DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99397--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: stringbeenz
Date: November 23, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not Hijacking the post, but I am also submitting my first
response to POPLA with 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 for the
Parking Charge.
The vehicle was parked at Starbucks, Southgate Park, which lies
within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Whilst the carpark is
privately owned by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited, it still remains
within the byelaws boundary (See attached Stanstead map) and MET
have not provided any evidence in their refusal of my initial
appeal to contradict the byelaw boundary upheld by the Secretary
of State and Stanstead Airport Limited. MET have not provided
any evidence which supports in the identification of the driver
at the time, therefore they are relying on PoFA 2012 Schedule 4
to pursue the registered keeper, where by law they are not
permitted to do so.
The Stansted Airport Byelaws 1996 (See attached ByLaw notice)
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 ownership.
The Byelaws confirm that penalties are already being imposed on
the land to vehicles, as stated in Section 2, 5(3), 6(1) and
6(3) of the byelaws, and therefore confirms that the land is
under statutory control.
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3 excludes from “relevant land” any
area where parking is subject to statutory control. The evidence
here 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
On another note, since this is not 'relevant land' MET have
breached the private parking sector single code of practice
section 8.1.1(d) by serving a notice to a keeper to be held
liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they
cannot be held liable
Conclusion
Southgate Park is located within the legally defined Stansted
Airport byelaws boundary. 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.
#Post#: 102960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: aNoticedKeeper
Date: December 17, 2025, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal with POPLA was successful! Took more around 3 months
since submitting a POPLA appeal. In my case, providing the
airport boundary map was considered as convincing evidence.
Thanks a lot for the advice! If there’s a charity/NGO account,
I’ll be more than happy to support.
As per b789’s replies, best is to basically copy the steps
previously mentioned.
POPLA summary below:
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with
the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued
the PCN to the appellant for remaining on site longer than the
period of parking that has been paid for without authorisation.
The appellant appeals on the grounds that Southgate Park falls
under Stansted Airport Byelaws and is therefore under statutory
control and not relevant land as defined in the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4. They say the parking
operator cannot therefore rely on PoFA 2012, so the Keeper is
not liable. 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. It is not disputed that the parking operator can
only hold the registered keeper responsible if the land is
relevant land, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In this case, we have competing
evidence of two maps of Stansted Airport, each with different
boundaries. On the map provided by the appellant, the parking
operator's car park is within the airport boundary, which would
mean it is not relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012 due to
Byelaws that cover the airport grounds, including for the
provision of parking. On the map provided by the parking
operator, the car park is outside of the airport boundary, which
would mean it is relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012. I have
considered each map to determine which I consider most like to
be accurate. I believe the appellant's map is taken from a
London Stansted Airport Terminal Extension Design and Access
statement, published in 2023:
Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf. The purpose of the
publication of this map was to establish the boundaries of the
airport for the purposes of a terminal extension programme. As
the map was published by the airport, it is reasonable to
believe its legitimacy and accuracy. Further, the proposed
terminal extension was for works well within the boundary of the
airport and would not impact the disputed area in question.
Turning now to the parking operator's map, this is taken from a
High Court Injunction Hearing into Just Stop Oil being denied
access to several airports including Stansted, in 2024.
stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf. Stansted
airport was one the claimants and put forward documents for
consideration along with the other claimants. That bundle
includes title deeds from the claimants, from which it looks
like the map of Stansted airport shown in the court order has
been pulled together. The purpose of this map was to establish
the boundaries of the airport to ban activities by Just Stop Oil
within those boundaries. In both instances, the maps appear to
be submitted by Stansted Airport – giving them equal legitimacy.
