Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: stupc63 on July 01, 2025, 06:30:17 pm

Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: roythebus on September 04, 2025, 09:28:21 pm
A good result, at least in this case they've actually had to do some work to try to get some money.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: jfollows on September 04, 2025, 09:02:12 pm
Good.

MET rejects perfectly valid appeals because it know that lots of people then pay them. You didn’t fall for this.

It’s disgusting behaviour but most of them do it.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: Kj on September 04, 2025, 08:52:12 pm
Just wanted to say I followed your advice and wording to appeal to Popla regarding parking in the Starbucks car park by accident when Starbucks was shut. MET has withdrawn their appeal, again on the very last day. £60 saved! Much appreciated.

Thank you very much for the guidance,
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: DWMB2 on September 04, 2025, 08:37:24 pm
Thanks for the update... Interesting that they pulled out, they have previously let several of these cases go to assessment (often not in their favour).
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on September 04, 2025, 08:29:25 pm
Well after a few months it was finally resolved today…..and a massive thank you to b789 who offered brilliant advice throughout the whole process which ended with Met parking withdrawing their NTK today, they went the full 21 days they had to give their evidence to POPLA before withdrawing. Brilliant news and if anyone is just starting the process all I can say is don’t give up….👍. Many thanks again to b789……
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: b789 on July 29, 2025, 07:08:55 pm
So you now have 33 days in which to appeal to POPLA. My advice is to make a single point appeal to POPLA, only as the Keeper, with the image of the airport boundary map embedded, as follows:

Quote
POPLA Appeal: MET Parking Services – PCN [Insert PCN Number]

I challenge this Notice to Keeper on the basis that the location of the alleged contravention—McDonald's, Southgate Park, Stansted Airport—is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Therefore, MET Parking Services cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

Schedule 4 of PoFA only applies where the land is “relevant”, meaning it is not subject to statutory control. Stansted Airport is subject to statutory control under the Airports Act 1986 and regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The land in question falls within the official boundary of Stansted Airport, as confirmed by the airport’s own site plan.

Whether the land is leased to a private company is irrelevant. Statutory control applies to all land within the airport boundary unless the Secretary of State has formally revoked that status for a specific parcel. No such revocation exists for Southgate Park or the McDonald's site.

I enclose an official boundary map issued by Stansted Airport, which clearly shows that McDonald's in Southgate Park is located within the airport boundary. This map is not speculative—it is an authoritative document issued by Stansted Airport.

(https://i.imgur.com/ei1R0nR.jpeg)

The registered keeper has not been identified as the driver and is under no legal obligation to do so. Under PoFA, keeper liability can only arise if the land is relevant and the operator has complied with all conditions of Schedule 4. Since the land is not relevant, keeper liability is excluded. MET Parking Services must prove that the person they are pursuing is the liable party. They have failed to do so.

Now to address the operator’s attempt to mislead with the following statement:

Please note that McDonald’s is not part of Southgate Park. Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.

This is pure fiction. The site is clearly within Southgate Park, and Southgate Park is within the Stansted Airport boundary. The operator’s claim is not supported by any credible evidence and is contradicted by the airport’s own site plan. The suggestion that the land “does not fall under airport byelaws” is legally illiterate. Byelaws apply to all land within the airport boundary unless the Secretary of State has revoked them for a specific parcel—which has not happened. The leasehold status of the land is irrelevant to whether statutory control applies.

In short, MET Parking Services is attempting to rewrite statutory definitions to suit its own narrative. Their claim is not only wrong—it’s embarrassing.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the charge.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 29, 2025, 06:48:16 pm
Ok so latest reply from MET is as follows…..advice please…..thanks!

 - POPLA Verification Code: 3862105017
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area. These include that the
car park is a pay by phone car park and that there is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers. Your vehicle
was observed parked in breach of these terms as the premises located at Southgate Park (Starbucks) was closed at the
time and no payment was made for your stay, therefore we believe the charge was issued correctly and we are
upholding it.
Please note that McDonald’s is not part of Southgate Park.
Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.
We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of
motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and conditions.
We are also confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of
Freedoms Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we
issued the charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are
entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
We note your request for us to cease processing your data however we are refusing this as we believe we may continue
to process the data under the following legal bases:
Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter
and remain in the location.
Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring
the car park is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety
and security of the location.
This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating
circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a
number of options:
1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge
at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date
the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution
agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made
online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the
online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: 3862105017 Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please
note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an
alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to
participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to
POPLA as explained above.
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 24, 2025, 10:23:56 pm
Thanks guys for all your advice it’s very much appreciated. Have replied now let’s see what they say…………👍
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: b789 on July 24, 2025, 12:48:32 pm
I would respond to the intellectually malnourished goons at MET with the following:

Quote
Re: PCN [Insert Reference Number] – Southgate Park (Stansted Airport)

Your latest reply is a classic example of intellectual malnourishment. The assertion that Southgate Park is not part of Stansted Airport is not only factually incorrect but legally incoherent. Southgate Park lies squarely within the Stansted Airport boundary, as confirmed by official maps and multiple adjudications. That boundary is not subject to your whims or wishful thinking—it is defined by law and enforced under the Stansted Airport Byelaws.

