land
subject to statutory control is not “relevant land”
under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at
Southgate Park.
2. “Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant
Land”
MET appear to believe that all private land is automatically
“relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA
specifically excludes land subject to statutory control,
regardless of whether it is privately owned. For example, train
station car parks are also private land, but are not
“relevant land” under PoFA because they fall under
Railway Byelaws. The same principle applies to Southgate Park
due to Airport Byelaws.
3. MET Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)
By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper
Liability under PoFA, MET is in breach of the PPSCoP Section
8.1.1(d), which states:
“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.”
MET has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to hold
the registered keeper liable in a location where this is not
legally possible.
4. Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach
MET is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it
to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply
at Southgate Park, yet the NtK sent by MET falsely
states that the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not
named. This misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE
agreement and will be reported.
Following my second letter, MET responded again, entirely
ignoring the issue of land status. Their response merely
restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to
address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land
under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.
It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site
is relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not
provided any evidence from the landowner, the airport authority,
or the Secretary of State, to show that statutory control does
not apply. They have not met the legal threshold.
Conclusion
• The land in question is under statutory control and not
“relevant land.”
• MET cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4.
• The Keeper is not liable.
• The NtK is misleading and non-compliant with both PoFA
and the PPSCoP.
• MET’s conduct raises further concerns regarding
KADOE misuse and must be brought to the attention of the
relevant authorities.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
With this I attached the map that can be seen on this forum
showing it within the boundary.
They have now come back to my appeal, claiming the map is out of
date see below:
In the appeal to POPLA XXXXX states that there can be no keeper
liability as this is not 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.
The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for
vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We attach for your ease
of reference 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. 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. The map referenced
above was submitted as part of the high court injunction in 2024
(as opposed to the 2023 map provided by the appellant) and may
be found online at:
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1*vi0z7d*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE
Given that this is relevant land and Byelaws do not apply, there
has been no breach of KADOE or the SSCOP. 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 Starbucks 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 Starbucks customers are entitled
to park for free). XXXXX did not provide any such evidence and
was therefore not entitled to the further discount when the
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. 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 this is a pay by
phone car park 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.
What would you suggest for next steps in my appeal, I can find
no reference on here about this new map they are using. Thank
you in advance!
#Post#: 92567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: October 2, 2025, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why have you included all those html tags?
I am reproducing that text here without the extraneous tags just
make it more readable:
--- Quote ---
> Following advice on this forum, I have gone through the
process of appealing a PCN received at this location as a
Registered Keeper. For POPLA, I said the following:
>
> I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not
done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.
>
> This appeal is made on the basis that MET Parking Services is
attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is
not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore,
MET has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
>
> The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within
the boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative
assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit with this
appeal a map produced by Stansted Airport that clearly shows the
official airport boundary. I have marked on this map the
location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the blue
boundary line of Stansted Airport.
>
> The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land.
Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to
which byelaws apply — such as Stansted Airport — it is by
definition under statutory control and therefore excluded from
the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4 of PoFA. Unless
the Secretary of State has formally revoked the application of
the byelaws to this specific parcel of land (which there is no
evidence has occurred), then the land cannot lawfully be treated
as relevant land. This remains true even if the land is used by
a private company, such as MET Parking Services, or contains
commercial outlets such as Starbucks.
>
> I first raised this point directly with MET in my original
appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating
only: “Please note that this is private land and does not fall
under airport byelaws.” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the
key legal issue. Which is whether byelaws apply to the land at
Southgate Park, and they do.
>
> I then sent a further written response to MET explaining
clearly (again) why Southgate Park is under statutory control,
why PoFA does not apply, and why their assertions of Keeper
Liability are legally baseless. In summary, that correspondence
set out the following:
>
> Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
>
> The map now submitted is produced by Stansted Airport and
shows the area in question within the airport’s official
boundary. Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land
subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” under PoFA.
Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at Southgate Park.
>
> “Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant Land”
>
> MET appear to believe that all private land is automatically
“relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA specifically
excludes land subject to statutory control, regardless of
whether it is privately owned. For example, train station car
parks are also private land, but are not “relevant land” under
PoFA because they fall under Railway Byelaws. The same principle
applies to Southgate Park due to Airport Byelaws.
>
> MET Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)
>
> By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper
Liability under PoFA, MET is in breach of the PPSCoP Section
8.1.1(d), which states:
>
> “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.”
