MET Parking - Stansted

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

Hi, 

I received a PCN for an overstay in McDonalds at Stansted a couple of months ago.

I appealed to MET using the newbie template and as expected was rejected.

Went to POPLA and appealed saying I was the registered keeper not the driver and copied the information about the land not being relevant land for the purposes of POFA etc. I also also added in about the decision in January where POPLA’s Complaints Team confirmed MET cannot use POFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

I’ve just received the outcome of my POPLA appeal and it has been unsuccessful.

The assessor looks like they have ignored the ‘relevant land’ aspect and says the following:

***Extract from appeal decision***

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver.

In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.

They have advised the land is subject to byelaws. I must advise this is not a byelaws case. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued.

In this case, the operator has provided evidence which shows the contract started with the landowner on 31 August 2010 for 12 months and continued after this date and would terminate if 12 weeks’ notice in writing had been provided.

***End of extract***

I’ll copy the full POPLA decision to the decisions thread, but is there any merit in making a formal complaint to POPLA about how their own assessors are contradicting each other?

Is the next step court action from MET and if so do they have any teeth?

Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

If they upheld the PCN using POFA2012 and keeper liability, complain to the lead adjudicator , John Gallagher, same as all the other failed appellants have done in the last few months, there should be a template complain in some threads

Powerless debt collectors letters are next, then a formal LoC, followed by a probable court claim within 6 years

courts are the ones with the teeth, specifically the Judge

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

Gr1pr said:

If they upheld the PCN using POFA2012 and keeper liability, complain to the lead adjudicator , John Gallagher, same as all the other failed appellants have done in the last few months, there should be a template complain in some threads

Powerless debt collectors letters are next, then a formal LoC, followed by a probable court claim within 6 years

courts are the ones with the teeth, specifically the Judge

Thanks.I'll have a look.

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

I have sent the following to complaints at popla, FAO John Gallagher. I'm not really expecting a favourable reply.

 This email is for the attention of John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator

 Dear Mr Gallagher

 I recently appealed against a PCN which was issued by MET parking services in the McDonald's car park at Stansted Airport on 7 February 2025.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver of the vehicle.

 The appeal was assessed by Kevin Woodall.

 Mr Woodall has decided the PCN was issued correctly. He has however chosen to ignore POFA and the fact that this car park is not ‘relevant land’. There are a number of points here which need addressed:

• Mr Woodall’s findings are misleading and are legally incorrect as the McDonald’s 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.
• Mr Woodall asserts that he is satisfied the operator has met the requirements of section 14 (of the Code of Practice) and a contract to enforce PCN’s was in place the date the appellant parked. I am the registered keeper (RK) and the appellant (appealing as RK). I was not the driver of the vehicle on 7 February and therefore did not park the vehicle.
• No Code of Practice can override the law. There are plenty of other successful POPLA appeal decisions for this site confirming this.
• The spelling of the airport’s name is ‘Stansted’, not ‘Stanstead’. This may seem pedantic but you would think somebody in Mr Woodall’s profession would at the very least use a spell-checker before issuing formal decisions.

In fact Mr Gallagher, 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 Act 1986 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.”

As such I am asking you to:

1. Re-open my appeal and override Mr Woodall’s decision as it is legally incorrect. POPLA have previously re-opened a case where a Parking Operator has claimed the assessor missed a key piece of evidence. In my appeal Mr Woodall has missed the fundamental issue in that legally MET cannot use POFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper as this is not relevant land.
2. to make sure your assessors are fully conversant with the law and the provisions of POFA, 
3. to make sure all your assessors are consistent with noting this area is not relevant land,
4. to let me know what corrective action and training will be put in place to ensure this sort of thing does not happen yet again, and 
5. to send an emailed copy of MET’s evidence pack to my email address because POPLA's error has condemned me to being sued then withheld access to the exact data I will need. 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 Kind regards

doubledotcom

They will not "reopen" an appeal. Even if it is black and white that the assessor has erred in law, they will never change the decision. All you can hope for is an admission that the assessor did err in law and use that as evidence should this ever reach a court room (unlikely).

There is no oversight of POPLA and so they operate with impunity, even when they admit they are wrong.