Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: itsgif on October 02, 2025, 03:05:28 pm
-
Just goes to show how utterly moronic POPLA can be. OP, why do you think you have to take a £100 "hit" just because some unaccountable firm that is paid by the very same operators that you are appealing against decides their clients are right and you are wrong? A POPLA decision is NOT binding on you. It has not effect an anything going forwards.
A feckwit POPLA assessors decision is not a legal opinion. I can guarantee you that should this ever reach a hearing in front of a judge, METs map and argument would be thrown out. However, it will NEVER get that far. I can tel you with greater than 99.9% certainty, that this will end up as a claim and be discontinued.
However, I sense that the gullible tree is ripe with low-hanging fruit because you obviously have no idea how a county court claim works and are of the notion that by having a claim made against you somehow affects your credit rating. That is exactly how these scammers want you to continue thinking. Like lambs to the slaughter, so many people just pay these scammers out of ignorance and fear.
There is NOTHING in the advice we give that will affect your credit record. Just to give you a bit of education, here is something I wrote that explains about CCJs and the stupid and unfounded fear of credit record and bailiffs:
These unregulated private parking firms and their pet debt collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of how County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that if they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery” letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they make a very good living shaking it.
Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life lesson” from...
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a fine. It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your credit file.
If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals are almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at the secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do, however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of imaginary consequences.
If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear. Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your credit rating would be unchanged.
As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or settle it, your credit file remains untouched.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court actually makes a judgment against you. That happens either because you defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or because you ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment in default. Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that the low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders are concerned.
A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.
Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents) only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been paid.
For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful bailiff.
So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter so I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.
There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect your credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps you away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days, your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private parking charge.
These companies rely on being able to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
-
What shall I do, just wait for them to chase me / send to debt collectors? Buying a house currently, so don't want anything that could cause issues there.
As I see it you are actually in a super strong position - I'll explain my reasoning;
There are several parking firms who 'manage parking' within the areas of statutory control at airports in this country. They are all well aware of the limitations of PoFA in those circumstances but you'd be surprised how many of those companies 'try it on' in terms of their wording on their NtKs. Some claim that PoFA is applicable and some claim that they still have, 'the right to assume that the Keeper was the driver' in order to try and pass liability onto a named individual.
What you notice with all these companies is a reluctance to pursue Keepers all the way to a physical hearing - and there is a very good reason for that;
In simple terms, they risk their dubious behaviour being found out. They risk awkward cross-examination. They risk their non-compliance with legislation being exposed. Etc etc.
In your particular case, it is clear that MET have made little effort to establish the true area of statutory control. If you look back at previous cases then you'll see how MET's evidence (regarding 'relevant land') changes from time to time.
SO HOW CAN THEY ISSUE A LAWFUL NTK IF THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE NATURE OF THE LAND WHICH THEY ARE TRYING TO MANAGE? (Sorry to shout but it's a vital point.)
So let's imagine that they progress this to a County Court hearing... What's going to happen when you hold them to strict proof that the area is not under statutory control? The just stop oil map found online by the work experience kid is not going to cut it.
At the moment they are on a nice little earner by hoodwinking people into thinking that PoFA applies - do you think they are going to risk all of that over one case?
Looking at FTLA (and other parking related internet sites) it is obvious that this is a high earning site for MET - imagine how that would change if the true nature of the land was correctly established?
-
No doubt you'll get debt collectors letters which become ever more scary as the weeks go by. The advice usually given on here is to use the paer to line your hamster cage or cat litter box, they are meaningless. Eventually they will give up. don't worry about bailiff threats, they can only turn up if iy oges to court, you lose and you don't pay.
As others have said, don't pay!
-
Court would be a long way off, and a ccj would only be if you lost the case or they won in default.
Lost the case and didn't pay in time.
-
Court would be a long way off, and a ccj would only be if you lost the case or they won in default.
-
What shall I do, just wait for them to chase me / send to debt collectors? Buying a house currently, so don't want anything that could cause issues there.
-
Don't pay.
There's plenty of options remaining.
They cannot chase you as keeper and that is the end of it.
You will win this.
-
Completely, not sure on next steps but take the £100 hit, however robbed I feel.
Will reach out to my MP too, the car park is a complete scam from the research I have done around it the past few months and is a clear problem spot. I am fortunate that £100 will be uncomfortable but financially for the month I will be fine, can't imagine how it will be for others in worse financial positions.