Both in favour and against the operator’s map is that it has
been pieced together from property deeds. One would think that
this would back up the legitimacy of the map – but given the
purpose – to define the land on which Stansted Airport wanted to
stop Just Stop Oil Activities, it is unclear whether property
deeds for the full site were submitted. Indeed, on one of the
maps within the evidence bundle (page 59), the boundary of the
site map is labelled “injunction”, indicating it is the boundary
to which the injunction applies, which might not necessarily be
the boundary of the whole airport. While the parking operator
has provided a Parking Enforcement Agreement from Tabacon
Stansted 2 Limited (Tabacon). The agreement sets out that Met
Parking is permitted to manage parking on the land and that the
land is relevant land for the purpose of POFA 2012. However, I
don’t consider Tabacon’s unqualified statement that the land is
relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012 to hold any
significant weight in what a complex land boundary dispute. On
the available evidence I consider the appellant’s map of the
airport being more reliable that the map provided as part of the
Just Stop Oil injunction hearing. It is for the operator to
rebut the grounds of appeal beyond a standard or proof of
balance of probability. I am not satisfied that it has done so
here. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the
PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the
appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal,
but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to
address these.
#Post#: 102973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a sensible POPLA assessment of the difference between
the two maps.
As this is important, please tell us the name of the assessor
(it is in the public domain) and, ideally, your POPLA reference
number, so this decision can be referenced in future.
#Post#: 102996--------------------------------------------------
Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 18, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As this is quite an important POPLA appeal I've taken the
liberty of posting a spaced version of the decision so it makes
for easier reading.
POPLA summary below:
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with
the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) has been issued correctly.
The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for
remaining on site longer than the period of parking that has
been paid for without authorisation.
The appellant appeals on the grounds that Southgate Park falls
under Stansted Airport Byelaws and is therefore under statutory
control and not relevant land as defined in the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4.
They say the parking operator cannot therefore rely on PoFA
2012, so the Keeper is not liable.
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.
It is not disputed that the parking operator can only hold the
registered keeper responsible if the land is relevant land, as
defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.
In this case, we have competing evidence of two maps of Stansted
Airport, each with different boundaries.
On the map provided by the appellant, the parking operator's car
park is within the airport boundary, which would mean it is not
relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012 due to Byelaws that
cover the airport grounds, including for the provision of
parking.
On the map provided by the parking operator, the car park is
outside of the airport boundary, which would mean it is relevant
land for purposes of PoFA 2012.
I have considered each map to determine which I consider most
like to be accurate.
I believe the appellant's map is taken from a London Stansted
Airport Terminal Extension Design and Access statement,
published in 2023: Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf.
The purpose of the publication of this map was to establish the
boundaries of the airport for the purposes of a terminal
extension programme. As the map was published by the airport, it
is reasonable to believe its legitimacy and accuracy.
Further, the proposed terminal extension was for works well
within the boundary of the airport and would not impact the
disputed area in question.
Turning now to the parking operator's map, this is taken from a
High Court Injunction Hearing into Just Stop Oil being denied
access to several airports including Stansted, in 2024.
stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf.
Stansted airport was one the claimants and put forward documents
for consideration along with the other claimants.
That bundle includes title deeds from the claimants, from which
it looks like the map of Stansted airport shown in the court
order has been pulled together.
The purpose of this map was to establish the boundaries of the
airport to ban activities by Just Stop Oil within those
boundaries.
In both instances, the maps appear to be submitted by Stansted
Airport – giving them equal legitimacy.
Both in favour and against the operator’s map is that it has
been pieced together from property deeds.
One would think that this would back up the legitimacy of the
map – but given the purpose – to define the land on which
Stansted Airport wanted to stop Just Stop Oil Activities, it is
unclear whether property deeds for the full site were submitted.
Indeed, on one of the maps within the evidence bundle (page 59),
the boundary of the site map is labelled “injunction”,
indicating it is the boundary to which the injunction applies,
which might not necessarily be the boundary of the whole
airport.
While the parking operator has provided a Parking Enforcement
Agreement from Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (Tabacon).
The agreement sets out that Met Parking is permitted to manage
parking on the land and that the land is relevant land for the
purpose of POFA 2012.
However, I don’t consider Tabacon’s unqualified statement that
the land is relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012 to hold
any significant weight in what a complex land boundary dispute.
On the available evidence I consider the appellant’s map of the
airport being more reliable that the map provided as part of the
Just Stop Oil injunction hearing.
It is for the operator to rebut the grounds of appeal beyond a
standard or proof of balance of probability.
I am not satisfied that it has done so here. Based on the
evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been
issued correctly.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I
am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address
these.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page