Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear All,

I the keeper of the vehicle have been issue a PCN from MET parking services for an alleged contravention at the BP stansted. I appealed on the basis that I was not driving on the day in question and am therefore not liable for the penalty, nor am I liable to name the driver. I also don't believe a notice to driver was sent out. Is this not also a breach as they have to wait a 28 day grace period after issuing a NtD before issuing the NtK?

I may be wrong but the petrol station is on airport land and so I think the laws around issuing PCNs may differ than when done on private land?

I have 3 days to submit the POPLA appeal and any help on how to structure it would be greatly appreciated.

The original PCN - https://imgur.com/a/baHlUkq

I disputed a PCN from APCOA at Heathrow airport and they dismissed it. This was the paragraph I used

"This Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") was issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I am appealing as such. Heathrow Airport (including the drop-off zone) is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as it is covered by airport bye-laws), so the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Furthermore, even if (which is not the case) the drop off zone is relevant land, the PCN does not comply with the requirements of the POFA, Schedule 4, paragraph 9. As there is no legal requirement for the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.

APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'. If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for APCOA’s own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency."

Can I essentially just make a few changes to make this read for MET and Stansted rather than APCOA and Heathrow?

As im unsure of the signage im not sure I can use that in the appeal?
this is what I have so far:

This Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") was issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I am appealing as such. BP Stansted is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as it is covered by airport bye-laws), so the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Furthermore, even if (which is not the case) the BP station is relevant land, the PCN does not comply with the requirements of the POFA, Schedule 4, paragraph 9. As there is no legal requirement for the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.

MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable. As a matter of fact and law, MET (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'. If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but 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 byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.


Does that cover landholder authority sufficiently.

Just want to say thank you very much for the replies, its been so useful!

There is no need to lie.

Indeed - definitely don't lie. If you were unfortunate enough for the matter to progress to court, lying would at best ruin your credibility, and at worst turn the matter into a much more serious one. Don't provide any unnecessary information, but remain truthful.

Truthfully I was not the driver. I'd like to say thank you both very much for the assistance! I just received an email from POPLA and they've upheld the appeal!

When was the POPLA appeal submitted?