Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

This will be my first time on this forum so please do bear this in mind.

I have received (yesterday 29 April 2025) a Notice to Keeper from Met Parking telling me to pay £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) for parking outside Starbucks at Southpark Stansted Airport. I was completely unware that Starbucks & McDonalds was seperate car parks and having been since the signage is not clear from a drivers view or is there anything to make this clear. On my last visit (yesterday) they had a big A-Frame sign outside Starbucks that says "Parking Charges Apply When Store Closed) on both visits the store was open.

Here is a link to OneDrive of the letter I received :

I have not yet replied to Met Parking and was hoping that I could get some advice or a template letter to send.

Any help you can give would be really appreciated.

Many Thanks,

Jack

If the car is leased, are you the registered keeper? If not, then the Notice to Keeper is not for you. Can you please clarify?

It's somewhat unusual for a lease car to be registered to the hirer directly, and not to the lease company. Is this a Motability car?

I note also that the notice refers to "the company secretary"?

If you follow the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to MET parking. You are now in the centre of a very long running scam being operated by this rogue company.

I note that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is addressed to "The company secretary". Is the vehicle registered to a company (your company)?

For now, you only need to know that MET have no idea who the driver is. All they know is that you (or your company) are the Keeper. As the location is within the boundary of Stansted airport, there can be no Keeper liability because it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012.

There is no legal obligation on the known Keeper to identify the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking company. As MET cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper, you should appeal (only as the Keeper) as follows:

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.

They will reject the appeal but you will then get a POPLA code which we can use for a secondary appeal.

However, MET have also breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA and are therefore using your data unlawfully. As the DVLA is the data controller, you should submit a formal complaint to the DVLA.

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:


The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against MET Parking Services, a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining keeper data relating to a limited company.

While MET Parking Services may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of that data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.

In this case, MET Parking Services issued a Notice to Keeper to a corporate entity and falsely claimed the right to hold the company liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, PoFA Schedule 4 only allows keeper liability where the keeper is a natural person, and only on “relevant land”. The location in question—Southgate Park, Stansted Airport—is not relevant land due to statutory control under airport byelaws.

The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.

I have attached a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and request a full investigation. Also attached is an official map of Stansted Airport boundary and the location of Southgate Park highlighted to prove it is within the byelaws boundary of the airport.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm a reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: MET Parking Services
Date of PCN issue: 22 April 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of personal data by MET Parking Services, who obtained keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although MET Parking Services may have had reasonable cause to request the data initially, their subsequent use of that data amounts to unlawful processing because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The PPSCoP forms a mandatory component of the regulatory framework governing DVLA data release to private parking operators.

The KADOE contract explicitly limits data use to the pursuit of an unpaid parking charge in accordance with the Code of Practice. If an operator breaches that Code after receiving DVLA data, their use becomes unlawful as it no longer serves a permitted purpose.

In this case, MET Parking Services has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:

• The Notice to Keeper was issued in relation to Southgate Park at Stansted Airport, which is situated on airport land under statutory control. Such land is excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
• Despite this, the NtK falsely asserts that the registered keeper is liable under PoFA, contrary to the facts and the law.
• Further, the NtK was addressed to a limited company, not a natural person. PoFA Schedule 4 only provides for the transfer of liability from driver to a keeper who is an individual. There is no lawful basis under PoFA to hold a corporate entity liable.
• These false representations breach Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which prohibits operators issuing notices which state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a clear disregard for the standards required under the current single Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.

The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.

This may include:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]

Include a copy of this map with your formal complaint:

Well, a few days ago POPLA ruled that it was airport land, funnily enough, although that’s not binding on future appeals it was also MET of course who are ignoring the result, see https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/re-met-parking-services-southgate-park-stansted-airport-starbucksmcdonalds-notic/msg70725/#msg70725

I suggest MET is fishing in the hope you identify the driver. I’d ignore them now. When you get your POPLA code you can add a reference to their recent finding for the same location to the normal appeal.

You can either ignore or respond with the following:

Dear MET Appeals Department,

I write in response to your letter dated 13th May 2025, in which you request proof of patronage at Starbucks and assert that “private land does not fall under airport byelaws.” That claim is legally incorrect and deeply concerning coming from an accredited operator.

