Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Gooner063 on December 10, 2025, 05:09:46 pm
-
No problem. Give me 24 / 48 hours.
-
Thanks for looking at this intercity and i appreciate your time and the other other guys.
If you could provide a defense for popla that would be outstanding, i have a few days left
-
Everything uploaded fine.
Everything is pretty much as expected and MET Parking continue to struggle with the fact that the ownership of the land has no bearing on the fact that the land is still under statutory control.
I can tweak the Keeper comments to cover slight changes in their re-hashed arguments plus the extra email which suggests that statutory control is only limited to areas owned by the airport - this email;
https://freeimage.host/i/starbucks-4.fk0FIlp
The contents of this email are incorrect - land under statutory is by definition land covered by by-laws - that is the definition of statutory control and ownership of the land is irrelevant.
-
Good Morning Guys
Sorry for the late reply, work got in the way.
Thanks for spending your valuable time on this for me.
I have uploaded what I think may be useful rather than all of what MET replied to the POPLA appeal.
I have tried to put it into some semblance of order, but computer skills are not my forte, so bear with me.
https://freeimage.host/i/fk09Il1
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0FIlp
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0f4Va
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0q1qJ
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0BNyB
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0CyWF
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0nm74
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0xAtS
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0zGgs
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0IW6F
Thanks in advance for some guidance and patience
G
-
Framework for comments on MET Parking evidence at POPLA...
Keeper's response to operator evidence supplied by MET Parking relating to PoFA compliance at Stansted Airport.
1. Many of the assertions made by MET Parking in their submission are false and totally unsupported by any relevant evidence.
2. The assertions which MET Parking make demonstrate that MET Parking do not appear to understand how the designation of 'Land under statutory control' actually works - this appears to be deliberate behaviour on the part of MET Parking.
3. The plan submitted by the vehicle keeper is a plan obtained from an official Government website relating to the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport and was used in the planning application dated 7th August 2023.
4. The assertion that this plan is 'outdated' and 'superseded' (when land was sold in 2011) is therefore completely untrue and demonstratable false.
5. By comparison, the parking operators plan is totally irrelevant and their own narrative defeats the legal argument on which they are seemingly reliant - the parking operator openly admits that their submitted plan is one which was one used by Manchester Airport PLC (Stansted's owners) when they sought an injunction against Just-Stop-Oil on 3rd July 2024 - the plan used by Manchester Airport PLC simply encompasses the land which is under their control.
6. By MET Parking's own admission, Southgate Park is not owned by Manchester Airport PLC but by some other independent entity and as such Manchester Airport PLC did not include the packet of land at Southgate Park in their court injunction application since it was not their land.
7. The owner of the land is irrelevant when determining whether that particular area of land is subject to statutory control - it does not matter how many times a particular area of land changes hand, that area of land remains under statutory control regardless.
8. Areas of statutory control are determined by central government and not airport owners or others who may own packets of land within the designated statutory area.
9. By-laws apply to all areas of the designated statutory area regardless.
10. The extract from the title deeds is of no relevance as the sale has no bearing whatsoever on the designation of the land - MET Parking are trying to project a narrative which suggests that the sale of the land somehow removed it from the area of land under statutory control.
11. Regardless of MET Parking's subjective waffle, it is clear that the area of land which encompasses Southfield Park remains firmly inside the area of land under statutory control.
12. The plan summitted by MET Parking never purports to represent the entirety of the area of statutory control - MOST CRITICAL - the plan is only ever used to show areas which Manchester Airport PLC wished to include in their injunction.
13. The link included in their submission does not link to the Stansted Airport website but instead links to court documents associated with the Just-Stop-Oil injunction - this further reinforces the fact that this map is not some kind of official Stansted Airport plan.
14. That MET Parking are in clear breach of their own Code of Conduct since their PCN's clearly state that they can pursue the Keeper using PoFA - The Code of Conduct expressly prohibits operators from either mentioning or implying that PoFA can be used in locations where PoFA is not applicable.
15. That by breaching their Code of Conduct, MET Parking are also in breach of their KADOE agreement with the DVLA since the DVLA require operators to agree to follow the Code of Conduct.
16. That it appears that MET Parking are deliberately avoiding the acknowledgement of the true designation of the land they are controlling as this would have a significant impact on revenues - as a business, MET Parking are expected to operate professionally - how can a parking operator operate in a professional manner if it is incapable of correctly ascertaining the nature of the land on which they wish to establish enforcement activities - in order to correctly issue compliant PCNs, the operator must first establish the true nature of the land on which it is operating, MET Parking have clearly failed to do this.
17. I would further draw your attention to the outcome of POPLA case 3862825089 which appears to hinge on similar factors.
-
@Gooner063 - you may want to refer to that POPLA assessment in your case. POPLA decisions are not binding, so the assessor in your case is not obliged to reach the same decision, but there is little harm drawing their attention to it. The relevant reference number is 3862825089.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/notice-to-keeper-met-stansted-southgate-carpark/msg102996/#msg102996
My last post in this thread is the tabulated version of the POPLA appeal - I know it would come in handy!
The interesting comments from the assessor are... "While the parking operator has provided a Parking Enforcement Agreement from Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (Tabacon).
The agreement sets out that Met Parking is permitted to manage parking on the land and that the land is relevant land for the purpose of POFA 2012.
However, I don’t consider Tabacon’s unqualified statement that the land is relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012 to hold any significant weight in what a complex land boundary dispute."
-
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
I'm not sure we've seen this "Correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the possession of the airport" before (or if I have I've forgotten). I don't think it kills the argument, I'm just curious to see it.
Yes. I'm curious as well. But I'll guarantee that it's probably just a statement on a document which carries no weight - we had similar on another recent Stansted POPLA appeal which was upheld.
-
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
I'm not sure we've seen this "Correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the possession of the airport" before (or if I have I've forgotten). I don't think it kills the argument, I'm just curious to see it.
-
The link which they include is NOT a link to the Stansted Airport website. - instead it links to documents pertaining to the Just Stop Oil court case.
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
Their argument remains legally wrong - we accept that the freehold may have changed hands several times but that does not change the designation of land - the land remains land under statutory control which means that bylaws exist and that are technically in force.
The area shown on the Just Stop Oil map is simply the area that Manchester Airport PLC control - the map never to pretends to be a map which shows the entire area under statutory control.
-
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.
Can you please show us this bit?
-
Hi Guys
Happy New Year to you all.
So I received MET reply to the the popla appeal and ive cut and pasted it here, there is also an attachment with an enormous amount of of there evidence, do you need all of this as well.
Regards
G
In the appeal to POPLA Mrs xxxxxx states that the land in question is not “relevant land” and therefore we have no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper. Firstly, we will turn to the breach of the terms and conditions itself. 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 Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free, which the driver was not as the store was closed. As such, the appellant was not entitled to the further reduction when their appeal was declined. 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 This was used in the recent injunction against Just Stop Oil protesters. We attach a copy of that plan below that clearly excludes the highlighted area where the parking charge was issued. Map of Stansted Airport from the Stansted airport website - Area highlighted in yellow is clearly outside the boundary of the airport 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. 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 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please note: as the parking event occurred while the on-site business was closed, there is no free stay. Should the driver have wished to use the car park while the business is 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 POPLA appeal I provided in the thread linked to by @jfollows is everything you need for your own. Use it.
-
I am the Keeper of the car and the driver at the time has expressly denied me the permission to use their name, which I agree with.
You're getting good advice and if you follow it you won't pay a penny, but just for anyone else reading this thread, you don't need permission from the driver to name them.
(in legal terms, obviously. If (for example) you're married to them and they say 'name me and i'll divorce you' that's a different story)
But if you've fallen out with the driver and want to throw them under the bus, then you can name them to the company without their permission.
-
If you haven’t already done so, see https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/notice-to-keeper-met-stansted-southgate-carpark/ in which POPLA recently allowed a similar appeal.
A different assessor may conclude the opposite, such is the POPLA lottery that decisions can’t be appealed and don’t set a precedent, but I’m sure your appeal will make reference to this decision anyway.
-
https://freeimage.host/i/fl33qpp
https://freeimage.host/i/flFmWKv
https://freeimage.host/i/flK9hUx
https://freeimage.host/i/flKJBjI
Hi Guys
As expected the appeal was refused and they decided to waste more time and money.
I have been issued the popla code and would ask kindly for some help with that please.
I have become addicted to reading about other cases on this site, so have a fair amount of knowledge as how to proceed, if you guys are busy.
Thanks again for your help and providing a great site to read, and some of your comments do make me laugh, you sound like the type of people id gladly have a pint with.
Cheers
G
-
Thanks for the continued advise guys
G
-
I'd email the following response to them:
Subject: PCN [XXXXXXXX] – Kindly Escalate to a Responsible Adult
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper.
Your latest correspondence would benefit from being reviewed by a responsible adult within your organisation who is capable of comprehending a simple geographical and legal fact.
