Following advice on this forum, I have gone through the process of appealing a PCN received at this location as a Registered Keeper. For POPLA, I said the following:
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 a 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.
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: “Please note that this is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue. Which is whether byelaws apply to the land at Southgate Park, and they do.
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 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.
With this I attached the map that can be seen on this forum showing it within the boundary.
They have now come back to my appeal, claiming the map is out of date see below:
In the appeal to POPLA XXXXX states that there can be no keeper liability 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 (as opposed to the 2023 map provided by the appellant) 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 Byelaws do not apply, there has been no breach of KADOE or the SSCOP. 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). XXXXX 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. 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 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.
What would you suggest for next steps in my appeal, I can find no reference on here about this new map they are using. Thank you in advance!
