Here is a slightly more coherent version that you should send to POPLA:
I, the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM], received a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN) titled "Notice to Keeper" via post from MET Parking Services (hereinafter referred to as MET). I appealed this notice to MET, which acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal without addressing the points I raised. It remains my position that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have no liability for the parking charge. My appeal should therefore be upheld on the following grounds:
1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. MET Cannot Transfer Liability to the Keeper and Cannot Assume Keeper Liability for the Charge
3. MET’s Notice to Keeper Breaches the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and their KADOE Contract with the DVLA
4. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
MET does not know the identity of the driver and is pursuing me as the vehicle’s registered keeper. The alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which falls within the boundary of Stansted Airport. A Stansted Airport-issued map, provided with this appeal, confirms this fact. As Stansted Airport is subject to byelaws, it falls under statutory control.
(https://i.imgur.com/NINSBCa.jpeg)
Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA explicitly states that "relevant land" excludes any land that is "subject to statutory control," such as land governed by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate Park does not qualify as relevant land under PoFA. While the land may be privately owned and MET may have been contracted to manage the car park, this does not override the fact that it falls under statutory control.
Since Southgate Park is not relevant land, MET cannot invoke PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. The only party they may legally pursue is the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed. As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and thus, there is no keeper liability in this case.
Furthermore, MET continues to mendaciously claim that because the location is "private land" or "not at the airport," then it must be relevant land. However, the POPLA assessor cannot deny the obvious fact that an official Stansted Airport map, with the airport boundary clearly marked in blue and the location of Southgate Park marked in red, shows that it is within the airport boundary and therefore is land under statutory control (airport byelaws). I put MET to strict proof that this is not the case.
2. MET Cannot Transfer Liability to the Keeper and Cannot Assume Keeper Liability for the Charge
Even if Southgate Park were considered relevant land (which is denied), MET would still be unable to hold me liable as the registered keeper due to non-compliance with PoFA’s strict statutory conditions. PoFA sets out clear requirements that an operator must meet in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. MET has failed to meet these requirements, meaning I cannot be held liable.
Additionally, as the keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally required to identify the driver. MET has provided no evidence to establish the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Since PoFA does not apply to Southgate Park and MET has failed to meet PoFA’s conditions for keeper liability, MET must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without such identification, their claim against the keeper is baseless.
Furthermore, POPLA must not assume or infer that the keeper was the driver. Established case law supports this position. In VCS v Edward [2023] (H0KF6C9C), HHJ Mark Gargan stated in paragraph 35.3:
"Simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell... These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion."
This legal principle confirms that MET cannot assume keeper liability unless they provide direct evidence that the keeper was the driver. POPLA must not be misled by any attempt to suggest otherwise.
3. MET’s Notice to Keeper Breaches the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and their KADOE Contract with the DVLA
Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) clearly states:
"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
Since Southgate Park is not relevant land under PoFA, MET is in clear breach of this section by continuing to issue Notices to Keeper (NtKs) that falsely imply or directly state that the registered keeper can be held liable. This is a serious breach of the Code of Practice.
By knowingly issuing such unlawful notices, MET is also in breach of their Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA, which only permits them to obtain registered keeper details for lawful and Code-compliant purposes. Handling and processing keeper data in this manner is therefore unlawful, and MET has no legitimate grounds to retain or use my personal data.
As a result, MET’s entire basis for issuing this PCN is fundamentally flawed. Their breach of both the PPSCoP and the KADOE contract means that the PCN is invalid on that ground alone. The assessor must acknowledge that MET has no legal right to issue or enforce this charge. The PCN must be cancelled immediately.
I will be reporting MET’s conduct to the DVLA separately, but the key point for POPLA to consider is that MET’s non-compliance invalidates this charge entirely.
4. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
MET has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly displayed and visible to motorists. For a driver to be bound by a contract, signage must be legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read before a contract is formed. MET has failed to provide satisfactory evidence that:
• The signage was adequately positioned and illuminated;
• The terms and conditions were clearly legible from a driver's perspective;
• The alleged contravention occurred in an area where sufficient and visible signage was present.
Without such evidence, MET’s claim is unsubstantiated.
Conclusion
Southgate Park is within Stansted Airport’s boundary and is therefore subject to statutory control, excluding it from being classified as relevant land under PoFA. The explicit wording of Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that land governed by byelaws does not meet the definition of relevant land. The official airport boundary map provided with this appeal removes any doubt about this fact.
Even if the site were relevant land, MET has still failed to comply with PoFA’s keeper liability requirements. Furthermore, MET’s Notice to Keeper breaches the PPSCoP and their KADOE contract with the DVLA, meaning they have no lawful basis to handle or retain keeper data. This renders the PCN invalid on this ground alone.
MET has also failed to provide evidence of adequate signage. Given these fundamental flaws, POPLA must uphold my appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Is the vehicle leased or hired? If not, then PoFA paragraph 14 has nothing to do with this. If you're going to mention various paragraphs or sections, you have to make sure they apply to your situation.
For example, because the land is under statutory control, PoFA cannot apply. However, on their NtK, they refer to Keeper liability under PoFA. Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP states:
"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
So, there is a breach of the PPSCoP which invalidates the PCN.
The morons at MET can’t comprehend that it doesn’t matter if the land is “private”. The fact that the “private” land sits within the airport boundary and is therefore under statutory control, whether they like it or not.
Simply respond with the following:
Dear MET Parking Services,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number [Insert PCN Number]
Site: (346) Southgate Park
I refer to your recent letter, in which you attempt to claim that Southgate Park is "privately owned land" and somehow qualifies as "relevant land" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your argument demonstrates a staggering level of intellectual malnourishment and complete ignorance of statutory control principles.
To clarify for your benefit: Stansted Airport, including Southgate Park, is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws. As such, it is unequivocally not "relevant land" as defined in PoFA, regardless of whether the land is privately owned. You should already be aware of this fundamental limitation on your ability to hold the registered keeper liable.
Further, your demand for evidence of purchases or Starbucks use is both irrelevant and baseless. The burden of proof lies with MET Parking Services to demonstrate:
• That the terms of parking were clearly displayed and prominently visible;
• That a contract was formed with the driver (not the registered keeper);
• That any alleged breach occurred; and
• That you are pursuing the correct party.
As you are fully aware, no presumption or inference can be made that the registered keeper was the driver. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is not only flawed but also undermines your credibility. I will not engage in speculation regarding the driver’s identity, as I am under no legal obligation to do so.
You now have two options:
1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately; or
2. Issue a POPLA code without delay.
Should you continue this ridiculous pursuit of an unenforceable charge, I will look forward to exposing your lack of knowledge at POPLA or in court.
This is your final opportunity to resolve this matter sensibly. Kindly confirm cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice or provide a POPLA code within 14 days. Should I not receive a response, I will consider the matter closed.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]