MET Southgate Stansted NTK - Successful POPLA appeal against MET Parking

HavewonwithMET

Dear community 

I would like to say a massive thank you to all forum contributors and also share the appeal I submitted to POPLA against MET Parking which resulted in MET withdrawing the NTK.
I hope it will help someone else who is in similar situation. 

The below is NTK received from MET



At this stage I didn't know and only later realised it is a POFA NTK
I have disputed it with MET using blue print template from Newbies post. IN response from MET: 



As advised by MET in the letter I have made an appeal with POPLA coping and pasting from similar threads on the forum. 

Dear Met Parking Services
 I am the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxx and I have received the Notice to Keeper (NTK). I can advise you that I was not the driver on 27th November and I note that you have confirmed that you have not identified the driver. I understand that there is no legal obligation for me to identify the driver. My main reason for submitting this appeal to you is that the 28 day warning you have given in your NTK purports to make me liable as though the provisions of POFA apply to me. This is very misleading as it is legally incorrect because the BP Connect site at Southgate Road Stansted is within the airport boundary and as such cannot be held to be 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. This is because the airport land at Stansted falls outside the definition of 'relevant land' as it is subject to the Stansted-London byelaws which came into effect in December 1996. I am surprised to see the 28 day warning within your NTK with no express reference to POFA. Your NTK makes it look as though you can make me liable if you cannot identify the driver which I submit is simply incorrect in this case. I respectfully request that as you have confirmed that you cannot identiy the driver, as I am not willing nor obliged to provide such information and as you are not in a position to pursue a parking charge from me because of the location on Stansted Airport land, you withdraw the NTK

Today I received below email from POPLA.



Thank you

LDast

Nice short, succinct, POPLA appeal that has done the job. Well done.

Coupon-mad

That's a good short POPLA appeal.

Nice result! 

MuBa99

This is really great to see as I've just received a PCN from the same company for the same site. Did you just use the blue writing in the newbies thread for your initial appeal?

jellybellysp

I tried using the same text for my POPLA appeal against MET at Starbucks too, but they've now provided their own response below. I suspect they're fighting back since it's a leased car and they can (can they?) go after the financing company, which will probably happily pay the PCN and then charge me for the pleasure.

The NTK letter I received (via the leasing company) was identical to the one above.

Any tips on how to respond to POPLA? I suppose the argument remains: the land is not relevant land, because it's next to Stansted, and therefore they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

MET's response:

In the appeal to POPLA XXX states that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time and we cannot hold them liable for the charge under PoFA 2012 as this is not relevant land.

Whilst we are confident that the site is relevant land under PoFA 2012, we would point out that XXX is not the registered keeper of the vehicle and therefore we are not seeking to hold them liable under PoFA 2012. XXX was nominated as the hirer of the vehicle by the registered keeper, YYY Financial Services, however, they failed to fulfil their obligations under PoFA 2012 when their request was submitted. Shortly after YYY made their request to transfer liability, we received the appeal from XXX, which included the letter of authority from YYY for us to correspond with them.

In light of the above, and the fact that XXX has denied being the driver and declined to provide their details, the charge remains in the name of YYY and we will be seeking to hold them liable as the vehicle’s registered keeper.

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.

We note XXX’s comments, however, the Byelaws apply to areas where the road traffic enactments do not apply. Specifically in relation to parking they state ‘no person shall leave any cargo or baggage or park any vehicle or equipment elsewhere than in a place provided by the airport company for the accommodation of such cargo or baggage or the parking of such vehicle or equipment.’ These byelaws can be read at:

<I'm not allowed to post links, but it is maginfrastructure DOT com and about stansted byelaws.>

We are confident that there are no applicable airport Byelaws relating to parking in effect at this location, and would point out that only statutory control relating to the parking of a vehicle is relevant in relation to PoFA. Byelaws that do not relate to parking are not relevant under schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. An area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area.

In this instance, the vehicle had not been registered for the free stay via the kiosk inside Starbucks and no payment had been made as an alternative. As advised on the signs, only Starbucks customers are entitled to the free parking period, and they must register their vehicle.

This would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as only Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free and we have received no evidence to demonstrate that the driver was a customer, though it was requested.

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 the car park is for the use of Southgate Park customers only and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors that are not Starbucks customers may pay to park for 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.

The leasing company says in their letter:

For Private Parking fines only (Parking Charge Notice), please see the additional information below.

The legislation has changed. To read more about this within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, please log onto
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

This means that YYY Financial Services UK Limited (as the registered keeper) can be held liable for these
charges if you take no action.

If we receive a second notification from a Private Parking Operator for the same offence, we’ll pay the outstanding amount and recharge this amount to you. This additional step may result in a further administration fee (as set out in the terms and conditions of your contract).