Let me spell it out for you, since your grasp of statutory control appears to be on par with a damp sponge:

• Stansted Airport is subject to statutory control.
• Southgate Park is within Stansted Airport.
•Therefore, Southgate Park is subject to statutory control.
• Land under statutory control is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• PoFA keeper liability does not apply.

Your Notice to Keeper is therefore legally impotent. You cannot hold the registered keeper liable. You cannot rely on PoFA. You cannot rewrite statutory boundaries to suit your revenue model. And you certainly cannot pretend that your signage or internal delusions override the law.

If you are genuinely confused about the legal status of the land you operate on, I suggest you consult the Stansted Airport Byelaws, available here... https://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/byelaws/ Better yet, ask your legal department—assuming you have one that isn’t staffed by lobotomised interns.

Your continued reliance on PoFA in this context is not just wrong—it’s a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and your KADOE contract with the DVLA. If you persist, I will escalate this to the DVLA and the ICO for unlawful data use. You are not entitled to pursue keeper liability on land that is excluded by statute, and your misuse of DVLA data will be formally reported.

You now have two options:

1. Cancel the PCN immediately.
2. Issue a POPLA code and prepare to be humiliated in adjudication.

Should you choose the latter, I will submit the official Stansted Airport boundary map, cite the relevant statutory exclusions under PoFA, and include precedent from prior POPLA decisions confirming your legal impotence on this land.

This is your final opportunity to avoid further embarrassment. Choose wisely.

Yours,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper

Feel free to be even more derisory with these scamming bar stewards.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: jfollows on July 24, 2025, 09:07:38 am
They are trying to trick you into revealing the driver, as well as telling untruths about ‘relevant land’ which they know full well it has been determined to be by POPLA and others.

You can ignore. You will get a rejection of your appeal “after careful consideration” in a couple of weeks plus a POPLA code.

You can look here for successful POPLA appeals for the same grounds at the same location in the meantime.

PS Notice how they sneak in “for service of court papers” to try and scare you all the more.

PPS MET, like most of their brethren, always rejects appeals, even if they’re valid. Their rejection letter will simply not mention anything about ‘relevant land’, or will say wrongly that it is.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 24, 2025, 08:48:39 am
Hi all, so had my reply to my appeal (see below). How best to take this forward now? Thanks.

Site: (346) Southgate Park
Issue date: 25/06/2025
Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above charge. The charge was not incurred at the Airport, it was
incurred at Southgate Park (Starbucks) as the store was closed at the time and no payment was made for your stay.
Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.
We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued the
charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue
the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
If you would like to add additional comments to your appeal this can be uploaded at www.appealmetparking.com. We
have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to allow you time to do so. If we do not receive a response by the
end of the 14 days, we will have to reach a decision on your appeal based on the information we hold at that time.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 08, 2025, 09:37:23 am
Appeal sent, let’s see what they come back with…..thanks again b789…
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 06, 2025, 08:37:22 pm
Thanks B789, I’ll use that in my appeal.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: b789 on July 06, 2025, 07:01:28 pm
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'.

If Stansted Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within 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 your '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. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 06, 2025, 04:11:08 pm
Just about to appeal the NTK, can anyone advise what to put for the initial appeal? I’ve seen a few different ones on the sight but not sure which one is best to use in my case. Thanks.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: jfollows on July 02, 2025, 09:31:55 am
See also a recent Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jun/30/i-went-to-a-drive-thru-starbucks-but-ended-up-with-a-100-parking-fine) which - apart from going on about a “fine” - is reasonably accurate.
Title: Re: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: jfollows on July 01, 2025, 06:52:52 pm
There are many cases on this forum for the same site, it’s potentially unwise to identify the driver as you have done, please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ on the subject.

The land is covered by bylaws and therefore PoFA 2012 can’t be used to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the car, if the former is not identified.

And it’s Stansted if you’re going to search for similar cases. I found 33 cases documented when I did, the majority of which were about this precise location.
Title: Met parking services, NTK for McDonald’s/ Starbucks, Stanstead Airport.
Post by: stupc63 on July 01, 2025, 06:30:17 pm

Hi all,

I the owner of the car received an NTK from Met parking services for an ‘overstay’ even though the driver of the car was there for only 11 minutes at McDonald’s/ Starbucks at Stanstead Airport. The driver went to SA to pick someone up and went to the Starbucks to get a coffee whilst they waited. The time was 00:51 on 23/06/25 and the car park was pitch black. Upon arrival Starbucks was closed. As the driver didn’t want a McDonald’s coffee they sat and googled to see if there was another coffee shop nearby (which there wasn’t) and then left. How is that an ‘overstay’? Rightly or wrongly the driver didn’t see any signs on entering and wasn’t aware that there was any parking restrictions (the driver said it was pitch black).

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there, as on Saturday 29/06/25 the driver was back in the area again in the early hours of the morning this time 02:44am. The driver decided to again park in Starbucks to get a coffee as they presumed it would be open as the last time was on a Sunday night. Once more it was closed and the car park was pitch black and the driver said it was really hard to read any signs on entering, the driver didn’t even realise that there were any restrictions. I the owner have now received an NTK for this.

Thanks all for any advice in advance!

[attachment deleted by admin]