MET Stansted Southgate NTK - just appeal

KlugeHans

Summary:
Just appeal and then go to POPLA.
There is plenty of advice online to ignore or not to appeal, but I think that this is wrong approach or at least it creates more headache down the road.

Details:

I want to say thank you to everyone contributing to this forum, I found it very helpful on many occasions.

I wanted to my experience with dealing with an NTK regarding Southgate Stansted Car Park operated by MET. My case is identical to many described elsewhere, and I wanted to focus on contradictory, sometimes confusing ans possibly inaccurate advice. In addition to browsing countless forums, I also asked solicitors and my opinions below are mostly based on their advice.

Kay point: Appeal and after MET inevitably rejects your appeal, appeal through POPLA. This forum and other sources give you all you need to do it quickly.

I found plenty of advice to just ignore them, send a denial of claim letter and even explicitly to not appeal as appealing identifies you as the driver. Most of this advice asserts that MET rarely sues, almost never wins and that their claim is baseless. I decided to follow this advice, but after doing more research I believe that this was a wrong course of action. Below I try to clarify some of the confusion that in my case, unfortunately, lead to inaction:

1. The statement that appealing identifies you as the driver and you automatically lose your keeper’s protections is likely wrong - the solicitors I spoke to DID NOT corroborate it.

2. The importance of keeper’s protections is overstated anyway. More on this and POFA below.

3. They DO sue - at least according to the solicitors. There is no evidence on how successful they are and there are comments that they are “disorganised”, but they WILL take you to court.

POFA is NOT on your side

1. The most common comment I found online goes: MET’s NTK was issued too late, so it is not POFA compliant and therefore unenforceable. Unfortunately, this is IRRELEVANT:

2. This is a non-POFA NTK, these can be issued within 7 months after the alleged transgression.

3. Their legal argument does not rely on transferring the liability to the keeper under POFA, but follows this logic:

- This is a civil law case so they need to demonstrate that on the balance of probability you, as the keeper of the vehicle, we’re the driver

- To do this, they can try to rely on Elliott vs Loake (1982). A quick search will give you a lot of arguments why this is irrelevant and was even ruled as irrelevant in court.

- Unfortunately, I understand that the keeper is presumed to have been the driver also under POFA and this can be relied on even while enforcing a non-POFA NTK. The burden of proof is on the keeper to demonstrate that they were NOT the driver, on the balance of probability.

So, POFA is really not your friend here unless you can show that you were not the driver.

What happens in court?

I don’t know, I haven’t made it that far yet.

It would be very helpful to hear from someone who actually has been to court with them, regardless the outcome.

Based on discussing with solicitors, this comes down to other arguments such as insufficient signage etc. You argue that the car park boundaries are unclear, they argue that they were sufficient. I understand that these arguments are convincing for POPLA, but in court this is subjective and you depend on the judge’s interpretation

They clearly have no incentive to make the signage clearer as this would actually solve the problem and cut their revenue stream.

I also have no idea how much time it takes to prepare your defence and whether it’s worth it.

I hope that helps. Comments, questions and constructive criticism always welcome.

kryten3000

You need to do more research, there are several persuasive cases which found against the "reasonable presumption"/balance of probabilities arguments.  The most recent of these is VCS v Edward (H0KF6C9C).

There is no obligation for the keeper to provide evidence they were not the driver.  One judge said to me "all the keeper has do do is sit on their hands and keep quiet".

Coupon-mad

I've fought PPCs in court using the POFA and so has @kryten3000

I have never lost a case and have explained the POFA to more than one Judge.  Have your solicitors?!

They DO sue

We know.  Did you miss all the MET threads where people are happily defending & winning?

LDast

There are very few solicitors in the country that have an in-depth understanding of the unregulated private parking industry as we do here. Most solicitors have no real knowledge on how to deal with these issues and unless it is one of the very few solicitors with the requisite knowledge, you will be getting duff advice that is mole likely to harm your prospects rather than help you.

Personally, I have been advising a district judge about the work that goes on here and over on FTLA and he has had his eyes opened and subsequently changed his decision making about claims issued by the unregulated parking companies through their chosen bulk litigators. Whereas the judge used to give the claimants a second chance if their PoC were deficient, they now simply strike them out if there are any CPR 16.4 non-compliance.

OP, your post reminds me of the saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". Of course you are free to follow whatever path you choose for your case. Here and over on FTLA there is no difference of advice for these PCNs.

KlugeHans

Coupon-mad said:

I've fought PPCs in court using the POFA and so has @kryten3000

I have never lost a case and have explained the POFA to more than one Judge.  Have your solicitors?!

They DO sue

We know.  Did you miss all the MET threads where people are happily defending & winning?

Thank you, this - and the other - are the answers that I was really hoping for.

It would be great if you could please clarify:

1. Specifically for Stansted Southgate MET car park, is it effective to copy-paste arguments and evidence from POPLA appeals and use them in court Defence after making technical amendments for the date, day/night period etc.

