3. Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim  (Read 3019 times)

0 Members and 153 Guests are viewing this topic.

Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« on: »
Hi All,

In the interests of brevity, I refer to an excellent thread - https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/msg85962/#msg85962

I recently received a similar Notice to Keeper. I appealed immediately to MET Parking Services as the vehicle was only parked for 30 minutes and, like so many others, I was unaware of the nuances of the  carpark. I responded as  keeper,  refusing  to name the driver.

In short, the driver parked in Starbucks area of the site and went to McDonalds.

Having done further research, I then appealed by telephone to a McDonalds manager (No joy as its not their carpark) and to a Starbucks manager in person (no joy as the driver did not enter Starbucks and was not a customer).

The NTK that I received makes no mention of PofA Schedule 4. It simply says that I am now invited to either pay the charge or, if I was not the driver, to notify MET of the name and address of the driver and pass the NTK on to them.

In anticipation of the appeal rejection by MET, may I ask:

 1. If I am obliged under any other legislation to disclose the name of the driver.
 2. If MET can pursue me as keeper (not registered keeper) for the parking charge without relying on PofA.
 3. I understand (now) the arguments relating to 'relevant land' but did not mention them in my appeal to MET as I did not know about this issue at the time. Can I still rely on this argument when appealing to POPLA (which I certainly intend to do)?

I have pictures of signage if necessary but have not included them as the argument now centres on 'relevant land'.

Thank you in anticipation and keep up the good work!!
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #1 on: »
That is an unlawful Notice to Keeper (NtK) because it says they will hold the Keeper liable when they are not allowed to. Mention of PoFA itself is not a requirement, even if they intend to try and hold the Keeper liable. They have stated so in the NtK where they say "...we have the right to recover from you...".

The location is within the boundary of Stansted Airport and is therefore land that is under statutory control (airport byelaws). This means that the Keeper cannot be liable, only the driver. The only way they would know the identity of the driver is if the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.

There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. MET will still try and pursue you as the Keeper, even though you cannot be liable if the driver has not been identified. Hopefully, you appealed only as the Keeper and any reference to the driver was in the third person.

POPLA is not truly independent as it is funded by the very firms it is adjudicating on. It is not an authority and it is irrelevant what you used in your initial appeal, but the operator can use anything the Keeper put in that appeal if it assists them.

Any POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant, only the operator. However, POPLA have now latched on to the fact that the location is within the airport boundary and is therefore subject to statutory control, even if MET continue to plead that the land is private and byelaws only apply to the airport itself.

Have a look for other POPLA appeals for this location and adapt one of the winning ones to your situation when you receive the initial appeal rejection. Make sure you use the map that annotates the location of Southgate Park within the airport boundary. You also put the operator to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location under their own name.

Even if POPLA was unsuccessful, this would never reach a courtroom. Follow the advice and you will not be paying a penny to MET.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2025, 06:31:15 pm by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #2 on: »
Thank you so much for the clarification. I am armed and ready to go!!

I'll post results here to assist others.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #3 on: »
got my appeal decision, it was successful so i thought i'd post the appeal summery from popla.

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.
Logged
Winner Winner x 1 View List
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #4 on: »
Just an update.

Received a response from MET asking for proof of the driver having attended Starbucks. The letter states:

Quote
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 have 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.

Responded to MET with:

I refers to your letter dated 1 Sep 25 in which you state that you are  confident that your notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), that you still do not know the name and address of the driver and that you are entitled (under PoFA) to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge.

You will be aware, however, that appeals relating to PCNs issued by you at Southgate car park have been upheld by POPLA because, where the driver has not been identified, you 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. POPLA adjudicated that you had failed to do so.

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.

Furthermore, 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.

Additionally, you are in clear breach of your DVLA Keeper At Date Of Offence (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 I intend to report, is secondary.

Please cancel this PCN immediately and notify me by letter.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #5 on: »
Have you made a formal complaint to the DVLA about METs unlawful claim in their NtKs for this location that they can hold the Keeper liable?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #6 on: »
Not yet but I intend to. I will involve the ICO and my MP too. They poked the bear!!
Logged
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #7 on: »
Just an update. I have received a response from MET refusing my appeal.

