Operator evidence

southgate_park · 29 July at 2:29PM

POPLA have just sent me MET services appeal.. and it’s long and the short of it is that I should have read the signs properly!

Theres now a comments section for me to refute their claims !

Im not sure there’s more I can say, as I’ve pretty much done a lengthy piece on airport maps etc !

I welcome direction from here as I wasn’t expecting a comments section.

I could post METS evidence here, if anyone would like to comment?

southgate_park · 29 July at 4:02PM

Would this be the sort of thing POPA require as a comment on METS appeal ?

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.