Free Traffic Legal Advice

Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued by MET Parking Services

PCN Reference: [Insert reference number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert vehicle registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: [Insert date]

This is an appeal by the Keeper of the vehicle and I raise the following points for POPLA to consider:

1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. Failure to Address Appeal Points
3. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
4. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity

Grounds for Appeal:

1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):

The alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which is located within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This boundary is confirmed by a Stansted Airport-issued map provided with this appeal. Stansted Airport is governed by airport byelaws, which constitute statutory control over the land. Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA explicitly states that "relevant land" excludes any land that is "subject to statutory control," such as land covered by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate Park is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

While the land may be private and MET Parking Services may have been contracted by the landowner’s agents to manage the car park, this does not negate the fact that it is within the airport boundary and subject to byelaws. The existence of byelaws over the land places it under statutory control, as established by law. MET Parking Services’ argument that the land is not covered by byelaws is incorrect and does not override the statutory framework. As a result, MET Parking Services cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the registered Keeper. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed. As the Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and there can be no Keeper liability in this case.

2. Failure to Address Appeal Points:

In my initial appeal to MET Parking Services, I specifically raised the issue of the site being under statutory control and therefore not relevant land under PoFA. Despite this, MET Parking Services failed to address this critical legal argument in their rejection. Instead, they dismissed the appeal without engaging with the evidence or addressing the legal basis of my argument. This omission suggests their decision to reject my appeal was not based on a proper consideration of the facts or the applicable legal framework.

3. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage:

MET Parking Services has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and conditions were clearly displayed and visible to motorists. For a driver to have agreed to any contractual terms, the signage must have been legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read before entering into a contract. Without evidence of the signage’s visibility and clarity at the time of the alleged contravention, the claim is unsubstantiated.

4. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity:

As the registered Keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally obligated to identify the driver. MET Parking Services has provided no evidence to identify the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Since liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper under PoFA due to the site’s statutory control, MET Parking Services must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without such identification, their claim against the Keeper is baseless.

Furthermore, the POPLA assessor must not assume or infer that the Keeper was also the driver. There is extensive persuasive case law on this matter. In VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], HHJ Mark Gargan in his conclusion, stated in paragraph 35.3:

“It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell. For example, there will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers who are the registered keeper but who allow a number of people to drive their vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion.”

The appellant is explaining this point in detail because some assessors have in the past erroneously allowed MET Parking Services to claim that the Keeper was likely the driver without any evidence. MET attempts to mislead assessors by relying on a misleading and erroneous note in Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:

“Liability
It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge.
NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.”

This statement is contrary to the law, as explained in VCS v Edward. The Keeper’s refusal to identify the driver does not permit any assumption of driver identity. Any such inference would be legally baseless and improper. POPLA assessors must adhere to established legal principles and not be misled by incorrect interpretations provided by rogue parking operators.

Conclusion:

Southgate Park’s location within Stansted Airport places it under statutory control and excludes it from being considered relevant land under PoFA. The wording of Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA is clear: land subject to statutory control, such as land covered by byelaws, is not relevant land. The official map of the airport boundary provided with this appeal confirms this fact beyond any doubt. Additionally, the registered Keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver, as supported by persuasive case law. MET Parking Services cannot hold the registered Keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. Their failure to address this fundamental point in their rejection of my initial appeal further demonstrates the inadequacy of their claim. I therefore request POPLA to uphold this appeal and instruct MET Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

POPLA Appeal Submission – Grounds: Land is not ‘relevant land’ under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

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: “The charge was not incurred at the Airport, it was incurred at Southgate Park (Starbucks).” This is wholly inadequate and avoids the key legal issue. Southgate Park being “not the terminal” is legally irrelevant. The only test that matters is whether byelaws apply to the land — 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 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.

