Southgate Park Stansted initial appeal to MET

Hangthemorons

So, have got the notice to keeper for the Southgate Park,  Starbucks/Mcdonalds site. This is my first appeal and have drafted my appeal to MET as below, is there anything that is obvioulsy missing or needs adding. Thanks

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXX  and am in receipt of your Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXX, issued in relation to a 12-minute stay at Southgate Park, Stansted on XX/07/2025. I am submitting this appeal in my capacity as the keeper and do not identify the driver, nor am I obliged to do so.

I formally appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. No Opportunity to Comply – Starbucks Was Closed The driver entered the car park with the genuine intention of using Starbucks, the business associated with this specific parking area. However, upon arrival, Starbucks was closed, rendering the in-store terminal (iPad) used for vehicle registration inaccessible. This made it impossible to comply with any requirement to register the vehicle for the advertised one-hour free parking. Crucially, while a pay-by-phone option may have existed, the lack of clear, prominent signage specifically explaining this alternative, especially given the intended method (in-store iPad) was unavailable due to the store's closure, meant the driver had no immediate and obvious means to understand or comply with any terms of parking. Based on signage found online it appears there is a one-hour free parking available. As a result, no breach of terms occurred; the driver could not register or pay due to circumstances entirely beyond their control and a critical lack of clear instruction.

2. Misleading and Ambiguous Signage The signage at Southgate Park is insufficient and misleading, particularly for first-time visitors. The car park appears to serve a shared retail site (Starbucks and McDonald's), with a single entrance/exit and no clear division between potential parking zones. This lack of clear demarcation and guidance, including the failure to adequately present alternative registration methods when the primary in-store option was unavailable, violates the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (specifically, requirements for clear, prominent, and unambiguous signage at entry and within the site, e.g., Section 18.1). The signage failed to adequately inform a reasonable motorist of the specific terms and conditions or what action was required given the store's closure.

3. No Valid Contract Could Be Formed A binding contract requires clear offer, acceptance, and an ability to understand and comply with terms. At the time in question:

• Starbucks was closed.
• The registration iPad was inaccessible.
• Despite the possibility of a phone payment option, the signage did not clearly explain this method as a viable alternative, nor did it explain what a visitor should do if the primary store (Starbucks) was closed or how to register their vehicle under such circumstances. Therefore, no valid contract could be formed between the driver and MET Parking Services, and consequently, no breach occurred.

4. No Keeper Liability – POFA 2012 Not Satisfied As the keeper, I am not liable unless the strict conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) are fully met. Your Notice fails to demonstrate that all POFA requirements have been strictly adhered to, including, but not limited to, the specific wording and timing requirements. Furthermore, it does not provide clear evidence that the land is not excluded land (e.g., subject to airport bylaws). Unless you can provide unequivocal evidence of full POFA compliance, liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to me as keeper.

5. Grace Period – BPA Code of Practice Breached The entire duration of the stay was 12 minutes, during which the driver attempted to use the Starbucks facility but was unable to do so due to its closure. The British Parking Association Code of Practice mandates specific grace periods:

• Section 13.2 requires a reasonable grace period to leave the car park if a driver decides not to park.
• Section 13.3 requires a further 10-minute period to leave after a stay. Issuing a charge for such a brief visit, where the driver entered, found the intended facility unusable due to closure, and exited promptly within what constitutes a reasonable period for entry, assessment, and departure (well under the combined minimum 15-minute grace period advised), is a clear breach of this guidance.

Request for Cancellation Given:

• The driver’s genuine intention to use Starbucks.
• The impossibility of compliance due to the store being closed and the primary registration system being unavailable.
• The lack of clear, unambiguous signage and the failure to adequately communicate alternative registration methods, leading to no contract formation.
• The short 12-minute stay, which falls well within the BPA grace period guidelines.
• And your apparent lack of grounds to pursue keeper liability under POFA 2012.

I request that this charge be cancelled immediately. Should you reject this appeal, I will escalate to POPLA and request a full case review based on the above points. Please provide the required POPLA code if you do not agree to cancel.

Yours faithfully,

 

Coupon-mad

Too long. Save all that for POPLA, plus the map of the Airport site that shows this is not 'relevant land'.

Hangthemorons

I've now received the rejection from MET.  my POPLA appeal is as below 

My appeal is as below:

POPLA Appeal – Registered Keeper

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and am appealing the Parking Charge Notice issued by MET Parking Services. I request that this appeal be upheld on the following grounds.

