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

Coupon-mad

I'd work my way back in POPLA DECISIONS and find a recent winning one from June. Copy their wording and the map. It's on a few threads.

southgate_park

Thanks Coupon!  I did read one of those about the airport! There long winded but I suppose that’s the point 🤙

Coupon-mad

southgate_park said:

Thanks Coupon!  I did read one of those about the airport! There long winded but I suppose that’s the point 🤙

Yes and a couple of people lost their appeals before we made sure everyone added the map and stronger wording. Copy what wins!

southgate_park

Hi just started scrolling through the POPLA decisions and came across one that I’ve adapted. I’m happy to post it on here for review and comment just in case my additions may have put the kibosh on a appeal that actually won - is there any one willing to give it the once owner as its one of the 450 odd from the decisions post LOL : ) give me a thumbs up and I’ll upload the full shock and awe !

Coupon-mad

Yes we will look but it is far better to copy & paste your planned POPLA appeal across 3 posts than to give people a link we may not have the time or inclination to click on. It's easier for us if your draft words are right here to see & comment on.

  

southgate_park

POPLA (To whom it may concern)

On the 17th March 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 the 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:

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. 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 liability 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. They have provided text

printed on their sign, but this is certainly not a sign in situ. In fact, their signage I deem to be inadequate and misleading.

The sign first visible on site states 'McDonald's Customer Parking' with no mention of Starbucks, registration kiosks, or

multiple contract zones. A reasonable person would assume the 60 minute free parking applied to the entire area. MET

failed to mark this at entry or before parking, meaning no valid contract could have been formed.

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 evidence of who was driving the vehicle at the time. Under POFA (even if it did apply),

they must meet strict requirements to have done so.

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. 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 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 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. 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 AirportBylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not 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).

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under a misrepresented

interpretation of the law of agency. 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. If

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 upholding 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 cannot, in any way, be regarded as 'relevant land' under POFA 2012 or justify 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 otherwise (or proven it), 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 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. 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 including 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:

https://www.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf (Exhibit A).

The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative

assumption - it is a matter of fact. I now submit with this a map from the Airport that clearly shows the official airport

boundary. I have marked on this map the location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the blue boundary line

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 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 consider.

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. 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 car park where they could have paid

nothing for unlimited parking in return for £100.

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 occupancy details - 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 simply be 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

pursue in their 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).

- 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 pretty much all of the points above. The car park is laid out to mislead. If the McDonald's car park is

full (most of the time it is), it is only natural to continue on and find another car park. There were no signs or markings

to indicate this was a separate contractual area. The layout causes widespread confusion and has been criticised publicly

by media outlets.

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 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." 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 gets wrong

regarding 'keeper liability' law should be corrected. 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 it

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 acknowledged and apologised for the repeated errors

made by Assessors who had blindly accepted what the operator said and not applied POFA properly.

Exhibit B: Misleading Entrance Signage.

The only visible sign at the site entrance misleads those entering that the entire car park site offers 60 minutes of free

parking.

Exhibit C: The Full Car Park.

Photo shows the McDonald's car park full, a regular issue due to local taxi use. The only option is to continue into the

adjacent area, which appears to be part of the same car park. No contract zone is indicated.

Joe Lycett thinks this absurd and not the way to operate a facility for motorists up and down the country. MET Parking's

operation has been called a scam, a 'CASH COW', and such practices tarnish all the authorities and bodies connected to

motoring. It is perceived that motorists are an easy target and cases like mine are proof that we are an easy target.

I respectfully request this case is upheld and the charge cancelled.Exhibit A: Stansted Airport Boundary MapExhibit B: Misleading Entrance SignageExhibit C: Full Car Park Layout

southgate_park

On the POPLA - ‘Other’ section it asks to give a 
brief summation ? Seeing has it is all in the file I’m attaching, shall I just ignore this?

southgate_park

I haven’t uploaded the map of airport or images of  signs etc

southgate_park

🤞 it’s gone ! Will it be a ye or nay! 🤙👎

Coupon-mad

southgate_park said:

I haven’t uploaded the map of airport or images of  signs etc

I assume you did for POPLA. The map is what wins the case.