Two things... You appeal and you also submit a formal complaint to the DVLA. There is no Keeper liability as the location is within the byelaws boundary of Stansted airport. MET have no idea of the
unknown drivers identity and there is no legal obligation on the
known Keeper to provide any details to an unregulated private parking company.
As the location is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012, they cannot transfer lability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. Any appeal is from the Keeper only and any reference to the driver must be in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
Also, because they have stated in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) that they are relying on the provisions of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable, they are 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: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
Therefore they have breached the PPSCoP and the KADOE contract with the DVLA.
So, tell your friend to appeal with the following, only as the Keeper:
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.
Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:
• Go to:
https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the
Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.
The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:
I am submitting a formal complaint against MET Parking Services, an IPC Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.
While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.
The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.
I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: MET Parking Services Ltd
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE OF PCN]
PCN Ref: [PCN reference number]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by MET Parking Services, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.
The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.
In this case, MET Parking Services has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:
• They have issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) alleging 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), despite the fact that the alleged contravention occurred on land situated within the boundary of Stansted Airport, which is governed by statutory airport byelaws.
• As such, the location does not meet the statutory definition of 'relevant land' under PoFA, and MET Parking Services is therefore legally barred from transferring liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
• Nevertheless, the NtK explicitly claims that MET is relying on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, which constitutes a clear breach of PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d):
"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
These are not minor or technical breaches. They demonstrate a deliberate or negligent misstatement of legal rights, misleading the recipient into believing they are liable when no such liability exists in law. As a result, MET Parking Services is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a lawful pursuit of a parking charge under the Code) no longer applies.
The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.
This may include:
• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
