Author Topic: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark (Read 278 times)

aNoticedKeeper · « **on:** October 11, 2025, 03:41:22 pm »

Hello!

A month back, I received a Notice to Keeper from MET Parking Services. I have already appealed with MET and am at a stage where they disclosed a POPLA verification code and I'm about to go to POPLA. I am now wondering what the best way to move forward would be. Would you suggest to follow suit as in this thread: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/ ? Thanks a bunch in advance for any help!

Original notice: https://ibb.co/zHjQCnCD

Sorry, the image has issues embedding.
I've seen a lot of cases dealing with the same issue here since and so I followed up with one of these borrowed from a separate thread:
"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."

In a couple of days, MET met replied with this:

Thank you for your correspondence in respect of the above charge. The free parking period is available to Starbucks
customers who have registered their vehicle via the kiosk in Starbucks. Having checked our records, we confirm that
your vehicle was not registered.
In order for us to consider your appeal fully please can you send us a copy of your receipt or other evidence to show that
you were a Starbucks customer on 30/08/2025. This can be uploaded at www.appealmetparking.com.
Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.
We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act and you are advised that where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued the
charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue
the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.
We have placed your charge on hold for a further 14 days to allow you time to send us this information. If we do not
receive the information by the end of the 14 days we will have to reach a decision on your appeal based on the
information we hold at that time.

To which I in turn replied with following:

Dear appeals dept,

It is beyond comprehension that you are still claiming Southgate Park, Stansted Airport is "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA. This is not a grey area, a technicality, or up for debate. It is an undeniable fact that land under statutory control cannot be relevant land under PoFA. Your repeated failure to understand this is either utter incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead motorists.

Since this appears to be a struggle for you, let me break it down in the simplest terms possible:

1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws

Southgate Park is within the boundary of Stansted Airport. The attached map is produced by Stansted Airport. It clearly shows the official boundary of the airport. I have highlighted in red, the location of Southgate Park, which is clearly within the blue airport boundary.

Stansted Airport is governed by Stansted Airport Byelaws. Any land subject to statutory control, such as Byelaws, is not relevant land under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply. It is basic logic that even a toddler should be able to understand.

It does not matter that Southgate Park is not right next to the terminal. The only legal test that matters is whether the land is subject to statutory control. Since it is, PoFA does not apply. End of story.

2. “Private Land” Does NOT Automatically Mean “Relevant Land”

I have heard that MET tries to claim that "because Southgate Park is private land, it must be relevant land" is legally and factually absurd. "Private land" does NOT mean "relevant land" under PoFA. "Relevant land" means land where no statutory control applies. Since Byelaws apply to Southgate Park, it is NOT relevant land.

To put it in terms even you might understand... Train station car parks are also private land, yet PoFA does not apply to them because they are covered by Railway Byelaws. The exact same principle applies to Southgate Park because it is covered by Stansted Airport Byelaws. If you still cannot grasp this, you should not be in the business of issuing legally enforceable documents.

3. Your Conduct is a Clear Breach of the PPSCoP

By falsely claiming Keeper Liability under PoFA at Southgate Park in your NtKs, you are in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.1(d)

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

Yet you misrepresent liability, issue misleading notices, and falsely claim the Keeper is liable when you have zero legal basis to do so. This is not an accident. This is clearly a deliberate and ongoing breach of industry standards.

4. DVLA KADOE Breach

You are in clear breach of your KADOE agreement because you are using Keeper Data to falsely assert PoFA liability where none exists. While you may have obtained the data lawfully, you are now misusing it by misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal position. PoFA does not apply at Southgate Park, yet you have knowingly issued an NtK that falsely states the Keeper will be liable under PoFA if they do not provide the driver’s details.

This is a clear breach of KADOE, as the Keeper’s data must not be used for purposes that are legally invalid. You are not just issuing unlawful demands; you are misleading the Keeper into believing they are liable when they are not.

However, the central issue is your complete failure to understand and apply the law correctly. The DVLA matter, which will be reported, is secondary—your utter stupidity in not comprehending why PoFA is not applicable is the real problem.

Final Word: Stop Making This Ridiculous Argument

Your insistence that Southgate Park is "not at the airport" and "private land" therefore PoFA applies, is not just legally wrong, it is embarrassingly ignorant.

