Met Parking Stansted Popla Appeal Draft

Wedfan

Hi

I've put together a draft of my Popla appeal against a parking penalty from Met Parking Southgate Park.  I created this by taking information from other appeals.  l would appreciate any advice as I'm not sure if I am doing everything I need to do.

Dear Sir/Madam

 As the registered keeper, this is my appeal about a Penalty Charge Notice issued by MET Parking Services Ltd for an alleged breach of the company's terms and conditions in the Southgate Park Car Park at Stansted, CM24 1PY on the XXXXXX.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from the registered keeper.

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx

MET PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxx

VRN: xxxxxxxxxx

 

I wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

Appellant not being the individual liable.

Lack of standing/authority from the landowner

Non-Compliant Signage

  

I am the registered keeper.  MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control.  As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Stansted Airport is not “relevant land” as defined in the Act.  The act states that “relevant land” means any land … other than—land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

 If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws that would be withing the landowner’s gift and another matter entirely.  However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and the “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 that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.  The NTK can only hold the driver liable.

NOTE: Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control.

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 made by Assessors in 2023. This related to 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.

Don't believe the operator in trying to convince you otherwise. This issue was highlighted in POPLA's reply to a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologised for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had blindly accepted what the operator said and not applied POFA properly.

The map below shows Stansted Airport boundary as defined by Stansted Airport themselves and by the UK Government on their website. I have highlighted where the MET Stansted car park is located. It is clearly within the boundary of Stansted Airport and therefore is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 of PoFA.

*  Map inserted shown here.

This incident was late at night, 23.36 and the signs were not readable driving in.  The only sign the driver saw when out of the car was 60 minute free parking.  The driver entered the car park with the genuine intention of using Starbucks, however, upon arrival, Starbucks was closed so they went to McDonalds instead.

The car park in question has just one exit and entrance, and it is only reasonable to assume it is all the same car park. Motorists park in similar retail units across the country every day and make their way to various shops.

I believe that the Met parking operation in Southgate car park has been designed deliberately in a way to confuse as many drivers as possible.  The two restaurants are about 4 meters apart, housed in what will be seen by many drivers as one overall car park.

The notice to keeper states that the reason for issuing the charge notice is: “Remaining on site for 19 minutes, being longer than the period of parking that had been paid for or without authorisation. 

 

Nowhere does it state:

 - What the site boundary is.

- Show any map of where site boundary begins and ends.

DW190

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE???

Are you sure?

Wedfan

Thanks for pointing that out DW190. I had changed it to Ntk but it didn’t save. I have changed and saved it now.