MET PCN Stansted McDonalds - help appreciated

MuBa99

Hi all

This forum is so helpful and I am really grateful for all of the free resources. I think I know how to respond, but I am under a lot of stress at the moment and feeling quite anxious in general, so if anyone is able to reassure me on the first steps that would be really appreciated.

I have attached photos of a PCN I have received which was incurred when my husband was driving his mother to the airport to collect her sister. He and his mother ate in and waited in McDonalds, so they were genuine customers of the restaurant, but stayed over the 60 minute limit. I am quite stressed about me now having to deal with it, I was not in the car at the time, and am close to asking my husband and his mother to pay it just to make it go away. However, I hate the idea of giving MET any money!



I believe that these details don't matter and I simply fill in the online appeal with the following. Please could someone let me know if this is correct and that I have included everything I need to? I'm worried about calling their letter a vague template when they do specify the reason the PCN is incurred:

Re PCN number: [fill this in]

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

MuBa99

Additionally, I could not have been the driver at the time as I was at work at the time the car arrived at Stansted airport, over 2 hours away. This could be proved via my employer's CCTV. Is it worth mentioning this in the appeal? I would still not name the driver, but is it worth me saying that I was not the driver?

Le_Kirk

Search the forum for any other MET at Stansted PCN, there are loads, just follow what other (successful) posters have done.
ETA there is one on forum today posted by @HavewonwithMET

MuBa99

Thanks, I have read the Newbie thread multiple times and lots of MET threads, so I think I just do the blue appeal but wanted to make sure and can't see that exactly. @HavewonwithMET thread is great and reassuring but has an additional bit about the airport being exempt and I'm not sure if I need to include that here.

kryten3000

This is not relevant land for the purposes of the POFA as it is within the airport boundary.  

MuBa99

kryten3000 said:

This is not relevant land for the purposes of the POFA as it is within the airport boundary.  

Thank you, should I say that in the initial appeal?

kryten3000

MuBa99 said:

Thank you, should I say that in the initial appeal?

Yes, the keeper should point this out:  

"This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT ask for driver details in order to get around the fact this location is not "relevant land" for the purposes of the POFA. As there is no keeper liability then liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and thus is an auto win @ POPLA. Please therefore cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code where you will auto withdraw."

MET will try and claim that they have complied with the POFA (they have not because there is no "invitiation" for the keeper to pay or to provide driver details (Paragraph 9(2)(e) ).

LDast

Their NtK is also in breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which states:

The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

So, besides your appeal, you should send them a formal complaint, warning them that you will escalate to the BPA if they do not respond with an answer to your question within the specified deadline according to their official complaints policy, with the following question:

Can MET Parking Services explain why their Notice to Keeper includes a Keeper liability warning under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 when the location is under statutory control and, therefore, not ‘relevant land’ as defined by the Act, in clear breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d)?

This fact warrants a formal complaint to the DVLA. MET Parking Services’ use of a Keeper liability warning under PoFA at a location not considered ‘relevant land’ is a direct breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP. Since compliance with the PPSCoP is a requirement of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, MET has failed to meet the conditions under which they are permitted to access registered keeper data from the DVLA.

Your complaint to the DVLA should assert that:

1. MET Parking Services obtained your personal data from the DVLA under the KADOE contract, which requires adherence to the PPSCoP.
2. By issuing a non-compliant Notice to Keeper, MET has breached the PPSCoP, meaning they were not entitled to request or use your data.
3. This constitutes an unlawful access of your personal data under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
4. The DVLA should investigate this breach and take appropriate action, including reviewing MET’s access to the DVLA database.

MuBa99

kryten3000 said:

MuBa99 said:

Thank you, should I say that in the initial appeal?

Yes, the keeper should point this out:  

"This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT ask for driver details in order to get around the fact this location is not "relevant land" for the purposes of the POFA. As there is no keeper liability then liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and thus is an auto win @ POPLA. Please therefore cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code where you will auto withdraw."

MET will try and claim that they have complied with the POFA (they have not because there is no "invitiation" for the keeper to pay or to provide driver details (Paragraph 9(2)(e) ).

Thank you for this, sorry if I'm being stupid but I think they have invited me to pay or provide details in paragraph 3 of the Notice to Keeper page. Is this not right? I notice they've also updated their letter to include the warning about the period of 28 days passing.

MuBa99

I have received a standard rejection from MET, is the following a good POPLA appeal?

Dear POPLA,

 

On the 6th February 2025, MET Parking Services issued a parking charge to me (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

 

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1.The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 7, and is therefore not POFA compliant.

 

2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

4.Unclear signage

5.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 

Please see below for details

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to not giving the evidence required under schedule 4 paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 7.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 9 (7) of the POFA, the notice must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.

MET parking provided CCTV images of my car but no images of the signage which they allege is displayed on the land that the PCN relates to. An operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraph 9. MET Parking Services have failed to fulfil these conditions in the NTK issued. Indeed, I have requested evidence of the signage at the site: MET Parking have not provided this. They have provided an image of what may or may not be printed on their sign, but this is certainly not a sign in situ.

 

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have MET Parking Services provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to). I can confirm that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time that the alleged contravention took place: I was at work that day from 6:30am to 5:30pm, 44 miles away from the site.

 

3) 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 I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws. 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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) provisions because Stansted Airport is NOT 'relevant land' as defined in the Act. The act states that “relevant land” means any land … other than—land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

NOTE: Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control.

 

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 a misrepresented interpretation of the law of agency. Their Notice To Keeper can only hold the driver liable.

POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

 

The site referenced in the PCN issued to me by MET Parking is clearly within the boundary of Stansted airport (image provided) and therefore can not, in any way, be regarded as relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012 or the issuing of this PCN. MET Parking claim that it is private land and not owned by the airport: this is insufficient evidence of the site being relevant land. They have not stated who owns the land (it is certainly not them), and they would need to provide detailed evidence from the owner of the land that this area is in fact relevant land. Evidence can only come from the owner. 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. My map evidence shows the Airport boundary. It's clearly within the airport boundary.

It is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be 'relevant land'. In the recent past, POPLA has sometimes got this wrong and your service had to apologise for a series of mistakes made by Assessors in 2023. This related to the misclassification (assumption) of the same Airport (Stansted) as relevant land, which more than one Assessor took to be true merely because the operator said it was so.

MET Parking will try to claim that this is relevant land but this is untrue and has been proven so on multiple occasions. This issue was highlighted in POPLA's reply to a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologised for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had blindly accepted what the operator said and not applied POFA properly.

Stansted Site Boundary Map can be found in the following document on the government website at:

https://www.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf

 

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.

 

4) I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event.

I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. 

As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

 

5) As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

 

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

 

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

 

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

 

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

 

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

 

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

 

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

 

 

 

I have contested points 1 and 2 with MET Parking Services with regards to their PCN reference, but they have written to me (dated 6th March 2024) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA Verification Code  .

 

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 sincerely hope you are able to help me.

 

Many thanks,

 

NAME

 

Coupon-mad

I think you need to separate out the 'appeals and complaints upheld by POPLA' and list them under one heading because at the moment you've got Steve McAllan at the start then some stuff about complaints in 2023 then the latest complaint from 2025 is randomly tacked on the end.