Stop issuing unlawful PCNs, stop misrepresenting Keeper Liability, and stop pretending PoFA applies when it clearly does not. You look like clueless amateurs every time you try to argue otherwise.

Yours sincerely,

Name McSurname

Here is their final reply:

Issue date: 03/09/2025
POPLA Verification Code: redacted
Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above parking charge.
The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around this site. These include
that the free parking period is only available to Starbucks customers who have registered their vehicle via the kiosk in
the store. Having checked our records, we confirm that your vehicle was not registered and as such you were not
entitled to the free parking period, meaning payment was required for your stay. We therefore believe the charge was
issued correctly and are upholding it.

We are confident there are sufficient signs at this location bringing the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of
motorists and it remains the driver's responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the terms and
conditions

Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.

As advised on the Notice to Keeper, where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued
the charge and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.

A copy of our privacy policy may be seen at www.metparking.com/privacynotice or can be heard by calling 0207 118
3080. It is also available by emailing DPO@metparking.com. We will disclose data where requested by regulatory
bodies with the appropriate paperwork, we will also disclose data where charges remain unpaid and payable to those
agents, advisers and suppliers who act on our behalf in recovering the money.

We note your request for us to cease processing your data however we are refusing this as we believe we may continue
to process the data under the following legal bases:

Contract – The processing is necessary for the parking contract that has been entered into when vehicles enter and
remain in the location.

Legitimate Interests – Processing is required to protect and enable pursuit of legitimate interests in ensuring the car park
is effectively managed, pursuing unpaid parking tariffs and charges due and promoting the safety and security of the
location.

This decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating
circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a
number of options:

1. Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking charge
at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days of today's date. Please note that if payment is not received by this date
the parking charge will be payable at £100.00 and further costs will accrue if the case is passed to our debt resolution
agents for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us. Payment may be made
online at www.paymetparking.com or by phone on 020 3781 7471.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, the Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the
online appeals system at: www.popla.co.uk using verification code: 3862825089 Please note that POPLA will consider
the evidence of both parties and make their decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please
note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA, and should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an
alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to
participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to
POPLA as explained above.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may
proceed with court action.

Yours sincerely

Illegible Scribble"

aNoticedKeeper · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2025, 04:32:03 pm »

Anyway, this is my draft (borrowed from b789 https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/msg65207/#msg65207):
__________________________________________
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.

This appeal is made on the basis that MET Parking Services is attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore, MET has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

The vehicle was parked at Southgate Park, which lies within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This is not a speculative assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit with this appeal an up-to-date map produced by Stansted Airport that clearly shows the official airport boundary. I have marked on this map the location of Southgate Park, which falls squarely within the blue boundary line of Stansted Airport.
Airport map:
https://ibb.co/HfP0GdmB
https://ibb.co/9HvLPZxF

The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land. Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to which byelaws apply — such as Stansted Airport — it is by definition under statutory control and therefore excluded from the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4 of PoFA. Unless the Secretary of State has formally revoked the application of the byelaws to this specific parcel of land (which there is no evidence has occurred), then the land cannot lawfully be treated as relevant land. This remains true even if the land is used by a private company, such as MET Parking Services, or contains commercial outlets such as Starbucks.

I first raised this point directly with MET in my original appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating only: “We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms
Act.” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue.

I then sent a further written response to MET explaining clearly (again) why Southgate Park is under statutory control, why PoFA does not apply, and why their assertions of Keeper Liability are legally baseless. In summary, that correspondence set out the following:

1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws

The map now submitted is produced by Stansted Airport and shows the area in question within the airport’s official boundary. Stansted Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at Southgate Park.

2. “Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant Land”

MET appear to believe that all private land is automatically “relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA specifically excludes land subject to statutory control, regardless of whether it is privately owned. For example, train station car parks are also private land, but are not “relevant land” under PoFA because they fall under Railway Byelaws. The same principle applies to Southgate Park due to Airport Byelaws.

3. MET Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)

By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper Liability under PoFA, MET is in breach of the PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d), which states:

“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”

MET has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to hold the registered keeper liable in a location where this is not legally possible.

4. Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach

MET is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply at Southgate Park, yet the NtK sent by MET falsely states that the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. This misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will be reported.

Following my second letter, MET responded again, entirely ignoring the issue of land status. Their response merely restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.

It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site is relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not rebutted the airport boundary map. They have not provided any evidence from the landowner, the airport authority, or the Secretary of State, to show that statutory control does not apply. They have not met the legal threshold.

Conclusion

• The land in question is under statutory control and not “relevant land.”
• MET cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4.
• The Keeper is not liable.
• The NtK is misleading and non-compliant with both PoFA and the PPSCoP.
• MET’s conduct raises further concerns regarding KADOE misuse and must be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.

I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
__________________________________________
It is basically copy & paste of a previous post, only updating the map and the responses from MET.

b789 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2025, 06:21:49 pm »

Why haven't you used the map with Southgate park highlighted in red the I made?

simple image hosting site

aNoticedKeeper · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2025, 10:39:22 pm »

I couldn't load the images in the previous thread for some reason. I'll use this one though. Thank you.

JulianB · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2025, 02:03:36 pm »

I just had POPLA rule in my favour on just this point, so now I'm complaining to the BPA that Met Parking are breaching their Code of Practice and then I'll get back onto the DVLA to challenge their use of the KADOE system.

It is REALLY important when launching your POPLA appeal to note the following:
1) Met Parking probably won't even respond to your 'relevant land' challenge till the POPLA appeal - and then they'll come back with pages of technical legal arguments that seem to indicate they have a case - UNLESS YOU DIG. The key is not to be intimidated. GET a copy of the stansted bylaws and quote the parking bylaws back to them

2: Here is the POPLA appeal conclusion - it rests on the fact that the bylaws already impose penalties on land within the Stansted Airport perimiter....
"I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: 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 note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration."

Please keep trying, I'm not going to let this drop till I get their use of KADOE rescinded at this site and their non-compliance with the BPA code of conduct acknowledged and more importantly, actioned.

jfollows · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2025, 02:05:53 pm »

Thank you for posting this information.

As you say, MET always sidestep the key points, they reply to other ones but dismiss or ignore the germane ones.

POPLA has repeatedly found against the claimant on the basis of it not being relevant land, but MET continues to use its bully pulpit of threatening letters to maintain otherwise, and presumably lots of people pay up.

Good luck in your quest. DVLA seems not to care as long as it gets the fee each time.

JulianB · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2025, 06:07:43 pm »

My next target is the BPA with a complaint about the continued breach of their code of practice - entered a request with 20 attachments and a Guardian article for them to read today.....
Look at Annex H - Sanctions...I have suggested that most of the most serious apply.

We shall see how independent the BPA really is when it comes to judging 'one of their own'....

These are the Guardian articles:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jun/30/i-went-to-a-drive-thru-starbucks-but-ended-up-with-a-100-parking-fine

If I can get an admission from the BPA that Met have breached their code of Practice then it's back to the DVLA again for me.

I'm not giving up on this - and the POPLA decision is just the first step as far as I'm concerned

b789 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2025, 06:56:28 pm »

I suggest you point out to the BPA and the DVLA that MET have clearly breached PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which states:

Quote

8.1.1. The parking operator must not serve a notice ~~or include material on its website~~ which in its design and/or language:

d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

A breach of the PPSCoP is a breach of the KADOE contract.

aNoticedKeeper · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2025, 04:25:58 pm »

I've just heard from POPLA and is awaiting my comment on MET's evidence. MET essentially claim that the car park is not part of the airport and claim this with their Court-stamped map. What do I do please?