>
> MET has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to
hold the registered keeper liable in a location where this is
not legally possible.
>
> Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach
>
> MET is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it
to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply
at Southgate Park, yet the NtK sent by MET falsely states that
the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. This
misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will
be reported.
>
> Following my second letter, MET responded again, entirely
ignoring the issue of land status. Their response merely
restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to
address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land
under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.
>
> It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site is
relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not provided
any evidence from the landowner, the airport authority, or the
Secretary of State, to show that statutory control does not
apply. They have not met the legal threshold.
>
> Conclusion • The land in question is under statutory control
and not “relevant land.” • MET cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4. •
The Keeper is not liable. • The NtK is misleading and
non-compliant with both PoFA and the PPSCoP. • MET’s conduct
raises further concerns regarding KADOE misuse and must be
brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
>
> With this I attached the map that can be seen on this forum
showing it within the boundary.
>
> They have now come back to my appeal, claiming the map is out
of date see below:
>
> In the appeal to POPLA XXXXX states that there can be no
keeper liability as this is not 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. The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a
penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We attach
for your ease of reference 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.
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. The
map referenced above was submitted as part of the high court
injunction in 2024 (as opposed to the 2023 map provided by the
appellant) and may be found online at:
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1vi0z7d_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE
>
> Given that this is relevant land and Byelaws do not apply,
there has been no breach of KADOE or the SSCOP. 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 Starbucks 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 Starbucks customers are entitled
to park for free). XXXXX did not provide any such evidence and
was therefore not entitled to the further discount when the
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. 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 this is a pay by
phone car park 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.
>
> What would you suggest for next steps in my appeal, I can find
no reference on here about this new map they are using. Thank
you in advance!
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: October 2, 2025, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Below is text you can paste into your POPLA “Comments on
operator evidence” box. It keeps the original point intact, adds
the operator-pack rebuttal, includes HTML links to each map
source, and explains why there can be no keeper liability.
--- Quote ---
> Section E – Operator’s map and boundary claim
>
> The operator’s “boundary” plan in Section E is not an airport
estate boundary at all. It is a red-line taken from a High Court
interim protest injunction that defines where protest-control
measures apply for a limited legal purpose and period. The Order
itself defines “Stansted Airport” only as “the land shown…on
Plan 2 to the Claim Form,” and it includes review and service
provisions (e.g. notices at locations marked “X”) that underline
its narrow, enforcement nature. See:
HTML https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/.
This is not an
operator boundary plan, does not purport to fix the airport’s
statutory/operational extent, and is therefore irrelevant to the
“relevant land” analysis under Schedule 4 PoFA.
>
> Crucially, the injunction was brought by Manchester Airport
PLC and, by its nature, only covers land they own or control. It
does not (and cannot) extend to parcels owned by third parties
such as Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (the entity named in the
parking company’s contract). The fact that such third-party land
is not coloured within the injunction red-line is therefore a
function of claimant ownership/control, not proof that the land
lies outside the airport estate or beyond the reach of the
airport byelaws.
>
> By contrast, the appellant’s map is drawn from the airport
operator’s own planning submission—the Stansted Terminal
Extension Design & Access Statement (July 2023)—which describes
the airport landholding and shows the site plan used by the
operator and the planning authority to define the estate context
(“the land within the airport’s boundaries is approximately 957
hectares”). This is precisely the type of authoritative operator
material POPLA should prefer when understanding the airport
boundary as a whole. Source:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf<br
/>(page 8, ‘Site Plan’).
>
> Accordingly, POPLA should dismiss the injunction red-line as a
litigation exhibit with a limited purpose and no bearing on the
airport estate’s full extent, and instead rely on the operator’s
own planning document for boundary context. On that basis—and as
shown in the appellant’s evidence—Southgate Park sits within the
airport estate notwithstanding any narrower area delineated for
protest-injunction enforcement.
>
> Keeper liability (PoFA) cannot arise. Schedule 4 only applies
on “relevant land.” Land subject to statutory control/byelaws
(such as airport land within the operator’s boundary) is
excluded from the definition of “relevant land,” so PoFA keeper
liability is unavailable. The operator has not produced any
operator or planning-authority boundary plan that displaces the
airport operator’s own material; instead they rely on a
protest-injunction map that is not a boundary instrument. POPLA
should therefore find that this site is not “relevant land” and
that the keeper cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 PoFA.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: itsgif
Date: October 2, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this, I very much appreciate it!