-
It was exactly that one.
So not relevant as evidence because that map never seeks to be a map which outlines the entire area which is under statutory control.
Crazy.
See how corrupt this appeals system is?
-
It was exactly that one.
-
Can you access the map presented by MET as evidence?
I suspect that it will be the Manchester Airport Ltd map used in their injunction against Just Stop Oil?
-
Thanks for your help on this. Unfortunately POPLA came back saying this was unsuccessful due to the new map supplied by MET. Response below.
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I note that the appellant says that the operator has knowingly issued a misleading notice to keeper as it falsely asserts that keeper liability under PoFA. 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. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant explains that the land is not ‘relevant land’ under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Therefore, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue them as the registered keeper. The map shows the area in question within the airport’s official boundary and Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Private land does not mean relevant land. I acknowledge the appellant’s map. Whilst I recognise that the appellant feels that the land is not ‘’relevant land’’ and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue them as the keeper, the operator has provided a map which shows that the area occupied by Southgate Park is not part of the airport. The operator has further evidenced that the area is relevant land with the contract with the landowner. After reviewing the contract, I can see that the postcode and the site name has been included with a question which states, ‘’Is the land ‘’Relevant Land as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’’. It has been confirmed within this contract that the land is relevant land and PoFA can be used for any PCN’s issued within this radius. As the appellant has not provided any further sufficient evidence to dispute this, I will work on the basis that this information is accurate, and the site is relevant land. The appellant says that the operator issued a generic rejection which they feel is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue. They say that the response merely restated signage and payment terms and made no effort to address the critical point. POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly. It is not within POPLA’s remit to comment on nor investigate the operator’s appeal process or any customer service issues. Any further dissatisfaction regarding this will need to be raised with the parking operator directly. The appellant says that the operator is misusing keeper data obtained by the DVLA as PoFA doesn’t apply at Southgate Park, but the NTK falsely states that the keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. They state that this misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will be reported. However, any dispute regarding any data breaches will need to be raised with the relevant authority, outside of POPLA’s appeal process. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
-
I have edited the response to POPLA slightly to include this:
Crucially, the injunction was brought by Manchester Airport PLC and, by its nature, only covers land they own or control. It does not (and cannot) extend to parcels owned by third parties such as Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (the entity named in the parking company’s contract). The fact that such third-party land is not coloured within the injunction red-line is therefore a function of claimant ownership/control, not proof that the land lies outside the airport estate or beyond the reach of the airport byelaws.
Thanks to @InterCity125 for pointing out the ownership references.
-
Thank you for this, I very much appreciate it!
On the html front, the preview did not have any spacing so added in those to make this readable. Guess that didn't work out!
-
Below is text you can paste into your POPLA “Comments on operator evidence” box. It keeps the original point intact, adds the operator-pack rebuttal, includes HTML links to each map source, and explains why there can be no keeper liability.
Section E – Operator’s map and boundary claim
The operator’s “boundary” plan in Section E is not an airport estate boundary at all. It is a red-line taken from a High Court interim protest injunction that defines where protest-control measures apply for a limited legal purpose and period. The Order itself defines “Stansted Airport” only as “the land shown…on Plan 2 to the Claim Form,” and it includes review and service provisions (e.g. notices at locations marked “X”) that underline its narrow, enforcement nature. See: https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/. This is not an operator boundary plan, does not purport to fix the airport’s statutory/operational extent, and is therefore irrelevant to the “relevant land” analysis under Schedule 4 PoFA.
Crucially, the injunction was brought by Manchester Airport PLC and, by its nature, only covers land they own or control. It does not (and cannot) extend to parcels owned by third parties such as Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (the entity named in the parking company’s contract). The fact that such third-party land is not coloured within the injunction red-line is therefore a function of claimant ownership/control, not proof that the land lies outside the airport estate or beyond the reach of the airport byelaws.
By contrast, the appellant’s map is drawn from the airport operator’s own planning submission—the Stansted Terminal Extension Design & Access Statement (July 2023)—which describes the airport landholding and shows the site plan used by the operator and the planning authority to define the estate context (“the land within the airport’s boundaries is approximately 957 hectares”). This is precisely the type of authoritative operator material POPLA should prefer when understanding the airport boundary as a whole. Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf (page 8, ‘Site Plan’).
Accordingly, POPLA should dismiss the injunction red-line as a litigation exhibit with a limited purpose and no bearing on the airport estate’s full extent, and instead rely on the operator’s own planning document for boundary context. On that basis—and as shown in the appellant’s evidence—Southgate Park sits within the airport estate notwithstanding any narrower area delineated for protest-injunction enforcement.
Keeper liability (PoFA) cannot arise. Schedule 4 only applies on “relevant land.” Land subject to statutory control/byelaws (such as airport land within the operator’s boundary) is excluded from the definition of “relevant land,” so PoFA keeper liability is unavailable. The operator has not produced any operator or planning-authority boundary plan that displaces the airport operator’s own material; instead they rely on a protest-injunction map that is not a boundary instrument. POPLA should therefore find that this site is not “relevant land” and that the keeper cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 PoFA.
-
Why have you included all those html tags?
I am reproducing that text here without the extraneous tags just make it more readable:
Following advice on this forum, I have gone through the process of appealing a PCN received at this location as a Registered Keeper. For POPLA, I said the following:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.
This appeal is made on the basis that MET Parking Services is attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, MET has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit with this appeal a map produced by Stansted Airport that clearly shows the official airport boundary. I have marked on this map the location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the blue boundary line of Stansted Airport.
The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land. Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to which byelaws apply — such as Stansted Airport — it is by definition under statutory control and therefore excluded from the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4 of PoFA. Unless the Secretary of State has formally revoked the application of the byelaws to this specific parcel of land (which there is no evidence has occurred), then the land cannot lawfully be treated as relevant land. This remains true even if the land is used by a private company, such as MET Parking Services, or contains commercial outlets such as Starbucks.
I first raised this point directly with MET in my original appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating only: “Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue. Which is whether byelaws apply to the land at Southgate Park, and they do.
I then sent a further written response to MET explaining clearly (again) why Southgate Park is under statutory control, why PoFA does not apply, and why their assertions of Keeper Liability are legally baseless. In summary, that correspondence set out the following:
Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
The map now submitted is produced by Stansted Airport and shows the area in question within the airport’s official boundary. Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at Southgate Park.
“Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant Land”
MET appear to believe that all private land is automatically “relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA specifically excludes land subject to statutory control, regardless of whether it is privately owned. For example, train station car parks are also private land, but are not “relevant land” under PoFA because they fall under Railway Byelaws. The same principle applies to Southgate Park due to Airport Byelaws.
MET Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper Liability under PoFA, MET is in breach of the PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d), which 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.”
MET has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to hold the registered keeper liable in a location where this is not legally possible.
Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach
MET is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply at Southgate Park, yet the NtK sent by MET falsely states that the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. This misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will be reported.
Following my second letter, MET responded again, entirely ignoring the issue of land status. Their response merely restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.
It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site is relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not provided any evidence from the landowner, the airport authority, or the Secretary of State, to show that statutory control does not apply. They have not met the legal threshold.
Conclusion • The land in question is under statutory control and not “relevant land.” • MET cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4. • The Keeper is not liable. • The NtK is misleading and non-compliant with both PoFA and the PPSCoP. • MET’s conduct raises further concerns regarding KADOE misuse and must be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
With this I attached the map that can be seen on this forum showing it within the boundary.
They have now come back to my appeal, claiming the map is out of date see below:
In the appeal to POPLA XXXXX states that there can be no keeper liability as this is not relevant land. As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 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. The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We attach for your ease of reference a map showing the boundary of Stansted Airport, from which it is clear the area occupied by Southagte Park, outlined in yellow, is not part of the Airport. In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land. The map referenced above was submitted as part of the high court injunction in 2024 (as opposed to the 2023 map provided by the appellant) and may be found online at: https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1vi0z7d_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE
Given that this is relevant land and Byelaws do not apply, there has been no breach of KADOE or the SSCOP. Turning to the charge itself: In this instance, the driver had not registered the vehicle for the free parking period. 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. In line with F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter, we requested evidence of custom during the initial appeal process (as only Starbucks customers are entitled to park for free). XXXXX did not provide any such evidence and was therefore not entitled to the further discount when the appeal was rejected.