Coupon-mad

I think quote the recent POPLA decision which involved the Complaints Team admitting that the Assessor got it wrong and that the MET site at Stansted is not 'relevant land.'

jellybellysp

My response to POPLA based on @lovediy 's example (forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6557039/parking-at-met-stansted-southgate-park/p2 - posted 5 November 2024):

Dear POPLAIn “Section A - Case Summary and Rules / Conditions” of MET’s response MET states: “An area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area.”No one has said that a parcel of land surrounding an airport cannot be relevant land. Only the land within the airport boundary is not relevant. This site is indisputably within Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'. MET has failed to show otherwise.MET are claiming they lease the land from Tabacon Stansted 2, who purchased or leased the land from Stansted – not clear which. If that is the case then it is incumbent on MET obtaining proper evidence from Tabacon Stansted 2 on their agreement with Stansted that proves the land being obtained by them is “relevant land". Ticking YES on their own standard landowner document is no more than MET saying it's “relevant land". Not evidence. Evidence can only come from Tabacon Stansted 2. They want it to be, but it isn't relevant land as a matter of fact and law. I reiterate that it is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be “relevant land”.Even though the car park may be private land, it indisputably sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf section 1.3 Existing Site Plan, page 6). Please take note that MET themselves even admit it is inside the Airport site because they say "The car park and restaurant are situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road."The Airport site is under statutory control; all Airports are. The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. 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.Therefore POFA is not applicable to MET’s Notice To Keeper. The fact that they've used Schedule 4 wording in it misleads a keeper recipient and this is something POPLA should raise as a concern with the BPA.In “Section A - Case Summary and Rules / Conditions” of MET’s response under heading “Landowner Authority” MET states that they have authority to issue PCNs on the site.No one has argued that they don't have a contract to issue PCNs. The argument is that they cannot rely on POFA to hold the keeper liable for any PCN issued.POPLA Assessor: please note that there was a recent decision from your Complaints Team in January 2025 regarding the same MET site where the investigator states:“The Airports Act1986 confirms that Stansted Airport is an Airport and Highways Authority and this site falls under statutory control and as such, MET Parking can only pursue the driver and it cannot use POFA to transfer liability to you as the registered keeper.”Therefore, if you are in any doubt, kindly check with your Sector Expert or Lead Adjudicator. Any cases in the public domain (and this is one) that POPLA get wrong regarding “keeper liability” law are being passed to the MHCLG.

I'll update the forum once I hear back from them 🤞

Coupon-mad

jellybellysp said:

My response to POPLA based on @lovediy 's example (forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6557039/parking-at-met-stansted-southgate-park/p2 - posted 5 November 2024):

Dear POPLA

In “Section A - Case Summary and Rules / Conditions” of MET’s response MET states: “An area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area.”

No one has said that a parcel of land surrounding an airport cannot be relevant land. Only the land within the airport boundary is not relevant. This site is indisputably within Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'. MET has failed to show otherwise.

MET are claiming they lease the land from Tabacon Stansted 2, who purchased or leased the land from Stansted – not clear which. If that is the case then it is incumbent on MET obtaining proper evidence from Tabacon Stansted 2 on their agreement with Stansted that proves the land being obtained by them is “relevant land". Ticking YES on their own standard landowner document is no more than MET saying it's “relevant land". Not evidence. Evidence can only come from Tabacon Stansted 2. They want it to be, but it isn't relevant land as a matter of fact and law. I reiterate that it is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be “relevant land”.

Even though the car park may be private land, it indisputably sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf section 1.3 Existing Site Plan, page 6). Please take note that MET themselves even admit it is inside the Airport site because they say "The car park and restaurant are situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road."

The Airport site is under statutory control; all Airports are. The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. 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.

Therefore POFA is not applicable to MET’s Notice To Keeper. The fact that they've used Schedule 4 wording in it misleads a keeper recipient and this is something POPLA should raise as a concern with the BPA.

In “Section A - Case Summary and Rules / Conditions” of MET’s response under heading “Landowner Authority” MET states that they have authority to issue PCNs on the site.

No one has argued that they don't have a contract to issue PCNs. The argument is that they cannot rely on POFA to hold the keeper liable for any PCN issued.

POPLA Assessor: please note that there was a recent decision from your Complaints Team in January 2025 regarding the same MET site where the investigator states:

“The Airports Act1986 confirms that Stansted Airport is an Airport and Highways Authority and this site falls under statutory control and as such, MET Parking can only pursue the driver and it cannot use POFA to transfer liability to you as the registered keeper.”

Therefore, if you are in any doubt, kindly check with your Sector Expert or Lead Adjudicator. Any cases in the public domain (and this is one) that POPLA get wrong regarding “keeper liability” law are being passed to the MHCLG.

I'll update the forum once I hear back from them 🤞

Please update POPLA DECISIONS.  Don't leave us hanging!

lovediy

Hi Coupon-mad,

Very sorry for the delay I could not get on for a while, so gave up until recently and found a few messages were left for me.

I did post my result in popla decisions on 23 February at 1:03PM - there are hundreds there But if you filter on lovediy you will find it?

lovediy

Sorry Coupon-mad - just realised I think you were responding to jellybellysp.