MET Parking PCN, Stansted, NTK,

Ciderspace666

Hi. I have read the NEWBIE info but am not confident of process so just thought Id post up for support

I received an NTK today, after the contravention date of 16/9/25.

I would like to appeal so the first port of call, is to lodge an appeal via their website - I think ive understood that bit! Then if unsuccessful, which is likely given what ive read, I will then have the opportunity to appeal via POPLA. Is that it in a nut shell at this stage?

Thank you

DE_612183

yes, but don't state who was driving - appeal as the keeper

what are you using as grounds for your appeal?

Ciderspace666

Yes, got that bit - ta for reminder though

I think the grounds are:

Not realising there are two carparks - one for Starbucks (where car was left) - and one for McDs (visited by driver for 29 minutes).
Driver does not recall seeing ANY signs, though they weren't looking or expecting any. Plus it was dark and in a rush to use the facilities!
Having researched, I believe the signs state 60 minutes free parking - stayed for 29 minutes - however, the issue is not entering Starbucks and walking to McD's and so contravening the Starbucks terms. Apparently the driver should have got back in the car and moved to McDs area.

Is this legitimate grounds?

patient_dream

MET PARKING AT STANSTED IS JUST A MEGA SCAM

POPLA recently found in favour of the motorist quoting air port by-laws
MET PARKING LOST

MET PARKING will then send in debt collectors like DRP or ZZPS.  Both are cloud dreamers who you ignore.

Maybe they will instruct DCBL legal who are MEGA timewasters and take on totally rubbish claims, nothing to worry about.  Come back here if a legal contacts you

In the meantime, watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0

Coupon-mad

Don't say this:

"and in a rush to use the facilities"

Just appeal as keeper saying the Airport site is not relevant land.

doubledotcom

FYI, MET are now offering to POPLA a copy of their own "evidence" that Southgate Park is not covered by byelaws. This is what their latest 'operator response' pack contains:

The keeper raises the following grounds for appeal:
• No keeper liability As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack.

Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park.

We have included in section E a map showing the boundary of Stansted Airport, from which it is clear the area occupied by Southagte Park, outlined in yellow, is not part of the Airport. This map is the most recent version and was submitted to the High Court last year, as evidenced by the link provided in section E.

In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land.

 Appeal points not addressed As demonstrated in section E, we addressed the appellant’s points regarding the airport byelaws. 

This the link to the source of their map:

https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/

Whereas this is the link to the map I sourced to indicate the official airport boundary:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf (page 8, ‘Site Plan’).

This is the rebuttal I have advised the appellant to use:

Section E – Operator’s map and boundary claim

The operator’s “boundary” plan in Section E is not an airport estate boundary at all. It is a red-line taken from a High Court interim protest injunction that defines where protest-control measures apply for a limited legal purpose and period. The Order itself defines “Stansted Airport” only as “the land shown…on Plan 2 to the Claim Form,” and it includes review and service provisions (e.g. notices at locations marked “X”) that underline its narrow, enforcement nature. See: https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/. This is not an operator boundary plan, does not purport to fix the airport’s statutory/operational extent, and is therefore irrelevant to the “relevant land” analysis under Schedule 4 PoFA.

By contrast, the appellant’s map is drawn from the airport operator’s own planning submission—the Stansted Terminal Extension Design & Access Statement (July 2023)—which describes the airport landholding and shows the site plan used by the operator and the planning authority to define the estate context (“the land within the airport’s boundaries is approximately 957 hectares”). This is precisely the type of authoritative operator material POPLA should prefer when understanding the airport boundary as a whole. Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf (page 8, ‘Site Plan’).

Accordingly, POPLA should dismiss the injunction red-line as a litigation exhibit with a limited purpose and no bearing on the airport estate’s full extent, and instead rely on the operator’s own planning document for boundary context. On that basis—and as shown in the appellant’s evidence—Southgate Park sits within the airport estate notwithstanding any narrower area delineated for protest-injunction enforcement.

Keeper liability (PoFA) cannot arise. Schedule 4 only applies on “relevant land.” Land subject to statutory control/byelaws (such as airport land within the operator’s boundary) is excluded from the definition of “relevant land,” so PoFA keeper liability is unavailable. The operator has not produced any operator or planning-authority boundary plan that displaces the airport operator’s own material; instead they rely on a protest-injunction map that is not a boundary instrument. POPLA should therefore find that this site is not “relevant land” and that the keeper cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 PoFA.

doubledotcom

Further to the above, it is also likely that the injunction map only covers land owned by Manchester Airport PLC.

Crucially, the injunction was brought by Manchester Airport PLC and, by its nature, only covers land they own or control. It does not (and cannot) extend to parcels owned by third parties such as Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (the entity named in the parking company’s contract). The fact that such third-party land is not coloured within the injunction red-line is therefore a function of claimant ownership/control, not proof that the land lies outside the airport estate or beyond the reach of the airport byelaws.