MET PCN Stansted McDonalds - help appreciated

MuBa99

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Is the bit I've changed in section 1 ok? I was not able to use subparagraph 2f as I think they have complied with that bit.

I have updated the appeal as below. I do think the Steve McAllan bit is relevant in both sections 3 (because it is evidence of it not being relevant land) and 6 (previous appeals and decisions) so mention it in both, but let me know if you think that's still overkill.

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

 

6. Previous appeals and complaints upheld by POPLA

 

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.

Relevant to this is that 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.

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  .

 

6) Previous appeals and complaints upheld by POPLA at the same site 

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.

Don't believe the operator in trying to convince you that the land is relevant land. As previously stated, 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. This issue was also 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.

 

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

 

Many thanks,

 

NAME

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine.

MuBa99

Great, thank you, have submitted and will update with the outcome.

MuBa99

I have received the following response from MET:

In the appeal to POPLA [the keeper] raises the following grounds for appeal:
• No keeper liability As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We have complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. 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. The airport 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: https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf 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.

• Unclear signage We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations.

• No evidence of landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that parking is for McDonald’s customers only and there is a maximum permitted stay of 60 minutes. Please note that these terms and conditions apply to all users of the car park, which naturally includes customers of the restaurant. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In light of this we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.



My response would be as follows, is this ok:

In section ‘A’ ‘Case Summary’ of MET’s response under heading “No keeper liability” MET stated: “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 and is therefore not 'relevant land', as demonstrated by the maps I have provided. MET has failed to show otherwise.

Even though the car park may be private land, it indisputably sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport. 

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’ of MET’s response under heading “No evidence of landowner authority” MET stated “Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach”.

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.

MET are claiming that they have included a contract with the landowner. In fact, they have included a contract with McDonald's, with no evidence that McDonald's are the landowner. It is highly unlikely that McDonald's are the landowner and are, rather, a lessee of the land. Either way, no evidence of McDonald's being the landowner has been provided. In addition, MET claim that their contract with McDonald's "grants [them] authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach." However, MET's own evidence of this contract with McDonald's in Section E only mentions MET being entitled to pursue the driver of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges, NOT the keeper. There is therefore no evidence of any landowner granting special permissions for MET parking to be exempt from airport bylaws.

As previously stated, and as agreed by POPLA as recently as February 2025, this particular site is NOT relevant land as it lies within an airport boundary and within the boundary of statutory land. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided that I have provided is incorrect. As the burden to disprove my evidence lies with MET and they have not done so, this appeal should be upheld.

MuBa99

Bump for help

Coupon-mad

What help do you need?

MuBa99

My post above the bump has my draft response to their evidence (after their evidence) and I just wondered if someone would be able to tell me if that's sufficient please

So my response only is currently:

In section ‘A’ ‘Case Summary’ of MET’s response under heading “No keeper liability” MET stated: “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 and is therefore not 'relevant land', as demonstrated by the maps I have provided. MET has failed to show otherwise.

Even though the car park may be private land, it indisputably sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport. 

As mentioned in my appeal, 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’ of MET’s response under heading “No evidence of landowner authority” MET stated “Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach”.

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.

Additionally, MET claim that "The airport Byelaws apply to areas where the road traffic enactments do not apply." This is categorically untrue. The airport byelaws cover the entire area within the boundary of the airport. The byelaws include a section on specific acts which are prohibited on the areas within the airport where the road traffic enactments do not apply; this does not state or imply to any degree that this is the only area where the byelaws apply.

MET are claiming that they have included a contract with the landowner. In fact, they have included a few pages from a contract with McDonald's, with no evidence that McDonald's are the landowner. It is highly unlikely that McDonald's are the landowner and are, rather, a lessee of the land. Either way, no evidence of McDonald's being the landowner has been provided. In addition, MET claim that their contract with McDonald's "grants [them] authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach." However, MET's own evidence of this contract with McDonald's in Section E only mentions MET being entitled to pursue the driver of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges, NOT the keeper. There is therefore no evidence of any landowner granting special permissions for MET parking to be exempt from airport bylaws.

As previously stated, and as agreed by POPLA as recently as February 2025, this particular site is NOT relevant land as it lies within an airport boundary and within the boundary of statutory land. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided that I have provided is incorrect. As the burden to disprove my evidence lies with MET and they have not done so, this appeal should be upheld.

MuBa99

@Coupon-mad if you have time is my draft response above ok?

Coupon-mad

I don't really do POPLA as it's usually a waste of time. See it through though.

MuBa99

Thank you so much for all of your help! I don't know why the formatting on this post is so awful, but here is the POPLA decision. Have also posted in the POPLA decisions thread.

POPLA assessment and decision 28/05/2025

Verification Code 3860655175

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist exceeded the stay authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

- The appellant states they were not the driver and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Therefore, they cannot be held liable as the registered keeper. They state the operator has not demonstrated that the individual they are pursuing was the driver. - The appellant states the site is not relevant land and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. - The appellant states the signage is unclear. - The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authorisation. - The appellant states that previous appeals from POPLA have been allowed. A POPLA code was provided to support this. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds. The appellant has provided maps showing the land boundaries of the site and a PDF copy of their grounds

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. - The appellant states the site is not relevant land and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. Relevant land is land, which is not under statutory control, as the railways and airport are under statutory control they are governed by byelaws. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 does not apply on land which is governed by statutory control and therefore the operator can only pursue the driver and not the registered keeper. In this case, the appellant has denied driver liability and has been identified as the registered keeper. The appellant has provided maps which show the site in question is within the land boundary of Stansted airport which is under statutory control. Although the operator has advised that the site is not governed by the byelaws and provided a link to the byelaws, the evidence presented including the contract does not demonstrate that the site is not under statutory control or sufficiently rebut the appellant’s grounds. Due to this, I cannot confirm that the registered keeper can be held liable for the PCN. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.