Free Traffic Legal Advice

Update - POPLA have disclosed METs response which hinges on their assertion that Southgate Car Park is no longer part of Stansted Airport, based on a High Court ruling dated 5 Jul 24 that post-dates that of the map relied on in this forum (2023).

That High Court ruling is provided here:

https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1*vi0z7d*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE

I have 7 days to respond and would be incredibly grateful for a framework answer as it appears that they can, in fact, rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Just an update. I have received a response from MET refusing my appeal.

They state that Southgate Car Park is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.


They also refused to cease processing my 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.

(One for the ICO later as I think that, once they are pursuing me illegally, they cannot rely on those reasons for processing)
 
They stated that they ‘are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act’ and that they ‘are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge’.

They included a POPLA code and I have appealed to POPLA based on the fact that Southgate Car Park is not relevant land iaw PoFA.

Once I get a reply, I will post the results.

What a waste of everyone's time but, if it helps anyone else, its worth it.

Just an update.

Received a response from MET asking for proof of the driver having attended Starbucks. The letter states:

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 have 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.

Responded to MET with:

I refers to your letter dated 1 Sep 25 in which you state that you are  confident that your notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), that you still do not know the name and address of the driver and that you are entitled (under PoFA) to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.

You will be aware, however, that appeals relating to PCNs issued by you at Southgate car park have been upheld by POPLA because, where the driver has not been identified, you must meet the requirements set out in the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper however, POFA can only be used on relevant land. The PCN has been issued on land under statutory control as airport land is not considered relevant land unless the parking operator can demonstrate otherwise. POPLA adjudicated that you had failed to do so.

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.

Furthermore, by falsely claiming Keeper Liability under PoFA at Southgate Park in your NtKs, you are in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.1(d)
"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."
Yet you misrepresent liability, issue misleading notices, and falsely claim the Keeper is liable when you have zero legal basis to do so. This is not an accident. This is clearly a deliberate and ongoing breach of industry standards.

Additionally, you are in clear breach of your DVLA Keeper At Date Of Offence (KADOE) agreement because you are using Keeper Data to falsely assert PoFA liability where none exists. While you may have obtained the data lawfully, you are now misusing it by misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal position. PoFA does not apply at Southgate Park, yet you have knowingly issued an NtK that falsely states the Keeper will be liable under PoFA if they do not provide the driver’s details.

This is a clear breach of KADOE, as the Keeper’s data must not be used for purposes that are legally invalid. You are not just issuing unlawful demands; you are misleading the Keeper into believing they are liable when they are not.

However, the central issue is your complete failure to understand and apply the law correctly. The DVLA matter, which I intend to report, is secondary.

Please cancel this PCN immediately and notify me by letter.

Done. Thank you and apologies for my ignorance of the Forum Rules.

Juicymarbel - Thank you for a concise an informative thread. Likewise to all who assisted you.

I recently received a similar Notice to Keeper. I appealed immediately as the vehicle was only parked for 30 minutes and, like so many others, I was unaware of the nuances of the  carpark. I responded as  keeper,  refusing  to name the driver.

The NTK that I received makes no mention of PofA Schedule 4. It simply says that I am now invited to either pay the charge or, if I was not the driver, to notify MET of the name and address of the driver and pass the NTK on to  them.

In anticipation of the appeal rejection by MET, may I ask if:

 1. I am obliged under any other legislation to disclose the name of the driver.
 2. MET can pursue me as keeper for the parking charge without relying on PofA.

I understand the arguments relating to relevant land but did not mention them in my appeal to MET as I did not know about this issue at the time. Can I still rely on this argument when appealing to POPLA (which I certainly intend to do).

Thank you in anticipation and keep up the good work!!