PCN on private land issued by MET - Southgate Park Stansted [Merged]

sum1cares

Hello All , i am new to the forum.  I landed here bec of a pcn NTK issued by MET parking services under similiar circumstances as @southgate_park. Having reviewed the info on here and the newbies thread, I have submitted an online appeal using the template. i fully expect it to be rejected and want to be ready for next steps. I wanted to know if @southgate_park had an update on their appeal. 

southgate_park

Just entered the POPLA website and it’s 
got several panels - the first asks the following - 

• vehicle was not parked where it stated it was on the parking notice.
• You were still within the time you paid for.
• You did not overstay the free parking allowed in the car park.
• You paid the correct amount for parking
• Your car parking ticket was clearly displayed
• The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed
• You were parked in an area where you were free to park
• You complied with the terms and conditions on the signage

The 2nd is - driver or the

registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking

• You bought the vehicle after the alleged improper parking.
• You sold the vehicle before the alleged improper parking.
• You hired a car, but were not the hirer at the time of the alleged improper parking.
• You were not the driver at the time of the alleged improper parking.
• You provided the driver's details, but the parking company continued to pursue you.o

Not sure which panel to enter- I think it’s the first, the problem also is they seem to ask several questions, when I’ve already got my appeal written with all the relevant answers!

southgate_park

So if anyone knows the right approach to this It would be most appreciated because it looks like I’ll be duplicating everything on there website

Coupon-mad

But this is already explained in the sticky thread at the top of the forum: NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Post 3 is all about POPLA and it says which box to tick.

I'm worried you haven't read that nor shown us your draft for critique. These Stansted cases have to include clear info about it not being relevant land, and an Airport Map.

Unless your first appeal admitted or implied who was driving?

southgate_park

Here’s a copy - I’m assuming I can just attaché this and ignore the questionnaire


 1. The land is not “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

MET Parking Services issued a charge based on an alleged breach of contract on private land, relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to hold the registered keeper liable. However, Southgate Park is within the boundary of Stansted Airport and subject to airport byelaws. Land under statutory control is excluded from PoFA’s definition of “relevant land” (Schedule 4, Paragraph 3). Thus, the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

2. Inadequate and misleading signage

The sign first visible on site states 'McDonald’s Customers Only – Maximum Stay 60 Minutes'. There was no mention of Starbucks, registration kiosks, or multiple contract zones. A reasonable driver would assume the 60-minute free parking applied to the entire area. MET failed to make any alternative terms clear at the point of entry or before parking, meaning no valid contract could have been formed.

3. No evidence of the driver’s identity

The appellant has not been identified as the driver. MET has not provided any evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time. Under PoFA (even if it did apply), they must meet strict requirements to transfer liability to the keeper. They have not done so.

4. Misleading site layout and contract terms

The McDonald’s car park was full, prompting the driver to continue into what appeared to be the same car park. There were no signs or markings to indicate this was a separate contractual area. This layout causes widespread confusion and has been criticised publicly by media outlets. Previous POPLA decisions have ruled in favour of appellants on this basis.

Photo Evidence

**Exhibit A – Misleading Entrance Signage**
This image shows the only visible sign at the site entrance: 'McDonald’s Customers Only – Maximum Stay 60 Minutes'. No mention of Starbucks, tablets, or multiple parking zones is made. This misleads drivers into believing the entire site offers 60 minutes of free parking.

**Exhibit B – Full McDonald’s Car Park**
Photo shows that the McDonald’s area was full (a regular issue due to local taxi use). This led the driver to continue into the adjacent area, which appeared to be part of the same car park. No signage or barrier indicated a separate contract zone.

Conclusion

For the reasons above:
- The land is not relevant land under PoFA;
- No contract was formed due to inadequate signage;
- MET Parking has not proven the identity of the driver;
- The site layout misleads drivers and violates basic principles of contract fairness.

I respectfully request this appeal is upheld and the charge cancelled.

Exhibit A – Entrance Signage

showing the McDonald’s '60 Minutes Free' sign at the entrance.

Exhibit B – Full McDonald’s Car Park

showing the full McDonald’s car park to support your explanation of why you continued driving.

southgate_park

I have a copy of there NTK which states I was there 50 minutes - within the 60 max - I was wondering if I should copy that into the images file?

Gr1pr

You dont appear to have included the airport boundary map etc, despite being told to by coupon mad earlier , that would be Exhibit A , the others would be B & C

That last sentence doesn't make sense to me at all

Never assume,  you tick OTHER 

southgate_park

What my respectful request 🤨 ?

southgate_park

Thanks for info on map - it’s in some of the newbie threads ?

Gr1pr

I believe its in the Popla decisions thread , or Google it,  it's definitely important to include it 

That last sentence in your popla appeal needs rewording, you are appealing to popla, not the claimant