PLEASE NOTE: regarding the further reduction of a charge under Annex F, the Sector Single Code of Practice specifically states that ‘in all cases the Appeals Charter would require the motorist to provide the evidence.’. As such, without the appellant providing supporting evidence then there is no requirement for an operator to offer the further reduction. In summary, 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 this is a pay by phone car park and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors may extend their stay up to 3 hours by using the pay by phone service. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without being registered for the free parking period and no payment was made as an alternative. 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.
What would you suggest for next steps in my appeal, I can find no reference on here about this new map they are using. Thank you in advance!
-
Following advice on this forum, I have gone through the process of appealing a PCN received at this location as a Registered Keeper. For POPLA, I said the following:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.
This appeal is made on the basis that MET Parking Services is attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, MET has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit with this appeal a map produced by Stansted Airport that clearly shows the official airport boundary. I have marked on this map the location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the blue boundary line of Stansted Airport.
The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land. Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to which byelaws apply — such as Stansted Airport — it is by definition under statutory control and therefore excluded from the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4 of PoFA. Unless the Secretary of State has formally revoked the application of the byelaws to this specific parcel of land (which there is no evidence has occurred), then the land cannot lawfully be treated as relevant land. This remains true even if the land is used by a private company, such as MET Parking Services, or contains commercial outlets such as Starbucks.
I first raised this point directly with MET in my original appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating only: “Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue. Which is whether byelaws apply to the land at Southgate Park, and they do.
I then sent a further written response to MET explaining clearly (again) why Southgate Park is under statutory control, why PoFA does not apply, and why their assertions of Keeper Liability are legally baseless. In summary, that correspondence set out the following:
1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
The map now submitted is produced by Stansted Airport and shows the area in question within the airport’s official boundary. Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at Southgate Park.
2. “Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant Land”
MET appear to believe that all private land is automatically “relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA specifically excludes land subject to statutory control, regardless of whether it is privately owned. For example, train station car parks are also private land, but are not “relevant land” under PoFA because they fall under Railway Byelaws. The same principle applies to Southgate Park due to Airport Byelaws.
3. MET Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper Liability under PoFA, MET is in breach of the PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d), which 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.”
MET has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to hold the registered keeper liable in a location where this is not legally possible.
4. Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach
MET is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply at Southgate Park, yet the NtK sent by MET falsely
states that the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. This misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will be reported.
Following my second letter, MET responded again, entirely ignoring the issue of land status. Their response merely restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.
It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site is relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not provided any evidence from the landowner, the airport authority, or the Secretary of State, to show that statutory control does not apply. They have not met the legal threshold.
Conclusion
• The land in question is under statutory control and not “relevant land.”
• MET cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4.
• The Keeper is not liable.
• The NtK is misleading and non-compliant with both PoFA and the PPSCoP.
• MET’s conduct raises further concerns regarding KADOE misuse and must be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
With this I attached the map that can be seen on this forum showing it within the boundary.
They have now come back to my appeal, claiming the map is out of date see below:
In the appeal to POPLA XXXXX states that there can be no keeper liability as this is not relevant land. As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 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. The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We attach for your ease of reference a map showing the boundary of Stansted Airport, from which it is clear the area occupied by Southagte Park, outlined in yellow, is not part of the Airport. In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land. The map referenced above was submitted as part of the high court injunction in 2024 (as opposed to the 2023 map provided by the appellant) and may be found online at: https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1*vi0z7d*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE
Given that this is relevant land and Byelaws do not apply, there has been no breach of KADOE or the SSCOP. Turning to the charge itself: In this instance, the driver had not registered the vehicle for the free parking period. 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. In line with F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter, we requested evidence of custom during the initial appeal process (as only Starbucks customers are entitled to park for free). XXXXX did not provide any such evidence and was therefore not entitled to the further discount when the appeal was rejected.
PLEASE NOTE: regarding the further reduction of a charge under Annex F, the Sector Single Code of Practice specifically states that ‘in all cases the Appeals Charter would require the motorist to provide the evidence.’. As such, without the appellant providing supporting evidence then there is no requirement for an operator to offer the further reduction. In summary, 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 this is a pay by phone car park and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors may extend their stay up to 3 hours by using the pay by phone service. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without being registered for the free parking period and no payment was made as an alternative. 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.
What would you suggest for next steps in my appeal, I can find no reference on here about this new map they are using. Thank you in advance!