That would collate the following sources:

1.1. Defence template (and the first 12 steps) here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

(Thank you for creating it, it’s really helpful)

1.2. POPLA appeal language:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6554518/met-southgate-stansted-popla-stage

It also includes your answer on how to deal with the MET’s nonsensical response.

There are more examples but along the same lines:

- not relevant land so no RK liability under POFA

- the C has not demonstrated that the D was the driver

- unclear signage

- no evidence of landowner authority

2. I understand why you think that it is best for the keeper to identify themselves as the driver if that was the case.

If this course of action is taken - or if the Judge asks “were you driving” - in the case of Southgate Stansted, the “not relevant land” and “the C has not demonstrated that the D was the driver” are useless.

VCS v Edward (H0KF6C9C) also becomes irrelevant as the K identifies themselves as the D.

Then I am down to “unclear signage” and “no evidence of landowner authority”.

Is that strong enough?

Are there any other arguments I can use?

3. Is the fact that their NTK was sent after the statutory POFA period relevant in court in any way?

I found a lot of comments that being sent to late invalidates it, this is the part I found very confusing.

Coupon-mad

Specifically for Stansted Southgate MET car park, is it effective to copy-paste arguments and evidence from POPLA appeals and use them in court Defence after making technical amendments for the date, day/night period etc.

No.

For DCB Legal claims the current advice is the Template Defence with the addition of the standard Paragraph 3 that begins 'Regarding the POC'. As seen in all DCB claim threads.

There will be no hearing because DCB Legal always discontinue before single PCN hearings (except in cases involving Spring Parking or maybe VCS).

KlugeHans

Coupon-mad said:

Specifically for Stansted Southgate MET car park, is it effective to copy-paste arguments and evidence from POPLA appeals and use them in court Defence after making technical amendments for the date, day/night period etc.

No.

For DCB Legal claims the current advice is the Template Defence with the addition of the standard Paragraph 3 that begins 'Regarding the POC'. As seen in all DCB claim threads.

There will be no hearing because DCB Legal always discontinue before single PCN hearings (except in cases involving Spring Parking or maybe VCS).

Thank you again for responding.

1/ My apologies, I did not mention: I am being chased by Trace Debt Recovery, not DCB Legal. Do they behave in the same way in your experience or this changes anything?

2/ So basically the best way is to ignore them for now, wait for the POC and then respond with the Template Defence + Paragraph 3?

Coupon-mad

But Trace Debt Recovery aren't a legal firm. They can't issue court claims. See the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread.

KlugeHans

Hello. I have received a letter before action form DCB Legal. I responded advising that I cannot be pursued as the keeper (airport = not a relevant land) nor as the driver (the claimant failed to identify the driver, I refuse to name the driver). They sent me a generic response (too late to appeal etc.). As expected, I now received the claim form and the POC, filed AoS on MCOL and drafted my defence trying to follow successful defence very helpfully posted by other users.
Can you please let me know if this is good to send or I should make it shorter?
Should I keep Section 3?
Is anything missing procedurally? (I included statement of truth and will sign and date it)

Any help greatly appreciated!

For reference, POC and then my Defence:

POC:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle [XXX] at (346) Southgate, Stansted, CM24 1PY.
2. The date of contravention is [XXX] and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Left in Southgate Park Car Park Without Payment Made For Parking And Occupants Left Southgate Park Premises.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment of sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.


DEFENCE:

In the CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No: [ ]

Claimant (including ref.): MET PARKING SERVICES LTD ([ref])

Defendant: [ ] 

DEFENCE

I am the Defendant. I dispute the full amount of claim as shown on the claim form. I deny all allegations made by the Claimant. The following Defence gives reasons for denial of the four allegations stated in the Particulars of Claim and referred to as POC1, POC2, POC3 and POC4.

1/ The Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant as the keeper of the vehicle because airport land is covered under the airport bylaws and is not ‘relevant land’ under POFA. (ref. POC4)

1.1/ The alleged incident occurred within the grounds of Stansted Airport. This area is governed by Stansted Airport Byelaws 1997, made under the Aviation Security Act 1982.

1.2/ Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. The Claimant cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. Issuing a speculative claim at a registered keeper is wholly unreasonable conduct and possibly an abuse of the court process as the Claimant and the Claimant’s solicitor know (or should know) that they cannot rely on provisions of the POFA.

2/ The Claimant cannot pursue the Defendant as the alleged driver. By the Claimant’s own earlier admission, the driver is unknown. The keeper has no obligation to identify the driver and refuses to do so. Similar attempts have been previously struck down by courts. (ref. POC3)

2.1/ In their Notice to Keeper, the Claimant explicitly admitted that the driver is unknown. At attempt to pursue the Defendant - or any other individual - as the alleged driver directly contradicts this admission. For avoidance of doubt, the Defendant is under no obligation to identify the driver and refuses to do so.

2.2/ Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases:

2.2.1/ In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outside the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would be redundant).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on an assumption that the defendant in that case was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed. 

2.2.2/ In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. 