I am under no obligation to provide proof of purchases. The burden of proof lies with MET Parking Services to demonstrate that a contravention occurred and that the Parking Charge Notice is valid. Furthermore, your assertion regarding the land’s legal status is incorrect.

Whether the land is privately owned is immaterial. The relevant legal test is whether it falls within the boundary of Stansted Airport and is subject to airport byelaws. If so, it is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore you cannot transfer liability to the Keeper.

This point has been established in several recent decisions, including adverse findings against MET at POPLA. It is embarrassing that your appeals team appears unaware of this.

I have already submitted a formal DVLA complaint concerning MET’s failure to comply with Section 8.1.1(d) of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which expressly requires operators to state whether the site is subject to statutory control. Your letter further highlights MET’s disregard for the Code and raises serious questions about your continued access to DVLA data under the terms of your KADOE contract.

This correspondence will be retained as evidence in support of ongoing complaints and any further appeals or proceedings. I trust MET will now reflect on its obligations under the law and the applicable Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name / The Keeper]

Hello,

I have recently received a rejected appeal letter from MET.

I understand that now I need to use the POPLA service. Could you give me any pointers as to what I need to do or direct me to any templates that I may use.

The rejected appeal letter is here :

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks

Hello,

I've had a look on this forum, and think this would be the best response for my POPLA appeal. Please can you let me know if I should add or remove anything?

PCN Reference: [Insert reference number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert vehicle registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: [Insert date]

This is an appeal by the Keeper of the vehicle and I raise the following points for POPLA to consider:

1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. Failure to Address Appeal Points
3. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
4. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity

Grounds for Appeal:

1. 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. This boundary is confirmed by a Stansted Airport-issued map provided with this appeal. 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. The existence of byelaws over the land places it under statutory control, as established by law. MET Parking Services’ argument that the land is not covered by byelaws is incorrect and does not override the statutory framework. 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. As the Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and there can be no Keeper liability in this case.

2. Failure to Address Appeal Points:

In my initial appeal to MET Parking Services, I specifically raised the issue of the site being under statutory control and therefore not relevant land under PoFA. Despite this, MET Parking Services failed to address this critical legal argument in their rejection. Instead, they dismissed the appeal without engaging with the evidence or addressing the legal basis of my argument. This omission suggests their decision to reject my appeal was not based on a proper consideration of the facts or the applicable legal framework.

3. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage:

MET Parking Services has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and conditions were clearly displayed and visible to motorists. 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.

4. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity:

As the registered Keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally obligated to identify the driver. MET Parking Services has provided no evidence to identify the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Since liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper under PoFA due to the site’s statutory control, MET Parking Services must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without such identification, their claim against the Keeper is baseless.

Furthermore, the POPLA assessor must not assume or infer that the Keeper was also the driver. There is extensive persuasive case law on this matter. In VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], HHJ Mark Gargan in his conclusion, stated in paragraph 35.3:

“It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell. For example, there will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers who are the registered keeper but who allow a number of people to drive their vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion.”

The appellant is explaining this point in detail because some assessors have in the past erroneously allowed MET Parking Services to claim that the Keeper was likely the driver without any evidence. MET attempts to mislead assessors by relying on a misleading and erroneous note in Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:

“Liability
It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge.
NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.”

This statement is contrary to the law, as explained in VCS v Edward. The Keeper’s refusal to identify the driver does not permit any assumption of driver identity. Any such inference would be legally baseless and improper. POPLA assessors must adhere to established legal principles and not be misled by incorrect interpretations provided by rogue parking operators.

Conclusion:

Southgate Park’s location within Stansted Airport places it under statutory control and excludes it from being considered relevant land under PoFA. The wording of Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA is clear: land subject to statutory control, such as land covered by byelaws, is not relevant land. The official map of the airport boundary provided with this appeal confirms this fact beyond any doubt. Additionally, the registered Keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver, as supported by persuasive case law. MET Parking Services cannot hold the registered Keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Their failure to address this fundamental point in their rejection of my initial appeal further demonstrates the inadequacy of their claim. I therefore request POPLA to uphold this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice