DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93698--------------------------------------------------
Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: aNoticedKeeper
Date: October 11, 2025, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello!
A month back, I received a Notice to Keeper from MET Parking
Services. I have already appealed with MET and am at a stage
where they disclosed a POPLA verification code and I'm about to
go to POPLA. I am now wondering what the best way to move
forward would be. Would you suggest to follow suit as in this
thread:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/<br
/>? Thanks a bunch in advance for any help!
Original notice:
HTML https://ibb.co/zHjQCnCD
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/zHjQCnCD[/img]
Sorry, the image has issues
embedding.
I've seen a lot of cases dealing with the same issue here since
and so I followed up with one of these borrowed from a separate
thread:
"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."
In a couple of days, MET met replied with this:
Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above
charge. The free parking period is available to Starbucks
customers who have registered their vehicle via the kiosk in
Starbucks. Having checked our records, we confirm that
your vehicle was not registered.
In order for us to consider your appeal fully please can you
send us a copy of your receipt or other evidence to show that
you were a Starbucks customer on 30/08/2025. This can be
uploaded at www.appealmetparking.com.
Please note that this is private land and does not fall under
airport byelaws.
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 has 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.
We have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to
allow you time to send us this information. If we do not
receive the information by the end of the 14 days we will have
to reach a decision on your appeal based on the
information we hold at that time.
To which I in turn replied with following:
Dear appeals dept,
It is beyond comprehension that you are still claiming Southgate
Park, Stansted Airport is "relevant land" for the purposes of
PoFA. This is not a grey area, a technicality, or up for debate.
It is an undeniable fact that land under statutory control
cannot be relevant land under PoFA. Your repeated failure to
understand this is either utter incompetence or a deliberate
attempt to mislead motorists.
Since this appears to be a struggle for you, let me break it
down in the simplest terms possible:
1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
Southgate Park is within the boundary of Stansted Airport. The
attached map is produced by Stansted Airport. It clearly shows
the official boundary of the airport. I have highlighted in red,
the location of Southgate Park, which is clearly within the blue
airport boundary.
Stansted Airport is governed by Stansted Airport Byelaws. Any
land subject to statutory control, such as Byelaws, is not
relevant land under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability
cannot apply. It is basic logic that even a toddler should be
able to understand.
It does not matter that Southgate Park is not right next to the
terminal. The only legal test that matters is whether the land
is subject to statutory control. Since it is, PoFA does not
apply. End of story.
2. “Private Land” Does NOT Automatically Mean “Relevant Land”
I have heard that MET tries to claim that "because Southgate
Park is private land, it must be relevant land" is legally and
factually absurd. "Private land" does NOT mean "relevant land"
under PoFA. "Relevant land" means land where no statutory
control applies. Since Byelaws apply to Southgate Park, it is
NOT relevant land.
To put it in terms even you might understand... Train station
car parks are also private land, yet PoFA does not apply to them
because they are covered by Railway Byelaws. The exact same
principle applies to Southgate Park because it is covered by
Stansted Airport Byelaws. If you still cannot grasp this, you
should not be in the business of issuing legally enforceable
documents.
3. Your Conduct is a Clear Breach of the PPSCoP
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.
4. DVLA KADOE Breach
You are in clear breach of your 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
will be reported, is secondary—your utter stupidity in not
comprehending why PoFA is not applicable is the real problem.
Final Word: Stop Making This Ridiculous Argument
Your insistence that Southgate Park is "not at the airport" and
"private land" therefore PoFA applies, is not just legally
wrong, it is embarrassingly ignorant.
Stop issuing unlawful PCNs, stop misrepresenting Keeper
Liability, and stop pretending PoFA applies when it clearly does
not. You look like clueless amateurs every time you try to argue
otherwise.
Yours sincerely,
Name McSurname
Here is their final reply:
Issue date: 03/09/2025
POPLA Verification Code: redacted
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the
above parking charge.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the
signs prominently displayed around this site. These include
that the free parking period is only available to Starbucks
customers who have registered their vehicle via the kiosk in
the store. Having checked our records, we confirm that your
vehicle was not registered and as such you were not
entitled to the free parking period, meaning payment was
required for your stay. We therefore believe the charge was
issued correctly and are upholding it.