HHJ Gargan held: 

35.1. "The finding I make is consistent with the underlying purpose of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to bring in keeper liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could not be established.  If this were not the case car parking companies could simply have obtained the details of the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see whether or not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence of a positive defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an approach, it would have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper, to identify the driver or at least set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility himself. In my judgment that was not the position before ... [the POFA] ... was in force; 

35.2.  my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and 

35.3.  it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..."

Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.

3/ The Claimant’s conduct appears not to be in good faith and is a possible abuse of the Court Process

3.1/ For avoidance of doubt, the Defendant laid out the principles of 1/ and 2/ in his response to the Claimant’s Letter before Action. The Defendant advised the Claimant’s solicitor that the Defendant cannot be pursued neither as the keeper nor as the alleged driver and therefore the claim they are attempting to make is without merit.

3.2/ The Claimant’s solicitor chose to send only a generic response and did not address their inability to pursue the Defendant at all.

3.3/ The Claimant appears to be deliberately raising a claim they know they have no chance of winning. This is an abuse of the Court Process and is likely a malicious gamble that the Defendant fails to file defence and they will be awarded a default judgement.

4/ The Stansted Southgate site is known for its insufficient signage. Continuous failure to rectify this situation may be indicative of the Claimant deliberately attempting to mislead motorists for financial gain. (ref. POC1)

4.1/ Specifically, at the time of the alleged contravention the site boundary was not clear. No map or clear markings were provided to define where the boundary between the Starbucks and McDonald's parking areas began or ended. This lack of clarity is particularly significant as both establishments share the same the site. A reasonable person would understand "leaving the site" to mean leaving the entire Southgate Park premises, not merely walking from one business to another within the same retail area.

4.2/ Small signs with hidden terms and minuscule print were used that are incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of 'adequate notice' include:

 i. Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's 'red hand rule')

ii. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2

iii. Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000

4.3/ Furthermore:

This site has been extensively covered in national media as "Britain's most ridiculous car park" and "Essex's most ridiculous car park" due to the Claimant's predatory practices. Multiple reputable news sources have reported on this exact issue at this exact location, including:

i. The Mirror: "Couple slapped with 'Britain's most ridiculous' parking fine" (2018)

ii. The Daily Mail: "Couple hit with £60 fine despite parking in FREE car park near Stansted Airport" (2018)

iii. Essex Live: "Essex's most ridiculous car park" (2019)

This extensive media coverage demonstrates that the Claimant has been persistently engaging in these questionable practices for years, targeting motorists with poorly marked boundaries between businesses at the same premises. The fact that this practice has continued for years speaks to a deliberate business model rather than legitimate parking enforcement.

5/ Claimant failed to demonstrate that conditions necessary to impose a Penalty Charge (PC) have been met (ref. POC2)

To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s) - none of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. (POC2)

6/ In addition to 3/, the claim includes numerous other deficiencies under CPR and CoP, including but not limited to an attempt to impose excessive costs and fees

6.1/ The Claimant’s case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs are an attempt at nearly doubling recovery over capped legal fees (as specified in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, the Claimant.

6.2/ Separately, the claim exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Further, attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

6.3/ The allegations and heads of cost are vague. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant.

6.4/ Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (highly unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

6.5/ The fact that the Claimant brought the claim more than a year after the alleged contravention, which makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5).

6.6/ The Claimant appears to have launched an automated 'roboclaim’ cut & paste proceedings attempting to vaguely imply that the Defendant was 'keeper and/or driver' and waited to see if the Defendant meaningfully defends, or if Claimant could obtain a default CCJ. It is a lucrative gamble with the odds of wrongful success heavily weighted in parking operators' favour, but this is plainly an abuse of the Court Process.  This baseless claim demonstrates precisely the behaviour that HHJ Gargan identified in 35.1. This claim has no basis in law.

6.7/ DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner.

6.8/ The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

CONCLUSION
The claim is entirely without merit and the Particulars of Claim are inadequate. I believe that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be dismissed.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH:

I, [ ], the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed: [ ]

Date: [ ]

Address to which notices about this case can be sent to: [ ]

Le_Kirk

What is the issue date of the claim form?  If you tell us that date, we can give you some information regarding your deadlines.
That defence looks overly long and the outdated statement of truth shows you have copied an old defence from the forum.  Can I point you to the template defence thread that is on of the announcements on the first page of the forum?

KlugeHans

Le_Kirk said:

What is the issue date of the claim form?  If you tell us that date, we can give you some information regarding your deadlines.
That defence looks overly long and the outdated statement of truth shows you have copied an old defence from the forum.  Can I point you to the template defence thread that is on of the announcements on the first page of the forum?

Thank you for your response, I really appreciate it.

1/Dates:  Claim form issue date Sep 15th, so day of services should be Sep 20th (5 days). I have sent my AoS through MCOL immediately so I should have until Oct 18th, but I was hoping to submit by Oct 4th (14 days) so there is absolutely no doubt about default judgment (maybe I am being overcautious?)

2/ I used the one from the paper response pack I received from CNBC. I guess it should be this one: 

“I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth."

I will change that.

3/ I have seen the template defence, but I also found examples of successful defence used specifically for this car park so I thought I'd use them. It came out lengthy - any recommendations what to cut?