MET Parking Stansted - Southgate/McDonalds car park - POPLA appeal help

phthsg9

Hi,

Like many others on the thread, was caught out using the Starbucks car park and entering McDonalds late at night in August 2026.

Based on advice from this website I appealed this with MET Parking. This was rejected and I appealed again via POPLA. I did not identify the driver.

MET have responded to the POPLA appeal with the following (I have taken out links as I'm a new member so won't be approved):

Operator Case Summary

In the appeal to POPLA **** raises the following grounds for appeal:

1. The vehicle entered the site intending to use the premises, but the intended Starbucks facility was closed, resulting in the occupants using the adjacent McDonald's instead

In this instance, the driver was not entitled to the free parking period as the store was closed and they were therefore not a Starbucks customer. As advised on the signs, only Starbucks customers are entitled to the free parking period, and they must register their vehicle on arrival. The driver did not make payment for their stay as an alternative and as such the parking charge was issued. This would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as only paying Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free, which the driver was not as the store was closed. As such, they were not entitled to the further reduction when their appeal was declined.

2. MET has not demonstrated that the contractual restriction relied upon was sufficiently clear to establish the liability alleged

We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. As demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E of our evidence pack Southgate Park has entrance signs either side of the vehicle entrance to the park, therefore there is clear demarcation. Section E also contains copies of the signs, a site map showing their location, and photographs of the signs in situ. The signage specifically states that the free parking period is only available for Starbucks customers, thereby excluding customers of McDonald’s. For the avoidance of doubt, we have included an overview of the location with McDonald’s and the access road outlined. We would also point out that the signs in the McDonald’s car park are red and clearly state that the car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers while they are on those premises only. They are entirely different to the signs shown in Section E of our evidence pack. Ultimately, it remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations.

3. No evidence of landowner authority

We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at https://www. supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl

4. Registered keeper liability

We note that the appellant claims that the land on which the charge was issued is not relevant land as defined under PoFA and the basis of their argument is that the land falls within the boundaries of Stansted Airport. We are also aware that they have submitted an outdated plan that remains available on the internet which they are seeking to rely on to support their argument. The plan submitted, however, was superseded and replaced when the airport sold the land in 2011. The current plan for Stansted Airport can be found on the Stansted Airport website at: https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/a7ebfb2621/mag-sealed-amended-claim-form-updated.pdf?_gl=1*3pf4ff*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE

We attach a copy of that plan below that clearly excludes the highlighted area where the parking charge was issued. As the map demonstrates, Southgate Park does not fall within the airport’s land. Map of Stansted Airport from the Stansted airport website - Area highlighted in yellow is clearly outside the boundary of the airport https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf

The date of this document is more recent than the document provided by the appellant and therefore takes precedence: We also include in section E: o an extract from the title deeds and title plan that show the freehold was sold on 2 August 2011 to Grove Developments; and o correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the possession of the airport. For the sake of clarity: as demonstrated by the titled deeds in section E, the freehold land was sold in 2011 to Grove Developments, at which point it ceased to be part of the airport. We have also provided in section E an email from the airport advising that bylaws only apply to land owned by the airport. Airport byelaws therefore cannot apply here – the land is neither owned nor managed by the airport and they themselves have confirmed the byelaws only apply to land they own. In light of this it is clear that the land is not subject to the airport byelaws and instead falls within the definition of relevant land under the terms of PoFA. Therefore, where we do not know the name and serviceable address of the driver and have complied with all pertinent conditions of Schedule 4 to PoFA we may pursue the registered keeper for payment of an outstanding charge. 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. To summarise, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that there is a 1-hour free stay for Starbucks customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please note: as the parking event occurred while Starbucks was closed, there was no free stay. Should the driver have wished to use the car park while Starbucks was closed, they should have paid the appropriate tariff. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without payment having been made. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.

(The reason I included the boundary map is as this had previously got me out of a ticket at the drop off at the airport that I'd paid for using the wrong number plate).

I'm not sure if I have used the wrong arguments in my appeal, but any help responding to their comments would be greatly appreciated!! Thank you in advance :)

Coupon-mad

No you did it right and we've seen MET submit that same map before. Search the forum for other threads with POPLA appeals to find how to counter it in your comments.

There is certainly at least one POPLA decision which looked at all this and found for the appellant. Search for posts made about MET Stansted or the word 'Southgate' in POPLA DECISIONS.

phthsg9

thanks so much coupon mad, I’m reading through the threads and think I’ve drafted a fairly good appeal.

Just reading through the evidence pack again and MET have included an email from the head of landside operations at stansted (including a bit of sucking up from David suggesting a coffee by the looks of it):

From:

Subject: Quick question

13 November 2025 15:51:30

Hi David,

How are you? I trust you are well.

Coffee sounds great.

To confirm airport byelaws are only applicable to Land owned and in the possession of the airport.

Kind regards

London Stansted Airport

Head of Landside Operations

London Stansted Airport

Is there any weight to this? Or any suggestions on how I can respond? Sorry if it’s on the threads already, I haven’t been able to find a counter to that one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82168445#Comment_82168445