Here is the MET summary:
In the appeal to POPLA Mr XYZ states that the driver has not been identified and he cannot be held liable as the keeper of the vehicle under PoFA 2012 as this is not relevant land. 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 attach for your ease of reference 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. 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. The map referenced above was submitted as part of the high court injunction in 2024 and may be found online at: https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1*vi0z7d*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE Given that this is relevant land and PoFA 2012 is applicable, there has been no breach of KADOE. Turning to the charge itself: In this instance, the driver had not registered the vehicle for the free parking period. As advised on the signs, only Starbucks customers are entitled to the free parking period, and they must register their vehicle on arrival. The driver did not make payment for their stay as an alternative and as such the parking charge was issued. In line with F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter, we requested evidence of custom during the initial appeal process (as only Starbucks customers are entitled to park for free). The appellant did not provide any such evidence and was therefore not entitled to the further discount when the appeal was rejected. PLEASE NOTE: regarding the further reduction of a charge under Annex F, the Sector Single Code of Practice specifically states that ‘in all cases the Appeals Charter would require the motorist to provide the evidence.’. As such, without the appellant providing supporting evidence then there is no requirement for an operator to offer the further reduction. To summarise, 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 this is a pay by phone car park and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors may extend their stay up to 3 hours by using the pay by phone service. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without being registered for the free parking period and no payment was made as an alternative. 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.

b789 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2025, 06:17:12 pm »

Rebut with the following which you can simply copy and paste into the response webform:

Quote

Rebuttal to MET’s Evidence on “Relevant Land” and the Injunction Map

MET’s claim that Southgate Park is “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is factually and legally wrong. Their reliance on a High Court injunction map is entirely misplaced.

1. The injunction map does not define the byelaws boundary

The map MET cites (https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf) was created for a 2024 High Court injunction obtained by Stansted Airport Limited (a subsidiary of Manchester Airports Group, or MAG). That map only identifies land owned or controlled by Stansted Airport Limited for the purposes of the injunction. It does not and cannot redefine or limit the statutory Stansted Airport Byelaws 1996 boundary, which was formally approved by the Secretary of State under section 63 of the Airports Act 1986. Land omitted from the injunction area is excluded only because MAG does not own it, not because it falls outside the byelaws boundary.

2. Southgate Park is owned by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited but remains within the byelaws boundary

Southgate Park, including Starbucks and McDonald’s, is privately owned by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (company number 06408287). Land Registry title EX22286 confirms Tabacon’s freehold ownership of “Plot 4B Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, London Stansted Airport.” Tabacon purchased the land from BAA (then the airport operator) in January 2007 during BAA’s disposal of non-core commercial land within the airport perimeter.

- Company ownership and charges: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06408287/charges
Project acquisition record: https://tabacon.webnode.page/projects/stansted-airport-mcdonalds-tabacon-stansted-ltd-and-tabacon-stansted-2-ltd-/
- Supporting commercial documentation: https://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/media/13319/UDC-LP-VA-Appendix-S2-IVa-CoStar/pdf/UDC_LP_VA_Appendix_S2-IVa_-_CoStar.pdf

3. The byelaws boundary encompasses Southgate Park

The Stansted Airport Byelaws 1996 (https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf) clearly define “the airport” as the land delineated on the plan deposited with the Secretary of State. That plan includes Southgate Park within the boundary of “London Stansted Airport”. Ownership of the land by a private company does not remove it from statutory control. The byelaws apply to all land within the defined airport boundary regardless of who holds title or leasehold interest.

Further evidence of inclusion can be seen in the airport’s Design & Access Statement (July 2023) submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, which depicts Southgate Park as part of the airport estate.

- Design & Access Statement: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf

4. Legal consequence under PoFA 2012

PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3 excludes from “relevant land” any area where parking is subject to statutory control. The test is statutory status, not ownership. Since Southgate Park sits within the Stansted Airport Byelaws boundary, parking there is governed by those byelaws, and the land is not relevant land. Keeper liability under PoFA therefore cannot apply, regardless of MET’s assertions or the contents of their Notice to Keeper.

5. Conclusion

Southgate Park is located within the legally defined Stansted Airport byelaws boundary. The injunction map used by MET is not a statutory or geographical boundary but a limited, temporary litigation exhibit relating only to MAG-owned land. The byelaws apply to Southgate Park irrespective of private ownership by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited. Consequently, the site is excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA 2012, and MET cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

The operator’s argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of fact and law, and any decision based on that misrepresentation would be fundamentally unsound.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark (Read 278 times)

aNoticedKeeper

Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

aNoticedKeeper

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

b789

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

aNoticedKeeper

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

JulianB

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

jfollows

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

JulianB

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

b789

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

aNoticedKeeper

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark

b789

Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark