I would like to start by saying a Massive Thank You for hosting the template and the map, and all the valuable advice and encouragement,My car stopped in Starbucks carpark for 13 minuites at 12.30am, it was dark and dank,Starbucks was closed and the carpark was not lit, and as you guessed it received a fine,I lodged an appeal using your template: Reply #11 on: January 23, 2025, 04:37:48 pm and also included the Map.It was a bit of a faff having to go thru it, bit it was worth it in the end, it`s outrageous to be finedfor parking in a non-lit carpark when the shop was closed and past midnight.I finally received the outcome of my appleal today 09-05-2025 that started 25-02-2025.Your appeal was successful.As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action
.Assessor summary below of my case:There is no legal obligation to identify the driver or assumption of driver identity. There is case law on this matter, VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023]. This says it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion. As explained in VCS v Edward, the keeper’s refusal to identify the driver does not permit any assumption of driver identity. • The location is not 'relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which is located within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Stansted Airport is governed by airport byelaws, which constitute statutory control over the land. 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 covered by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate Park is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA. While the land may be private and MET Parking Services may have been contracted by the landowner’s agents to manage the car park, this does not negate the fact that it is within the airport boundary and subject to byelaws. As a result, MET Parking Services cannot rely on POFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed. • The operator has failed to address their grounds of appeal. This suggests their decision to reject their appeal was not based on a proper consideration of the facts or the applicable legal framework. • For a driver to have agreed to any contractual terms, the signage must have been legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read before entering into a contract. Without evidence of the signage’s visibility and clarity at the time of the alleged contravention, the claim is unsubstantiated. The appellant has provided a map of the airport showing the boundary within which airport byelaws apply and they have indicated the location of Southgate Park, and this is within this boundary. This has been considered in my determination.Assessor supporting rational for decisionI am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. This PCN has been issued for remaining on site without authorisation. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. The signage at this site states charges apply for parking and there is a 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers only, and the vehicle registration must be registered on arrival. The operator has said in their case file that at the time the appellants vehicle was on site, there was no free stay and the kiosk for registering vehicles was inaccessible. The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 13 minutes and the driver did not pay for their stay. In their appeal, the appellant has said they will not identify the driver at the time in question. From the evidence provided I am not satisfied the driver has been identified. Therefore the operator is pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 must be adhered to. POFA 2012 allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified when a PCN has been issued on relevant land. In this case, the appellant has said the alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which it not relevant land. They have said it is located within the boundary of Stansted Airport, and Stansted Airport is governed by airport byelaws, which constitute statutory control over the land. The appellant has provided a map of the airport showing the boundary within which airport byelaws apply and they have indicated the location of Southgate Park, and this is within this boundary. Relevant land under POFA excludes land subject to statutory control. Airport Authority and Highways Authority fall under statutory control. In this case, we would expect the parking operator to demonstrate or explain why the land in question is relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Within their case file, the parking operator claims the Byelaws don’t apply in areas where Road Traffic Enactments apply. However, they haven’t been clear on boundaries relating to where Road Traffic Enactments do and don’t apply. In any case, in places where Road Traffic Enactments apply, the land is under the statutory control of the Road Traffic Enactments. I note the operator also claims that the only relevant part of the Byelaws is the part labelled parking – and that this is in relation to cargo and baggage. However, there are other areas that seek to restrict more general parking activities. For example, the Byelaws include: “5(3) Obstruction Except in an emergency, no person shall leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by a Sign.” In this case the operator’s own terms and conditions are about parking in an area restricted for a permitted time, and they also include not obstructing others. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has demonstrated or sufficiently explained that the Byelaws are not relevant to general parking at this site, and so they have not sufficiently rebutted the appellants grounds of appeal. As POFA 2012 cannot be used in this case to transfer the liability of the charge from the driver to the registered keeper, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.I hope my outcome encourages others to appeal this unfair and outrageous fine.