Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: dragenyx on June 20, 2025, 11:54:37 am
-
Hi all, an update - the appeal was successful! Thanks so much for all your help. The assessor reasoning:
"I find in favour of the appellant. I will explain my reasoning below. By issuing a PCN, the parking operator has implied that the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of what the terms and conditions are at the site and that the motorist did not comply with these terms. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. In this case, the parking operator has indicated in its case file that there is no applicable airport byelaws relating to parking in effect at the site question and provided a weblink relating to the byelaws in questions however, the appellant has raised that the parking operator cannot rely on PoFA as the location is subject to statutory controls, and is not a relevant land for the purpose of PoFA. I have considered the Stanstead Airport Byelaws, which separate out the land within the airport boundary into areas subject to traffic enactments, and areas not subject to traffic enactments. In either case, the land described would be subject to statutory control and not relevant land as defined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Airport Byelaws do not include a clear map or boundary, simply defining the relevant area as the aerodrome known as Stanstead Airport – London. The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of the airport, and the area within which the vehicle was parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst I note the appellant has provided a weblink that refers to the statutory byelaws rules, POPLA cannot access third-party weblinks for security reasons. As such, I am unable to consider this evidence as part of my assessment. Having considered the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the parking operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The parking operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the appellant is incorrect. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence before me. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal."
-
Alright, thanks a lot. Will get it done on Tuesday and report back with any updates.
-
I've told you what to do.
All you need to reiterate is that the land is under statutory control, no matter how much MET bleat that it isn't. If it's within the boundary of the airport, then airport by-laws apply and PoFA is not available to them to hold the Keeper liable.
Remind the assessor that you have provided an official boundary map of the airport with the location of Southgate Park undeniably within that boundary. Anything within that boundary is land under statutory control and therefore not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. So if the assessor cannot fathom that point, there is no chance that this will be successful and it will go to a court hearing where a truly independent arbiter, a judge, can make an educated decision on this fact.
-
Right, thanks guys.
Yes I did include the boundary map in my appeal.
I just thought that as they've provided a much more detailed response than in the other threads I've seen, and provided some "evidence", I would need more than the responses provided on the other threads. Is it sufficient to just use what was in the aforementioned thread and call it a day?
Many thanks
-
Just do a search for other MET Stansted POPLA appeals and the operators response as advised.
All you need to reiterate is that the land is under statutory control, no matter how much MET bleat that it isn't. If it's within the boundary of the airport, then airport by-laws apply and PoFA is not available to them to hold the Keeper liable. I'm presuming you included the boundary map with your appeal.
-
Just one comment from me, I don't understand how in the liability trail they state that "the driver appealed and identified as: [Keeper's information] when all appeals were filed as the keeper.
Many thanks for any assistance.
It’s essentially because they lie.
They want your money and don’t care how they get it.
Don’t think they are in any way reasonable.
But you get to rebut their lies now, in a polite way of course.
-
Hi all. I had received a PCN from MET, followed the guidance in this thread: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/re-met-parking-services-southgate-park-stansted-airport-starbucksmcdonalds-notic/ (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/re-met-parking-services-southgate-park-stansted-airport-starbucksmcdonalds-notic/) and have now received the response from MET which I have 7 days to respond to. I am about to go to work, and will not be able to reply properly until Tuesday, but would appreciate any and all help. Please find attached the detailed response from MET, with personal info redacted.
Just one comment from me, I don't understand how in the liability trail they state that "the driver appealed and identified as: [Keeper's information] when all appeals were filed as the keeper.
Many thanks for any assistance.
[attachment deleted by admin]