The location you describe as “Southgate Park (Starbucks)” is within the Stansted Airport boundary and is subject to Stansted Airport byelaws. As such, it is not relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is not a matter of opinion, nor is it altered by creative wording on your paperwork.
Your continued insistence that PoFA applies is therefore demonstrably false and constitutes a clear breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, namely making misleading statements about keeper liability where no such liability exists. That breach also places you in breach of your KADOE contract. This misuse of keeper data is being reported to the DVLA irrespective of whether you choose to persist with this fiction.
Your apparent belief that leasing arrangements involving Tabacon 2 Stansted Ltd somehow revoke statutory control is legally illiterate. A private lease does not extinguish byelaws. Statutory control remains exactly that: statutory.
You are fully aware that land governed by airport byelaws cannot engage keeper liability under PoFA. You are also fully aware that your parking charge is not a byelaws penalty, does not go to the public purse, and is instead a speculative invoice based on an alleged contract with an unidentified driver only.
The driver will not be identified.
If you decline to cancel this charge now, you are invited to waste further time and money by issuing a POPLA code so that this matter can be disposed of decisively. The evidence held by the Keeper — including definitive boundary mapping — will not change, and the outcome will not change.
This is your opportunity to end a process that is already fatally flawed.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
-
No point, it won’t make a difference.
MET know all about this, but all they want is your credit card number, so they simply ignore the inconvenient facts.
If you do decide to contact them, be very sure not to identify the driver in any way. I wouldn’t bother.
For now, simply appeal with the following, only as the Keeper and come back for the POPLA appeal once they reject that:
You’ll get a POPLA code in due course.
-
Good Morning guys
Ive had a speedy reply from MET.
Im unsure how to reply to this and don't want to mess things up.
My guess is forwarding the map to them, that shows it is actually on airport property.
What would you advise please
Thanks
G
https://freeimage.host/i/fYvuaGp
https://freeimage.host/i/fYvJmBf
-
Thank you I have used their portal for the appeal and used your wording as advised, and thanks for the map, this one is very clear, the others I have looked at have been blurred.
G
-
You don/\'t use post for anything if you can help it. Use email or, for an appeal, you can use their portal if necessary.
After the appeal rejection, you cause these maps in your POPLA appeal to show that the location is within the Stansted Airport byelaws boundary.
(https://i.ibb.co/mFCyCync/STN-boundary-map.png)
-
Thank you so much guys, would you say its best to do the appeal by post or email, I'm keen to give them as little information as possible. B789 thanks for taking the time to explain this to me and the links posted by Mustek were very informative.
-
There is no Keeper liability if the driver is not identified for the reason given above. Whilst you, as the named recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) cannot be liable for the charge if the driver is not identified and you have even stated categorically that you were not the driver anyway, you will have to go through the appeals process or initial appeal, rejection, POPLA appeal, possible success. Anything beyond that we will cross that bridge if we ever come to it.
The simple fact is that MET have issued you a speculative invoice for an alleged brach of contract by the driver who is unknown to them. There is no legal obligation on you, the Keeper, to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. Because the location is within the official Stansted Airport boundary, it is land that is covered by airport byelaws and therefore no "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA 2012, which means that the Keeper cannot be liable for the charge if the driver is not identified.
For now, simply appeal with the following, only as the Keeper and come back for the POPLA appeal once they reject that:
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.
-
Hi Mustek
Thanks for the very prompt reply and any help would be nice.
As requested here is the rear of the charge notice.
https://freeimage.host/i/fRbNy22
Thanks again
G
-
You won't be paying a thing as this is within the Stansted Airport Byelaws, so they can't hold the keeper liable as long as you don't give away who the driver is.
Could you post the back of the PCN as well.
Here's similar posts on this location:
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/30/
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-airport-met-southgate-park-starbucks/
-
Hi
This has been asked many times im sure but I am not great on a computer and found the existing information about these MET people quite confusing.
I am the Keeper of the car and the driver at the time has expressly denied me the permission to use their name, which I agree with.
The driver mistakenly drove into the starbucks site in the middle of the night for 11 minutes, it took the driver this long to go to the signage and read it and come back to the vehicle and drive out, it was past midnight and as you can see by the the photos very dark. How on earth are you meant to accept terms whilst driving past a sign, which were barely visible anyway.
https://freeimage.host/i/fRDKVAQ
Would someone be kind enough to put in laymans terms what I am to do next please.
Im happy to cut and paste and alter things so my details can be put in the appeal.
I am a 66 year old pensioner who cant afford this charge for nothing, starbucks was closed anyway so we drove off.
Kind regards