On the html front, the preview did not have any spacing so added
in those to make this readable. Guess that didn't work out!
#Post#: 92585--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: October 2, 2025, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have edited the response to POPLA slightly to include this:
--- Quote ---
> Crucially, the injunction was brought by Manchester Airport
PLC and, by its nature, only covers land they own or control. It
does not (and cannot) extend to parcels owned by third parties
such as Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (the entity named in the
parking company’s contract). The fact that such third-party land
is not coloured within the injunction red-line is therefore a
function of claimant ownership/control, not proof that the land
lies outside the airport estate or beyond the reach of the
airport byelaws.
--- End Quote ---
Thanks to [member=6750]InterCity125[/member] for pointing out
the ownership references.
#Post#: 97869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: itsgif
Date: November 12, 2025, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your help on this. Unfortunately POPLA came back
saying this was unsuccessful due to the new map supplied by MET.
Response below.
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking
operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if
the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the
use of the car park. I note that the appellant says that the
operator has knowingly issued a misleading notice to keeper as
it falsely asserts that keeper liability under PoFA. The
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered
keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning
the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking
operator is not provided with the name and address of the
driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary
information and the parking operator has therefore successfully
transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The
appellant explains that the land is not ‘relevant land’ under
the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Therefore, the
operator has no lawful basis to pursue them as the registered
keeper. The map shows the area in question within the airport’s
official boundary and Stansted Airport is governed by Airport
Byelaws. The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies
within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Private land does not
mean relevant land. I acknowledge the appellant’s map. Whilst I
recognise that the appellant feels that the land is not
‘’relevant land’’ and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue
them as the keeper, the operator has provided a map which shows
that the area occupied by Southgate Park is not part of the
airport. The operator has further evidenced that the area is
relevant land with the contract with the landowner. After
reviewing the contract, I can see that the postcode and the site
name has been included with a question which states, ‘’Is the
land ‘’Relevant Land as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012’’. It has been confirmed within this
contract that the land is relevant land and PoFA can be used for
any PCN’s issued within this radius. As the appellant has not
provided any further sufficient evidence to dispute this, I will
work on the basis that this information is accurate, and the
site is relevant land. The appellant says that the operator
issued a generic rejection which they feel is wholly inadequate
and avoids the key legal issue. They say that the response
merely restated signage and payment terms and made no effort to
address the critical point. POPLA’s role is to determine whether
the PCN was issued correctly. It is not within POPLA’s remit to
comment on nor investigate the operator’s appeal process or any
customer service issues. Any further dissatisfaction regarding
this will need to be raised with the parking operator directly.
The appellant says that the operator is misusing keeper data
obtained by the DVLA as PoFA doesn’t apply at Southgate Park,
but the NTK falsely states that the keeper will be liable if the
driver is not named. They state that this misuse of DVLA data is
a breach of the KADOE agreement and will be reported. However,
any dispute regarding any data breaches will need to be raised
with the relevant authority, outside of POPLA’s appeal process.
Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant
has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail.
Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already
addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments
have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further
comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Ultimately,
it is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms of
parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the
vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of
that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both
parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued
correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
#Post#: 97873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 12, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you access the map presented by MET as evidence?
I suspect that it will be the Manchester Airport Ltd map used in
their injunction against Just Stop Oil?
#Post#: 97874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: itsgif
Date: November 12, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It was exactly that one.
#Post#: 97875--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 12, 2025, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: itsgif link ---
>
> It was exactly that one.
>
--- End Quote ---
So not relevant as evidence because that map never seeks to be a
map which outlines the entire area which is under statutory
control.
Crazy.
See how corrupt this appeals system is?
#Post#: 97879--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted Airport - MET Southgate Park - Starbucks
DIR By: itsgif
Date: November 12, 2025, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Completely, not sure on next steps but take the £100 hit,
however robbed I feel.
Will reach out to my MP too, the car park is a complete scam
from the research I have done around it the past few months and
is a clear problem spot. I am fortunate that £100 will be
uncomfortable but financially for the month I will be fine,
can't imagine how it will be for others in worse financial
positions.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page