Parking at MET Stansted Southgate Park

lovediy

My grandson received the following notice for which I'm helping him with his response:




I have formulated the following response to MET. Any advice welcome.

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: MET Notice To Keeper (NTK) Ref: XXXXXXXXXXXX         VRN: XXXXXXX

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the NTK you issued. I appeal this parking charge on the following basis: -

1.      Lack of detail as to what terms and conditions the driver contravened

2.      No evidence of any alleged contravention provided

3.      Appellant not being the individual liable

 

1.      The NTK states the car was on site for 41 minutes, being longer than the period of parking that had been paid for or without authorisation in an apparent breach of  the terms and conditions displayed on signs. Looking at Google maps the signs indicate that the first hour is free. With no further information on the NTK notice or online being provided in this regard, it appears no terms of conditions were breached.

 

2.      The only evidence provided in the NTK and online is a picture of numberplate entering the site at 23:40:20 on 11th September 2024 and a picture of numberplate leaving the site at 00:21:27 on 12th September 2024. This proves the vehicle was onsite for less than 1 hour as per the signs on Google maps. As no evidence or detail has been provided to the contrary of meeting any terms or conditions, this appeal should be upheld.

 

3.      As the registered keeper, this is my appeal about the Penalty Charge Notice issued by you (MET Parking Services Ltd) for an alleged breach of your terms and conditions in the Southgate Park Car Park at Stansted, CM24 1PY on the 12th September 2024.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from the registered keeper.

The car park is within Stansted Airport boundary as mapped out on the government’s web site and therefore subject to statutory control; as such Section 4 Paragraph 3.1.c of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 establishes the car was parked on non-relevant land. Under Section 4 Paragraph 9.2.a of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you can only pursue the keeper of a vehicle for parking charges when that vehicle is parked on relevant land. I believe this invalidates your NTK and I am confident of winning this appeal through POPLA should you chose not to accept this appeal.

Le_Kirk

Your paragraph #3 states PENALTY Charge Notice. Is that correct?

lovediy

Thanks Le Kirk.

Not sure what happened there, it should be Notice To Keeper. Glad I checked here first. Thanks again.

lovediy

I added a the following (in italics) to the start of the last paragraph to give it a bit more clarity.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies to recovering unpaid parking charges. Section 1 (1a) states explicitly that pursuant of unpaid parking charges can only be made when the alleged offence takes place on relevant land. The car park related to this notice is within Stansted Airport boundary as mapped out on the government’s web site and therefore subject to statutory control; as such Section 4 Paragraph 3.1.c of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 establishes the car was parked on non-relevant land. Under Section 4 Paragraph 9.2.a of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you can only pursue the keeper of a vehicle for parking charges when that vehicle is parked on relevant land. I believe this invalidates your NTK and I am confident of winning this appeal through POPLA should you chose not to accept this appeal.

KeithP

That seems unnecessarily complicated.

What's wrong with just sending the already written for you blue text template appeal easily found in the opening post of the NEWBIES thread?

lovediy

I cannot see a link to a NEWBIES thread. How do I access that?

KeithP

lovediy said:

I cannot see a link to a NEWBIES thread. How do I access that?

It's one of the half dozen or so Announcement threads stuck at the top of the thread index page.
There's a link to that at the top and bottom of this very page...

LDast

A complaint to the BPA should be registered as they are still trying to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA. The location is within the Stansted Airport boundary and so is land under statutory control and therefore is not relevant land under PoFA. There is simply no Keeper liability.

Only appeal should be a simple Keeper appeal like this:

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's landowners 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.

Don't waste your time trying to embellish it. What ever you put in is going to be rejected by MET and it is the POPLA code you want.

When the time for the POPLA appeal is ready, here is a map of Stansted Airport boundary which you can show the morons at POPLA:

lovediy

Thanks KeithP and LDast for the advice, taken onboard and will reply appropriately as per your comments.

lovediy

Hi, I responded to MET exactly as per LDast stated above (without the map). They rejected my appeal as people said they would with the following:

I have formulated the following for PoFA using almost the identical response to MET. I also added the last paragraph and will include the map provided by LDast: -

 

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's landowners 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 their '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. Their NTK can only hold the driver liable.

The attached map below shows Stansted Airport boundary as defined by Stansted Airport themselves and by the UK Government on their website. I have highlighted where the MET Stansted car park is located. It is clearly within the boundary of Stansted Airport and therefore is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

MET state the car park was closed – I cannot see anywhere on Google maps where there could be a closed sign on entering the car park around midnight. Not sure if I should mention it or just go with the above appeal?

Thanks for your support - any further advice welcome.

LDast

You should also note, for the benefit of the sometimes moronic POPLA assessors, that PoFA is not applicable. MET are trying to say that the land is private and therefore does not "fall under airport bylaws". Just goes to show how mendacious or ignorant they are.

Even though the car park may be private land, it sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport and MET cannot simply disregard airport bylaws by claiming the land is private. Airport bylaws regulate conduct on ALL land within the airport boundary, including private areas like this car park.