Subject: Request for Parliamentary Question Regarding DVLA’s Failure to Enforce KADOE Contract with MET Parking Services

Dear [MP’s Title and Surname],

I am writing as your constituent to ask you to raise a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the DVLA’s failure to investigate clear and repeated breaches of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract by MET Parking Services Ltd.

Specifically, MET Parking continues to issue Notices to Keeper (NtKs) that falsely assert liability for parking charges under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) at locations that are not “relevant land” under that legislation. These sites fall within the boundaries of airports and are therefore subject to statutory control by virtue of airport byelaws.

The DVLA has been provided with clear evidence—including official airport boundary maps—proving that the car parks in question fall within land that is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws. Despite this, the Agency continues to provide MET Parking with access to registered keeper data and has not taken enforcement action under the KADOE contract.

I enclose a short briefing note explaining the matter further, including the key locations involved: Southgate Park at Stansted Airport, and McDonald's Gatwick.

I would be grateful if you would ask the Secretary of State for Transport to explain:

• Why the DVLA has failed to act against MET Parking for breaching its KADOE contract;
• What steps are being taken to ensure that DVLA data is not misused to unlawfully pursue liability under PoFA at sites where it cannot apply;
• Whether the Secretary of State will order a review of all Notices to Keeper issued by MET Parking at these sites and require them to cease using DVLA data in this manner.

Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I would appreciate a copy of any response you receive.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]

Briefing Note: MET Parking Services – Misuse of DVLA Data and Breach of KADOE Contract

Background

MET Parking Services Ltd is an unregulated private parking operator that accesses DVLA vehicle keeper data via the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract. Under this agreement, parking operators must use keeper data lawfully and only in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which permits “keeper liability” for unpaid private parking charges only on relevant land.

Issue

Despite clear legal restrictions, MET Parking continues to issue postal Notices to Keeper (NtKs) asserting that the vehicle keeper is liable under PoFA at sites where PoFA does not apply. These locations are within the boundaries of UK airports and are therefore subject to statutory control (airport byelaws), which makes them not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of PoFA.

Key Locations of Concern

Southgate Park, Stansted Airport (CM24 1PY)
– This car park is within the boundary of Stansted Airport, as shown by official airport maps.
– A POPLA appeal has upheld that the site is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA.

McDonald's, Ring Road North, Gatwick Airport (RH6 0NN)
– Located within the Gatwick Airport perimeter road.
– Gatwick Airport is a designated area subject to airport byelaws under statutory control.

Airport boundary maps are attached withe the locations clearly marked within those boundries.

In both cases, MET Parking has continued to issue NtKs alleging that the keeper is liable under PoFA, despite being unable to lawfully do so.

Legal Reference

PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 3(1)(c) excludes from the definition of “relevant land”:

“any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

Paragraph 3(3) clarifies:

“The parking of a vehicle on land is ‘subject to statutory control’ if any statutory provision imposes a liability … in respect of the parking on that land.”

It is therefore irrelevant whether the land is operated by a private business. If the land falls within the jurisdiction of statutory airport byelaws—and those byelaws have not been formally revoked by the Secretary of State—then it cannot be relevant land for the purpose of PoFA.

Why This Matters

• The DVLA is under a duty to enforce the terms of its KADOE contract.
• Continued access to keeper data for unlawful use undermines public trust in data handling.
• Registered Keepers and Hirers of vehicles are being wrongly told they are legally liable when they are not.

The DVLA’s current position misrepresents the legal test under PoFA and shifts responsibility away from its own enforcement obligations.

Suggested Parliamentary Question

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the DVLA enforces compliance with the KADOE contract in cases where private parking operators, such as MET Parking Services Ltd, have been shown to issue Notices to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 at locations that are not relevant land due to their being within the boundary of airports subject to statutory control.

Optionally:

... and whether the DVLA will review the lawfulness of such Notices to Keeper issued at Southgate Park (Stansted) and McDonald's Gatwick, and consider suspension of data access where misuse is identified.

Location maps