They state that Southgate Car Park is private land and does not fall under airport byelaws.


They also refused to cease processing my 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.

(One for the ICO later as I think that, once they are pursuing me illegally, they cannot rely on those reasons for processing)
 
They stated that they ‘are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act’ and that they ‘are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge’.

They included a POPLA code and I have appealed to POPLA based on the fact that Southgate Car Park is not relevant land iaw PoFA.

Once I get a reply, I will post the results.

What a waste of everyone's time but, if it helps anyone else, its worth it.
Logged
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #8 on: »
Did you use the POPLA appeal for this location that we already have on the forum which includes a map evidencing that the location is within the Stansted Airport boundary?



No one told you to just submit POPLA appeal without first asking us to check it.

What exactly did you put in your POPLA appeal?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #9 on: »
I was going to post it if successful. It is derived from other useful and successful appeals and I used the suggested map.
Please see below:

I make the following appeal because MET Parking Services have refused an internal appeal by me regarding Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Number xxxxx relating to vehicle registration number xxxxx.

The PCN was issued at Southgate Car Park, Stansted Airport. I believe that this car park is located within the boundary of Stansted Airport as demonstrated on the attached map.

Stansted Airport Byelaws (linked here) contain provisions at Para 5(3) relating to vehicles causing an obstruction and at Para 6(3) relating to parking, proving that the land is subject to Statutory Control.
 
Because Stansted Airport is subject to Statutory Control, it is not Relevant Land as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4 Para 3(1)(c).

MET Parking Services cannot, therefore, rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle where the driver has not been identified. MET Parking Services have asserted that the driver has not been identified and I believe that I am under no obligation to identify them.

MET Parking Services’ response to my internal appeal states that they ‘are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act’ and that they ‘are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge’. These are false statement for the reasons given above and I request that you uphold this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the PCN.
Logged
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #10 on: »
Update - POPLA have disclosed METs response which hinges on their assertion that Southgate Car Park is no longer part of Stansted Airport, based on a High Court ruling dated 5 Jul 24 that post-dates that of the map relied on in this forum (2023).

That High Court ruling is provided here:

https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf?_gl=1*vi0z7d*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE

I have 7 days to respond and would be incredibly grateful for a framework answer as it appears that they can, in fact, rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2025, 08:34:09 pm by Speedy809 »
Logged
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #11 on: »
Utter testicles from MET! That is an injunction taken out by Manchester Airport Plc (Stansted owner) and only covers the land owned by them. Southgate Park is owned by Tabacon and so the injunction does not cover their land. Irrespective of that, the land owned by Tabacon is within the Stansted Airport boundary and is covered by bylaws.

Parcels of land within the Stansted Airport boundary can be owned by anyone. It does not remove the fact that that land sits within the bylaws boundary of the airport

Have a look at this very recent thread which includes the response to submit to their mendacious evidence:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-airport-met-southgate-park-starbucks/

Just copy the same response as given there.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #12 on: »
Thank you so much. I have responded using that thread and will update idc.
Its refreshing people prepared to help strangers in this way. It really is humbling. Thanks again!
Logged
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim
« Reply #13 on: »
Let's be clear here, what MET Parking are doing on this site must be very close to fraud.

I mean, how can a firm set up a legitimate parking enforcement operation without FIRST establishing the nature of the ground on which the enforcement activity will take place?

For a start, you cannot establish the correct wordings for your NtK unless the nature of the land is clearly established.

An incorrect NtK is also a breach of their DVLA agreement with potential ramifications for misuse of data. Further misuse can then occur if that data is passed to a third party 'debt collector.'

At each stage MET appear to completely over state their true legal position - this isn't an accident.

It is highly questionable if parking companies actually have sufficient reasoning for accessing keeper data at locations like this - with no keeper liability + VCS v Edward (no assumption that the keeper was the driver), there is no legitimate legal pathway between obtaining driver details and a successful County Court Claim. Meaning, all they can do is use the keeper details to intimidate and play a game of statistical chess.

Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Stansted - MET Southgate Car Park Starbucks - Another Hapless Victim