Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Appeal Submission

Appellant: Registered Keeper (Name withheld)
Operator: MET Parking Services
PCN Reference: [Insert Reference]
Site: Southgate Park, Stansted Airport
Date of Issue: [Insert Date]

Summary of Grounds for Appeal:

1. No Keeper Liability – Southgate Park is not ‘Relevant Land’ under PoFA 2012
2. The Car Park is Located on Land Under Statutory Control
3. Appellant is Not the Driver and Cannot Lawfully Drive
4. No Breach of Terms – Stay was Within the 60-Minute Free Parking Allowance
5. Burden of Proof Not Discharged – Inadequate Signage and Evidence
6. No Obligation to Prove Customer Status
7. Misleading Reliance on Industry Code – Legal Tests Must Prevail
8. No Valid Authority to Issue PCNs Under PoFA – Deficient Contractual Documentation
9. Consistency with Recent POPLA Decision – Operator Failed to Rebut Statutory Control at This Site

This appeal includes an official Stansted Airport boundary map which clearly places Southgate Park within the airport's statutory boundary. The operator is put to strict proof that the land is not subject to statutory control, and that it qualifies as “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of PoFA.

Additionally, the operator is put to strict proof of a valid and complete contract with the landowner, including express authorisation to issue PoFA-based PCNs. In prior cases, the operator’s contract showed a blank PoFA authorisation checkbox, undermining their entitlement to pursue keeper liability.

1. No Keeper Liability – Land is Not 'Relevant Land' Under PoFA 2012

Under Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), private parking companies may not hold a registered keeper liable for a charge if the land is subject to statutory control. Southgate Park lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport, which is governed by airport byelaws. As such, this land is excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA.

To support this point, a copy of the official Stansted Airport boundary map is inserted with this appeal. This map clearly shows that Southgate Park falls within the boundary of the airport.



Because PoFA does not apply at this location, MET Parking cannot rely on it to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. The legal mechanism they seek to use is not available to them for this site. Liability can only rest with the driver, and not the keeper.

2. The Car Park is Located on Land Under Statutory Control – PoFA Does Not Apply

The car park known as Southgate Park is located within the boundary of Stansted Airport, which is subject to statutory control through airport byelaws. This brings the location within the exclusion set out in Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which states that PoFA does not apply to land where parking is subject to statutory control.

The appellant includes with this appeal an official airport boundary map showing that the car park falls within land controlled by Stansted Airport. This constitutes prima facie evidence that the site is under the jurisdiction of the airport and subject to statutory regulation.

Accordingly, the appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the land in question is not subject to statutory control and that it is ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 of PoFA. The operator is also put to strict proof as to whether any statutory authority—such as airport byelaws—exists over this land, and if so, why they believe it does not exclude the application of PoFA.

It is noted that in multiple previous POPLA appeals concerning this exact location and operator, POPLA has found in favour of the appellant on this point, due to the operator’s failure to rebut the argument that the land is not relevant land.

Unless the operator can conclusively rebut this evidence and demonstrate that PoFA applies, they cannot pursue the registered keeper and must cancel the charge.

3. Appellant is Not the Driver and Cannot Lawfully Drive

The appellant is registered blind and is therefore prohibited from driving a vehicle under UK law. They were not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. The appellant has also provided the full name and address of the actual driver, who resides abroad.

Whether or not the operator accepts this is irrelevant. The legal position remains:

• The appellant was not and cannot have been the driver,
• PoFA does not apply, so no keeper liability can arise,
• Liability lies solely with the driver, and the keeper is not liable in law.

Any demand for additional evidence such as proof of insurance is entirely without legal basis in the context of a private parking dispute.

4. No Breach of Terms – Stay was Within Free Parking Allowance

The site allows 60 minutes of free parking. The vehicle remained at the site for only 58 minutes. Therefore, no terms were breached. If there is no breach, there can be no contractual liability.

Any additional requirements (e.g. registering a vehicle in the café) are immaterial if the time spent on site did not exceed the permitted duration. No contract can be enforced without a breach of terms.