We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location
bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of
motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check
the signs where they park and comply with the terms and
conditions
Please note that this is private land and does not fall under
airport byelaws.
As advised on the Notice to Keeper, where the charge has not
been paid in full and 29 days has 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.
A copy of our privacy policy may be seen at
www.metparking.com/privacynotice or can be heard by calling 0207
118
3080. It is also available by emailing DPO@metparking.com. We
will disclose data where requested by regulatory
bodies with the appropriate paperwork, we will also disclose
data where charges remain unpaid and payable to those
agents, advisers and suppliers who act on our behalf in
recovering the money.
We note your request for us to cease processing your 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.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and
takes into account our consideration of any mitigating
circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end
of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a
number of options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time
of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge
at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's
date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date
the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs
will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution
agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action
to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made
online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service,
within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the
online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification
code: 3862825089 Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon
the facts and application of the relevant law. Please
note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's
decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention
occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an
alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent
to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to
participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As
such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to
POPLA as explained above.
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the
monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may
proceed with court action.
Yours sincerely
Illegible Scribble"
#Post#: 93707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: aNoticedKeeper
Date: October 11, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, this is my draft (borrowed from b789
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/msg65207/#msg65207):
__________________________________________
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 an up-to-date 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.
Airport map:
HTML https://ibb.co/HfP0GdmB
HTML https://ibb.co/9HvLPZxF
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: “We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in
all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act.” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue.
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 rebutted
the airport boundary map. 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.
__________________________________________
It is basically copy & paste of a previous post, only updating
the map and the responses from MET.
#Post#: 93723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: b789
Date: October 11, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why haven't you used the map with Southgate park highlighted in
red the I made?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hR6hVncV/STN-development-plan.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/PZL3gbMg
simple image hosting site
HTML https://imgbb.com/
#Post#: 93749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: aNoticedKeeper
Date: October 11, 2025, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't load the images in the previous thread for some
reason. I'll use this one though. Thank you.
#Post#: 93884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: JulianB
Date: October 13, 2025, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just had POPLA rule in my favour on just this point, so now
I'm complaining to the BPA that Met Parking are breaching their
Code of Practice and then I'll get back onto the DVLA to
challenge their use of the KADOE system.
It is REALLY important when launching your POPLA appeal to note
the following:
1) Met Parking probably won't even respond to your 'relevant
land' challenge till the POPLA appeal - and then they'll come
back with pages of technical legal arguments that seem to
indicate they have a case - UNLESS YOU DIG. The key is not to be
intimidated. GET a copy of the stansted bylaws and quote the
parking bylaws back to them
2: Here is the POPLA appeal conclusion - it rests on the fact
that the bylaws already impose penalties on land within the
Stansted Airport perimiter....
"I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
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. I note the appellant has raised other
issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to
allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required
further consideration."
Please keep trying, I'm not going to let this drop till I get
their use of KADOE rescinded at this site and their
non-compliance with the BPA code of conduct acknowledged and
more importantly, actioned.
#Post#: 93886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 13, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for posting this information.
As you say, MET always sidestep the key points, they reply to
other ones but dismiss or ignore the germane ones.
POPLA has repeatedly found against the claimant on the basis of
it not being relevant land, but MET continues to use its bully
pulpit of threatening letters to maintain otherwise, and
presumably lots of people pay up.
Good luck in your quest. DVLA seems not to care as long as it
gets the fee each time.
#Post#: 93913--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: JulianB
Date: October 13, 2025, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My next target is the BPA with a complaint about the continued
breach of their code of practice - entered a request with 20
attachments and a Guardian article for them to read today.....
Look at Annex H - Sanctions...I have suggested that most of the
most serious apply.
We shall see how independent the BPA really is when it comes to
judging 'one of their own'....
These are the Guardian articles:
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jun/30/i-went-to-a-drive-thru-starbucks-but-ended-up-with-a-100-parking-fine
If I can get an admission from the BPA that Met have breached
their code of Practice then it's back to the DVLA again for me.
I'm not giving up on this - and the POPLA decision is just the
first step as far as I'm concerned
#Post#: 93923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: b789
Date: October 13, 2025, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you point out to the BPA and the DVLA that MET have
clearly breached PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d)
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf<br
/>which states:
--- Quote ---
> 8.1.1. The parking operator must not serve a notice or include
material on its website which in its design and/or language:
>
> d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
--- End Quote ---
A breach of the PPSCoP is a breach of the KADOE contract.
#Post#: 96793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: aNoticedKeeper
Date: November 4, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just heard from POPLA and is awaiting my comment on MET's
evidence. MET essentially claim that the car park is not part of
the airport and claim this with their Court-stamped map. What do
I do please?
Here is the MET summary:
In the appeal to POPLA Mr XYZ states that the driver has not
been identified and he cannot be held liable as the keeper of
the vehicle under PoFA 2012 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 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<br
/>Given that this is relevant land and PoFA 2012 is applicable,
there has been no breach of KADOE. 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). The appellant 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. To
summarise, 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.
#Post#: 96819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: b789
Date: November 4, 2025, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebut with the following which you can simply copy and paste
into the response webform:
--- Quote ---
> Rebuttal to MET’s Evidence on “Relevant Land” and the
Injunction Map
>
> MET’s claim that Southgate Park is “relevant land” under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is factually and legally
wrong. Their reliance on a High Court injunction map is entirely
misplaced.
>
> 1. The injunction map does not define the byelaws boundary
>
> The map MET cites
(
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf)<br
/>was created for a 2024 High Court injunction obtained by
Stansted Airport Limited (a subsidiary of Manchester Airports
Group, or MAG). That map only identifies land owned or
controlled by Stansted Airport Limited for the purposes of the
injunction. It does not and cannot redefine or limit the
statutory Stansted Airport Byelaws 1996 boundary, which was
formally approved by the Secretary of State under section 63 of
the Airports Act 1986. Land omitted from the injunction area is
excluded only because MAG does not own it, not because it falls
outside the byelaws boundary.
>
> 2. Southgate Park is owned by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited but
remains within the byelaws boundary
>
> Southgate Park, including Starbucks and McDonald’s, is
privately owned by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (company number
06408287). Land Registry title EX22286 confirms Tabacon’s
freehold ownership of “Plot 4B Southgate, Thremhall Avenue,
London Stansted Airport.” Tabacon purchased the land from BAA
(then the airport operator) in January 2007 during BAA’s
disposal of non-core commercial land within the airport
perimeter.
>
> - Company ownership and charges:
HTML https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06408287/charges
> Project acquisition record:
HTML https://tabacon.webnode.page/projects/stansted-airport-mcdonalds-tabacon-stansted-ltd-and-tabacon-stansted-2-ltd-/
> - Supporting commercial documentation:
HTML https://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/media/13319/UDC-LP-VA-Appendix-S2-IVa-CoStar/pdf/UDC_LP_VA_Appendix_S2-IVa_-_CoStar.pdf
>
> 3. The byelaws boundary encompasses Southgate Park
>
> The Stansted Airport Byelaws 1996
(
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf)<br
/>clearly define “the airport” as the land delineated on the
plan
deposited with the Secretary of State. That plan includes
Southgate Park within the boundary of “London Stansted Airport”.
Ownership of the land by a private company does not remove it
from statutory control. The byelaws apply to all land within the
defined airport boundary regardless of who holds title or
leasehold interest.
>
> Further evidence of inclusion can be seen in the airport’s
Design & Access Statement (July 2023) submitted to the Planning
Inspectorate, which depicts Southgate Park as part of the
airport estate.
>
> - Design & Access Statement:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf
>
> 4. Legal consequence under PoFA 2012
>
> PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3 excludes from “relevant land” any
area where parking is subject to statutory control. The test is
statutory status, not ownership. Since Southgate Park sits
within the Stansted Airport Byelaws boundary, parking there is
governed by those byelaws, and the land is not relevant land.
Keeper liability under PoFA therefore cannot apply, regardless
of MET’s assertions or the contents of their Notice to Keeper.
>
> 5. Conclusion
>
> Southgate Park is located within the legally defined Stansted
Airport byelaws boundary. The injunction map used by MET is not
a statutory or geographical boundary but a limited, temporary
litigation exhibit relating only to MAG-owned land. The byelaws
apply to Southgate Park irrespective of private ownership by
Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited. Consequently, the site is excluded
from the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA 2012, and MET
cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
>
> The operator’s argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of
fact and law, and any decision based on that misrepresentation
would be fundamentally unsound.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page