DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101889--------------------------------------------------
Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 10, 2025, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
This has been asked many times im sure but I am not great on a
computer and found the existing information about these MET
people quite confusing.
I am the Keeper of the car and the driver at the time has
expressly denied me the permission to use their name, which I
agree with.
The driver mistakenly drove into the starbucks site in the
middle of the night for 11 minutes, it took the driver this long
to go to the signage and read it and come back to the vehicle
and drive out, it was past midnight and as you can see by the
the photos very dark. How on earth are you meant to accept terms
whilst driving past a sign, which were barely visible anyway.
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fRDKVAQ
Would someone be kind enough to put in laymans terms what I am
to do next please.
Im happy to cut and paste and alter things so my details can be
put in the appeal.
I am a 66 year old pensioner who cant afford this charge for
nothing, starbucks was closed anyway so we drove off.
Kind regards
#Post#: 101895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Mustek
Date: December 10, 2025, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You won't be paying a thing as this is within the Stansted
Airport Byelaws, so they can't hold the keeper liable as long as
you don't give away who the driver is.
Could you post the back of the PCN as well.
Here's similar posts on this location:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/30/
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-airport-met-southgate-park-starbucks/
#Post#: 101897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 10, 2025, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mustek
Thanks for the very prompt reply and any help would be nice.
As requested here is the rear of the charge notice.
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fRbNy22
Thanks again
G
#Post#: 101916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no Keeper liability if the driver is not identified for
the reason given above. Whilst you, as the named recipient of
the Notice to Keeper (NtK) cannot be liable for the charge if
the driver is not identified and you have even stated
categorically that you were not the driver anyway, you will have
to go through the appeals process or initial appeal, rejection,
POPLA appeal, possible success. Anything beyond that we will
cross that bridge if we ever come to it.
The simple fact is that MET have issued you a speculative
invoice for an alleged brach of contract by the driver who is
unknown to them. There is no legal obligation on you, the
Keeper, to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking
firm. Because the location is within the official Stansted
Airport boundary, it is land that is covered by airport byelaws
and therefore no "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA 2012,
which means that the Keeper cannot be liable for the charge if
the driver is not identified.
For now, simply appeal with the following, only as the Keeper
and come back for the POPLA appeal once they reject that:
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101922--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 10, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much guys, would you say its best to do the appeal
by post or email, I'm keen to give them as little information as
possible. B789 thanks for taking the time to explain this to me
and the links posted by Mustek were very informative.
#Post#: 101958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2025, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don/\'t use post for anything if you can help it. Use email
or, for an appeal, you can use their portal if necessary.
After the appeal rejection, you cause these maps in your POPLA
appeal to show that the location is within the Stansted Airport
byelaws boundary.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mFCyCync/STN-boundary-map.png
#Post#: 101963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 11, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you I have used their portal for the appeal and used your
wording as advised, and thanks for the map, this one is very
clear, the others I have looked at have been blurred.
G
#Post#: 102372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 14, 2025, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good Morning guys
Ive had a speedy reply from MET.
Im unsure how to reply to this and don't want to mess things up.
My guess is forwarding the map to them, that shows it is
actually on airport property.
What would you advise please
Thanks
G
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fYvuaGp
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fYvJmBf
#Post#: 102373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 14, 2025, 3:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No point, it won’t make a difference.
MET know all about this, but all they want is your credit card
number, so they simply ignore the inconvenient facts.
If you do decide to contact them, be very sure not to identify
the driver in any way. I wouldn’t bother.
--- Quote ---
> For now, simply appeal with the following, only as the Keeper
and come back for the POPLA appeal once they reject that:
--- End Quote ---
You’ll get a POPLA code in due course.
#Post#: 102391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: December 14, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd email the following response to them:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: PCN [XXXXXXXX] – Kindly Escalate to a Responsible
Adult
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper.
>
> Your latest correspondence would benefit from being reviewed
by a responsible adult within your organisation who is capable
of comprehending a simple geographical and legal fact.
>
> The location you describe as “Southgate Park (Starbucks)” is
within the Stansted Airport boundary and is subject to Stansted
Airport byelaws. As such, it is not relevant land for the
purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
This is not a matter of opinion, nor is it altered by creative
wording on your paperwork.
>
> Your continued insistence that PoFA applies is therefore
demonstrably false and constitutes a clear breach of Section
8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, namely
making misleading statements about keeper liability where no
such liability exists. That breach also places you in breach of
your KADOE contract. This misuse of keeper data is being
reported to the DVLA irrespective of whether you choose to
persist with this fiction.
>
> Your apparent belief that leasing arrangements involving
Tabacon 2 Stansted Ltd somehow revoke statutory control is
legally illiterate. A private lease does not extinguish byelaws.
Statutory control remains exactly that: statutory.
>
> You are fully aware that land governed by airport byelaws
cannot engage keeper liability under PoFA. You are also fully
aware that your parking charge is not a byelaws penalty, does
not go to the public purse, and is instead a speculative invoice
based on an alleged contract with an unidentified driver only.
>
> The driver will not be identified.
>
> If you decline to cancel this charge now, you are invited to
waste further time and money by issuing a POPLA code so that
this matter can be disposed of decisively. The evidence held by
the Keeper — including definitive boundary mapping — will not
change, and the outcome will not change.
>
> This is your opportunity to end a process that is already
fatally flawed.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page