5. Burden of Proof Not Discharged – Inadequate Signage and Evidence

MET Parking has not demonstrated that:

• Signs were visible before entering the site,
• Terms were clearly legible to drivers on arrival,
• Key conditions (such as registering at the café) were prominently stated,
• The signage met the standards required to form a fair and transparent contract.

In the absence of clear and persuasive evidence on these points, MET has not discharged the burden of proof required to enforce a parking charge.

6. No Obligation to Prove Customer Status

The operator has suggested that the driver did not register inside the café, but it is not the appellant’s responsibility to prove customer status. The burden of proof lies entirely with the operator to demonstrate that:

• A contract existed,
• The contract was breached, and
• The person pursued is liable.

The appellant is under no obligation to provide receipts, declarations, or any form of customer evidence unless the operator has first satisfied its own legal burden.

7. Unfounded Reliance on Industry Code – Legal Tests Must Prevail

Operators often refer to Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which suggests that if a driver is not named, the keeper may be assumed to be the driver. This is not a legal presumption. The courts do not accept an assumption that the keeper was the driver without evidence.

The persuasive appeal judgment in VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C] made clear that the keeper cannot be inferred to be the driver simply because the driver was not named. Since in this case the driver has been named, and the keeper is medically prohibited from driving, any assumption or inference would be baseless.

POPLA must apply the law, not assumptions derived from industry codes that lack statutory authority.

8. No Valid Authority to Issue PCNs Under PoFA – Deficiencies in the Contract

The appellant further puts the operator to strict proof that they have a valid and unbroken chain of authority from the landowner, and that this includes express authorisation to issue PCNs and pursue charges under PoFA Schedule 4.

In previous cases concerning this operator, the evidential contract provided has included a section marked with a tick-box for PoFA authorisation. Crucially, this box has been left blank, raising serious doubts as to whether the operator has been granted the right to issue PoFA-compliant notices and rely on PoFA to pursue registered keepers.

The operator is therefore put to strict proof that:

• The landowner has given them contractual authority to issue parking charges,
• That this authority includes explicit permission to use PoFA to pursue keeper liability,
• And that the contract terms provided to POPLA are complete, signed, and unredacted, with all sections relevant to PoFA liability properly executed.

Unless this is proven, no PoFA-based claim against the keeper can lawfully proceed, and the appeal must be allowed.

9. Consistency with Recent POPLA Decision – Operator Failed to Rebut Statutory Control at This Site

This car park is part of a larger area including the BP Stansted SF Connect garage, all of which is located within Stansted Airport’s statutory boundary.

In a recent POPLA decision, adjudicator Anita Burns allowed an appeal relating to a PCN issued at the BP garage on this same site. This operator, again, similarly claimed that the land was “relevant land” under PoFA, but failed to rebut the appellant’s position that the site is subject to statutory control. The assessor stated:

“The parking operator may be confident in its assertion but it has failed to provide evidence to show the location where the appellant parked is outside the airport boundary, or not subject to statutory control… Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.”

The assessor also noted that the operator’s own contract failed to confirm whether the land is “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA, further undermining their entitlement to pursue the keeper.

The appellant in this case therefore invites POPLA to apply the same reasoning and maintain consistency with prior determinations for this site. The operator continues to issue PCNs on airport land while failing to rebut the legal argument that PoFA does not apply and that keeper liability cannot arise.

Conclusion

• The car park is on land under statutory control and is not “relevant land” under PoFA.
• The appellant was not the driver and is legally incapable of driving due to registered blindness.
• The operator has failed to demonstrate a breach of terms, as the stay was within the permitted period.
• The signage evidence is inadequate to establish a binding contract.
• The operator has not provided evidence of a valid contract authorising PoFA-based enforcement.
• PoFA does not apply, and even if it did, the operator lacks the contractual authority to rely on it.
• The burden rests with the operator, and they have failed to discharge it.

It is further noted that POPLA has recently upheld an appeal involving this same site (BP garage at Stansted Airport), where the operator failed to rebut the argument that the land is subject to statutory control. The adjudicator ruled that confidence alone is not evidence and that the operator must prove the land is relevant under PoFA. The appellant respectfully invites POPLA to reach a consistent determination.

The appeal should therefore be allowed, and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.