---

1. No Keeper Liability – Failure to Comply with POFA 2012, Schedule 4

The operator has failed to meet the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), Schedule 4, to hold the registered keeper liable. As the keeper, I can only be held liable if every statutory condition is met. This Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails on multiple mandatory points:

• No “period of parking” – POFA 9(2)(a): The NtK provides only ANPR entry/exit timestamps (“arrived at 01:47:24 and departed at 02:00:06”). These are not the same as the "period of parking" required by POFA, as they include circulation and exit time, not just stationary parking.

• Keeper liability warning not in prescribed form – POFA 9(2)(f): The NtK omits the mandatory statutory phrase “subject to the conditions set out in this Schedule.” This is a fatal omission that prevents the operator from transferring liability to the keeper.

• Creditor not properly identified – POFA 9(2)(h): POFA requires the NtK to clearly identify the creditor. The statement “We, MET Parking Services Limited, are the creditor” is not in the explicit, mandatory format required by some assessors.

• Land description ambiguity – POFA 9(2)(a): The NtK lists the location only as “(346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY” without defining the exact boundaries, which is a requirement of POFA.

Based on the above breaches, keeper liability has not been established.

---

2. Possible Statutory Control – Burden on MET to Prove Land is Not Excluded Land

POFA, Schedule 4, paragraph 3, excludes land subject to statutory control from keeper liability. Southgate Park is located adjacent to Stansted Airport. The burden of proof is on MET Parking Services to produce authoritative evidence, such as a landowner plan, to show the site is not subject to statutory control. If they cannot, the site must be treated as excluded land, and keeper liability cannot apply.

---

3. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage (BPA Code of Practice Sections 18 & 19)

The BPA Code requires clear, prominent entrance signage that is readable from a moving vehicle and illuminated so terms are visible in darkness. The alleged incident occurred at night (~01:47). The operator has produced no evidence of:

• Sign illumination at the time.

• Adequate font size and positioning for legibility.

• Entrance signs meeting BPA Appendix B requirements.

Without illuminated and legible signage, no contract could have been formed.

---

4. No Contract Formed – Primary Registration Method Unavailable

The driver entered intending to use the free parking offered via an in-store registration system at Starbucks. On arrival, Starbucks was closed and the registration system was inaccessible. Signage did not clearly explain alternative payment or registration methods for this situation. With no clear and available means to accept the parking offer, no contract was formed, and no breach could occur.

---

5. Grace Periods Not Observed (BPA Code of Practice Section 13)

The total stay was 12 minutes. The BPA Code of Practice requires a reasonable observation period upon arrival (13.1) and a minimum 10-minute grace period after parking ends to leave (13.3). A 12-minute total stay could fall entirely within these grace periods. MET has provided no evidence that these statutory grace periods were allowed before issuing the charge.

---

6. No Legitimate Interest – Charge is a Penalty

The ParkingEye v Beavis decision allows parking charges only where there is a legitimate interest in enforcing terms. In this case, the premises were closed, there was no customer turnover to protect, and no loss was caused by the short stay. This is a punitive penalty, not commercially justified.

---

Conclusion

The operator has failed to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012, has not proven the land is not subject to statutory control, and has failed to demonstrate that a contract was formed or that grace periods were observed. For all these reasons, I am requesting that POPLA upholds this appeal and directs MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Where can I get the map to attach and is there anything that I've missed.   Thanks,

Coupon-mad

There's another MET thread tonight with the map included. The thread titles will find it. Have a browse.

Hangthemorons

Is all the other bits good for POPLA appeal. Anything missing?Thanks

Hangthemorons

@Coupon-mad - Thank you for the Map. Is there anything I need to change in the POLA appeal?

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove your first point (POFA is irrelevant) and I think the second point 'possible statutory control' is too weak.  Most appeals I've seen here are far more robust on that point.  Assert that this is within the Airport Boundary and refer to the map, and say this is not relevant land because of the Airport byelaws taking precedence (and attach or upload the byelaws).

Copy from one already written.  Don't make it short and in your own words.  Copy what has worked!

Also, this is referring to the wrong clause in the Joint Code. This is from the old BPA Code from a year ago:

"The BPA Code of Practice requires a reasonable observation period upon arrival (13.1) and a minimum 10-minute grace period after parking ends to leave (13.3)."