Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ignore the moronic scammers at MET. They always claim that Southgate Park is not covered by byelaws but no matter how they squeal over it, it does not alter the fact that the land is under statutory control because it is within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Any land under statutory control is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA, which means they cannot hold the Keeper liable, only the driver who is unknown to them unless the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.

When they reject the appeal, you can appeal to POPLA with an easy appeal, which if you do a search of the forum for 'Stansted' and you will find many POPLA appeals for this location which include this boundary map of the airport, showing clearly that the location is within the statutory boundary and is therefore covered by airport byelaws and is therefore no relevant for the purposes of PoFA:

Nobody has been aggressive towards you. This is a busy forum where people offer advice for free. The advice will sometimes be brief, which may appear blunt.

You could just wait for the 14 day 'hold' to expire and for them to reject your appeal.

In the meantime, I would recommend doing some searching on this forum for other PCNs issued at this same site. You will see examples of POPLA appeals that you will be able to use almost verbatim to draft up one for your own case (don't submit without showing us a draft).

got my appeal result today, it was successful so thought i'd post the appeals summery

I am allowing this appeal for the following reason: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the driver for parking without authorisation. The driver has not been identified, and the operator 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. Section 3 (1) (c) of POFA 2012 discusses the relevant land definition below: “3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.” The parking operator has attempted to demonstrate that the land on which the vehicle was parked is in fact relevant land by advising that the Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park and quote Section 3 (3) which advises: "(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question." The appellant has then reviewed the operator’s evidence and questioned whether this claim is sufficient as there are penalties imposed on the land under said byelaws within The Stansted Airport - London Byelaws, 1996. Having reviewed the same document I can confirm that penalties are being imposed on the land to vehicles as stated in Section 2, 5(3), 6(1) and 6(3) of the byelaws as provided by the operator. They have provided no evidence that shows that the area of Southgate Park does not fall within the airport jurisdiction. I am therefore satisfied that the land can be considered under statutory control. The operator has not demonstrated that this is relevant land and POFA 2012 therefore cannot be applied in this instance. As such, the PCN is invalid as liability cannot be transferred without using POFA 2012. I am therefore not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant has brought other grounds of appeal and evidence to POPLA, but as I am allowing this appeal based on the reasoning above, there is no requirement to address the additional evidence and grounds as they will not affect the outcome of this appeal.

I have found the below text for the POPLA appeal and entered my details (which I've removed for this thread).  Please see below draft - could you let me know if it is correct for my case?  Thank you.   


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.

I was told to post the draft appeal for checking before making it.
Thanks

Please host their evidence pack on something like Google Drive (make the file publicly available). I would need to see this new evidence they claim they have that says the land at Southgate Park is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA.

Without that, I can't give you anything to respond to. You have 7 days to respond so do not waste time.

ALso, in future, please edit their response so that we don't have to read a wall of text.

The evidence pack includes the personal details of the keeper so I can't make it publicly available. It's a huge pdf and I can't delete or amend it.  I've amended the text below and I'll try to attach a screenshot of the map that they are using as evidence.

The keepr raises the following grounds for appeal:

No keeper liability As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack.
Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack.

The Stansted Airport byelaws do not impose a penalty for vehicles parking within Southgate Park. We have included in section E a map showing the boundary of Stansted Airport, from which it is clear the area occupied by Southagte Park, outlined in yellow, is not part of the Airport. This map is the most recent version and was submitted to the High Court last year, as evidenced by the link provided in section E.
In light of this, the site is not excluded by the definitions laid out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such is considered Relevant Land.

Appeal points not addressed As demonstrated in section E, we addressed the appellant’s points regarding the airport byelaws.
 
Inadequate evidence of clear and prominent signage. The free 60-minute parking period is only available to motorists whilst they are a customer of Southgate Park (Starbucks). At the time the vehicle was on site Starbucks was closed and therefore the driver was not a customer. As such, they were not entitled to the free parking period and payment was required for their stay. For the sake of clarity: this would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as there was no free stay at the time. All motorists were required to make payment to park on site. We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park, that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions, and that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations.
In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. A motorist does not have to have read the terms and conditions of parking to enter into a parking contract, there is only the requirement that the parking operator affords them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that there is sufficient signage at the site in order to afford motorists the chance to read the terms and conditions that are in place.
Upon entry to the site, it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that may be in place before choosing to park or remain on site. In summary, the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that there is a 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please note: as the parking event occurred while the on-site business was closed, there is no free stay. Should the driver have wished to use the car park while the business is closed, they should have paid the appropriate tariff.
 As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without payment having been made. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.