My first attempt below from stitching together appeals i've seen here plus some chatgpt help
To POPLA,
I, the registered keeper of vehicle XYZ, received a "Parking Charge Notice" titled "Notice to Keeper" via post from MET Parking Services (hereinafter referred to as MET). I appealed this notice to MET, which acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal without addressing the points I raised. It remains my position that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have no liability for the parking charge. My appeal should therefore be upheld on the following grounds:
The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Operator has Failed to Meet the Requirements of Paragraph 14 of PoFA
Failure to Address Appeal Points
Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity
1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
MET does not know the identity of the driver and is pursuing me as the vehicle’s registered keeper. The alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which falls within the boundary of Stansted Airport. A Stansted Airport-issued map, provided with this appeal, confirms this fact. As Stansted Airport is subject to byelaws, it falls under statutory control.
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 governed by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate Park does not qualify as relevant land under PoFA. While the land may be privately owned and MET Parking Services may have been contracted to manage the car park, this does not override the fact that it falls under statutory control.
Since Southgate Park is not relevant land, MET cannot invoke PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. The only party they may legally pursue is the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed. As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and thus, there is no keeper liability in this case.
2. The Operator has Failed to Meet the Requirements of Paragraph 14 of PoFA
Even if Southgate Park were considered relevant land (which is denied), MET would still be unable to hold me liable as the registered keeper due to non-compliance with PoFA’s requirements. PoFA sets out specific conditions that must be met for an operator to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. MET has failed to meet these requirements, and thus, I cannot be held liable.
3. Failure to Address Appeal Points
In my initial appeal to MET, I explicitly raised the issue that Southgate Park is not relevant land under PoFA and that MET had not complied with PoFA’s requirements for keeper liability. However, MET failed to address these fundamental legal arguments in its rejection. Instead, MET dismissed the appeal without properly engaging with the evidence or responding to the legal basis of my argument. This indicates that the rejection was issued without due consideration of the facts or applicable legal framework.
4. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
MET has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly displayed and visible to motorists. For a driver to be bound by a contract, signage must be legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read before a contract is formed. MET has failed to provide satisfactory evidence that:
The signage was adequately positioned and illuminated;
The terms and conditions were clearly legible from a driver's perspective;
The alleged contravention occurred in an area where sufficient and visible signage was present.
Without such evidence, MET’s claim is unsubstantiated.
5. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity
As the keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally required to identify the driver. MET has provided no evidence to establish the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Since PoFA does not apply to Southgate Park and MET has failed to meet PoFA’s conditions for keeper liability, MET must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without such identification, their claim against the keeper is baseless.
Additionally, POPLA must not assume or infer that the keeper was the driver. Established case law supports this position. In VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], HHJ Mark Gargan 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... 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."
Despite this, MET frequently attempts to mislead assessors by referencing an erroneous note in Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:
"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 established legal principles, as explained in VCS v Edward. A keeper's refusal to identify the driver does not justify an assumption that the keeper was the driver. Any such inference would be legally unsound, and POPLA must not be misled by MET’s misinterpretation of liability rules.
Conclusion
Southgate Park is within Stansted Airport’s boundary and is therefore subject to statutory control, excluding it from being classified as relevant land under PoFA. The explicit wording of Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that land governed by byelaws does not meet the definition of relevant land. The official airport boundary map provided with this appeal removes any doubt about this fact.
Even if the site were relevant land, MET has still failed to comply with PoFA’s keeper liability requirements. Furthermore, there is no legal basis for assuming the keeper was the driver. Established case law confirms that such an assumption is improper.
MET has also failed to provide evidence of adequate signage and dismissed my initial appeal without addressing my legal arguments. Given these fundamental flaws, POPLA must uphold my appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
