Free Traffic Legal Advice

Another victim to this car park.

The driver, like so many others, pulled into this part of the car park and went into McDonalds without realising it was exclusively reserved for Starbucks customers.

Contravention happened on 10th January, notice issued on 14th January.

So initially I (as the keeper) went through the steps outlined on a different website - namely southgate-parking.uk. However, it seems the website is not as up to date as this forum is, and has no advice to people when MET claim the boundary for Stansted Airport has changed and throw up some silly Just Stop Oil injunction map.

I appealed on the basis of it not being relevant land, and included the map used on aforementioned website, as well as suggested by users on this forum. My initial response was copy pasted from the southgate-parking.uk website, and as expected, they refused it, and we're now in the POPLA stage.

I submitted my evidence to POPLA, and they have come back with (seemingly their standard response at this point) ... the following:

MET Parking Services - EW
Operator Case Summary

In the appeal to POPLA Mr "X" states that this is not relevant land and therefore there can be no keeper liability. 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.

We note that the appellant claims that the land on which the charge was issued is not relevant land as defined under PoFA and the basis of their argument is that the land falls within the boundaries of Stansted Airport. We are also aware that they have submitted an outdated plan that remains available on the internet which they are seeking to rely on to support their argument.

The plan submitted, however, was superseded and replaced when the airport sold the land in 2011. The current plan for Stansted Airport can be found on the Stansted Airport website at: https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/a7ebfb2621/mag-sealed-amended-claim-form-updated.pdf?_gl=1*3pf4ff*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE

This was used in the recent injunction against Just Stop Oil protesters. We attach a copy of that plan below that clearly excludes the highlighted area where the parking charge was issued. Map of Stansted Airport from the Stansted airport website - Area highlighted in yellow is clearly outside the boundary of the airport As the map below demonstrates, Stanstead airport land and Southgate Park does not fall within it. https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/df8f2e7b97/stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf

We also include in section E: o an extract from the title deeds and title plan that show the freehold was sold on 2 August 2011 to Grove Developments; and o correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the possession of the airport. For the sake of clarity: as demonstrated by the titled deeds in section E, the freehold land was sold in 2011 to Grove Developments, at which point it ceased to be part of the airport. We have also provided in section E an email from the airport advising that bylaws only apply to land owned by the airport. Airport byelaws therefore cannot apply here – the land is neither owned nor managed by the airport and they themselves have confirmed the byelaws only apply to land they own.

In light of this it is clear that the land is not subject to the airport byelaws and instead falls within the definition of relevant land under the terms of PoFA. Therefore, where we do not know the name and serviceable address of the driver and have complied with all pertinent conditions of Schedule 4 to PoFA we may pursue the registered keeper for payment of an outstanding charge. 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. 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.

Now, up until this point, I have seen no mention in any of their responses that the freehold of the land was sold in 2011.

I have been rather busy this week, and unfortunately have let this slip until today, but I only have two days left to leave a reply to their "Operator and information evidence".

My plan initially was to simply copy paste the fantastic reply from b789 over in this thread (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-airport-met-southgate-park-starbucks/):

Below is text you can paste into your POPLA “Comments on operator evidence” box. It keeps the original point intact, adds the operator-pack rebuttal, includes HTML links to each map source, and explains why there can be no keeper liability.

Quote

Section E – Operator’s map and boundary claim

The operator’s “boundary” plan in Section E is not an airport estate boundary at all. It is a red-line taken from a High Court interim protest injunction that defines where protest-control measures apply for a limited legal purpose and period. The Order itself defines “Stansted Airport” only as “the land shown…on Plan 2 to the Claim Form,” and it includes review and service provisions (e.g. notices at locations marked “X”) that underline its narrow, enforcement nature. See: https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/. This is not an operator boundary plan, does not purport to fix the airport’s statutory/operational extent, and is therefore irrelevant to the “relevant land” analysis under Schedule 4 PoFA.

Crucially, the injunction was brought by Manchester Airport PLC and, by its nature, only covers land they own or control. It does not (and cannot) extend to parcels owned by third parties such as Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (the entity named in the parking company’s contract). The fact that such third-party land is not coloured within the injunction red-line is therefore a function of claimant ownership/control, not proof that the land lies outside the airport estate or beyond the reach of the airport byelaws.

By contrast, the appellant’s map is drawn from the airport operator’s own planning submission—the Stansted Terminal Extension Design & Access Statement (July 2023)—which describes the airport landholding and shows the site plan used by the operator and the planning authority to define the estate context (“the land within the airport’s boundaries is approximately 957 hectares”). This is precisely the type of authoritative operator material POPLA should prefer when understanding the airport boundary as a whole. Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf (page 8, ‘Site Plan’).

Accordingly, POPLA should dismiss the injunction red-line as a litigation exhibit with a limited purpose and no bearing on the airport estate’s full extent, and instead rely on the operator’s own planning document for boundary context. On that basis—and as shown in the appellant’s evidence—Southgate Park sits within the airport estate notwithstanding any narrower area delineated for protest-injunction enforcement.

Keeper liability (PoFA) cannot arise. Schedule 4 only applies on “relevant land.” Land subject to statutory control/byelaws (such as airport land within the operator’s boundary) is excluded from the definition of “relevant land,” so PoFA keeper liability is unavailable. The operator has not produced any operator or planning-authority boundary plan that displaces the airport operator’s own material; instead they rely on a protest-injunction map that is not a boundary instrument. POPLA should therefore find that this site is not “relevant land” and that the keeper cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 PoFA.

However, since the actual comments from MET seem to be changing, I thought it sensible to start my own thread here, and see if anyone had anything further to add?

Also I note that the thread with b789's fantastic reply doesn't seem to have any conclusion, beyond the initial poster saying that POPLA refused his appeal and he was unsure what to do now.


To be brutally honest, fighting this has already cost me more in time than just paying the initial £60/£100 would have done, but at this point, it almost feels a matter of principle.

So does anyone have any suggestions of what comments I should leave within the POPLA process after MET has claimed that the freehold land was sold in 2011? Does this make any difference to anything? If there is no reply here within a couple of days, I suspect I'll just paste b789's response in the comment box (before the opportunity to respond goes all together) and hope for the best!


Hope I've included everything relevant, and many thanks in advance for any advice/help!

Below is a response I supplied a little time back to MET Parking's so called evidence...



Keeper's response to operator evidence supplied by MET Parking relating to PoFA compliance at Stansted Airport.



1. Many of the assertions made by MET Parking in their submission are false.

2. The assertions which MET Parking make demonstrate that MET Parking do not appear to understand how the designation of 'Land under statutory control' actually works - this appears to be deliberate behaviour on the part of MET Parking - as a result, the contents of their evidence pack is utterly shambolic.

3. The plan submitted by the vehicle keeper is a plan obtained from an official Government website relating to the proposed terminal expansion at Stansted Airport and was used in the planning application dated 7th August 2023.

4. The assertion that this plan is 'outdated' and 'superseded' (when a packet of land was sold in 2011) is therefore completely untrue and demonstrably false.

5. Furthermore, and by comparison, the parking operators provided airport plan (titled 'Stansted Airport - Plan 2) is totally irrelevant and their own narrative inadvertently defeats the legal argument on which they are seemingly reliant.

6. The parking operator openly admits that their submitted airport plan is one which was one used by Manchester Airport PLC (Stansted's operators) when they sought a High Court injunction (to protect a number of their airports) against 'Just-Stop-Oil' on 3rd July 2024 - the parking operators airport plan is a rudimentary 'copy and paste' taken directly from the High Court injunction application documents filed by Manchester Airport PLC on that date.

7. The areas inside the 'red line' (on the parking operator's airport plan / injunction plan) used by Manchester Airport PLC (in their injunction application) simply encompasses the land which is either owned by them and/or under their control - basic legal protocol means that Manchester Airport PLC are not able to apply for an injunction which covers land which is not under their control.

7a. Section 8 of the Manchester Airport PLC 'Skeleton Argument' document in their injunction application states the following;

"A summary of the details of Claimant's title to the Airports is set out at Annex A to this skeleton
argument. There, too, are the details explaining which Claimants relate to which Airports.
In short, the land within the “red line” is private land to which Claimant's have freehold or
leasehold title, save for certain exceptions, explained next:"

7b. Section 9 of the Manchester Airports PLC 'Skeleton Argument' document in their injunction application then states the following;

"Third Party Areas: First, there are certain areas within each airport over which third
parties have interests which, in point of law, have the effect that Claimant's do not have an
immediate right to possession or occupation in relation to those areas, (or none that they
seek to assert in these proceedings). These are referred to as the “Third Party Areas”.
For the most part, the Third Party Areas are only accessible by members of the public if
they first use areas to which Claimant's are entitled to possession, occupation and control by
virtue of their unencumbered proprietary interests."

The Skeleton Argument;

https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/a229707c4a/mag_injuntions_airports-skeleton_v1.pdf?

7c. It is clear from the statements in S8 and S9 that it is accepted that "there are certain areas within each airport" which are not controlled by Manchester Airport PLC and as such these areas are not included inside the 'red line' on the airport injunction plan.

7d. Therefore, it stands to reason that, there must be areas outside the 'red line' that are areas still 'within the airport area' - otherwise there would be no need for that specifically stated exclusion.

8. The injunction application specifically mentions this 'point of law' - MOST CRITICAL - it determines that 'thirds party areas' within the airport area are not included in the injunction application - this clearly explains the many differences between the MET Parking provided airport plan and the official Government plan which sets out the entire airport area which is under statutory control - those differences being areas which are owned by parties other than Manchester Airport PLC and thus not included in the injunction application.

9. Furthermore, by MET Parking's own admission, Southgate Park is not owned by Manchester Airport PLC but by some other independent entity (their client) and as such Manchester Airport PLC did not include the packet of land at Southgate Park in their High Court injunction application since it was a 'third party area' and therefore not land under their control even though it sits inside the statutory airport area.

10. The owner of the land is irrelevant when determining whether that particular area of land is subject to 'statutory control' - Indeed, it does not matter how many times a particular area of land changes hands, that area of land remains under statutory control regardless of property sales.

11. Areas of statutory control are determined by central government (Department of Transport) and not airport operators or others who may own packets of land within the designated statutory airport area. (Reference 'The Airports Act (1986)' for more details on this)

12. Furthermore, byelaws apply to all areas of the designated statutory airport area regardless - that is precisely what makes it an area under statutory control: the presence of local byelaws.

13. The email (in the parking operators evidence) from someone at the Stansted Airport operator is legally illiterate - The 'Coffee Date email' contains a statement which is obviously incorrect - the suggestion that bylaws only apply to areas under their direct control - bylaws actually apply to all areas within the area of statutory control - once again, that is exactly what defines it as an area under statutory control - obviously, you cannot have an area within the area of statutory control which is not under statutory control!

14. The assertion of the coffee date email is also a contradiction of the evidence set out in the injunction application - namely that it is legally accepted that there are third party areas which are within 'the airport area' but not under direct control of the airport operator.

15. That the presence of the coffee date email clearly demonstrates the incompetence shown by MET Parking - MET Parking have been enforcing this area for quite some period of time yet they are still fumbling in the dark with regard to the nature of the land designation - MET Parking could quite easily resolve this matter with some simple local authority enquires but they elect not to - there is a requirement to do this BEFORE enforcement can even start.

16. That each episode of apparent incompetence by the parking operator ALWAYS ends up favouring the parking operator - this is not by accident but by design - the operator is keen to continue the use of PCN's which state PoFA keeper liability when they must know that there is no keeper liability at that site.

17. The extract(s) from the title deeds etc are of absolutely no relevance as the sale of the land has no bearing whatsoever on the designation of the land - MET Parking are trying to project a narrative which suggests that the sale of the land somehow removed it from the area of land under statutory control - this is demonstrably false.

18. Regardless of MET Parking's subjective waffle, it is clear that the area of land which encompasses Southfield Park remains firmly inside the area of land under statutory control set out by the Secretary of State for Transport and this area is covered by 'The Stansted Airport - London Byelaws (1996)'.

19. Somewhat bizarrely, the plan summitted by MET Parking never actually purports to represent the entirety of the area of statutory control - MOST CRITICAL - the plan is only ever used to show areas which Manchester Airport PLC wished to include in their injunction - MET Parking are deliberately using this particular plan to hoodwink individuals into believing that they can use PoFA to pursue keeper liability at a location within the Stansted London Area of Statutory Control.

20. The link included in their submission does not link to the Stansted Airport website but instead links to court documents associated with the Just-Stop-Oil injunction - this further reinforces the fact that this map is not some kind of official Stansted Airport plan and, when examined, the other documentation contained within that weblink clearly confirms that fact.

21. That MET Parking are in clear breach of their own Code of Conduct since their PCN's clearly state that they can pursue the Keeper using PoFA - The Code of Conduct EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS operators from either mentioning or implying that PoFA can be used in locations where PoFA is not applicable - Southgate Park is within the Stansted Airport Area of Statutory Control and yet MET Parking are still issuing PCN's which specifically mention Keeper liability under PoFA.

22. That, by breaching their Code of Conduct, MET Parking are also in breach of their KADOE agreement with the DVLA since the DVLA require operators to agree to adhere to the Code of Conduct before accessing keeper records.

23. That it appears that MET Parking are deliberately avoiding the acknowledgement of the true designation of the land they are controlling as this would have a significant impact on revenues - as a business, MET Parking are expected to operate professionally - how can a parking operator operate in a professional manner if it is incapable of correctly ascertaining the nature of the land on which they wish to establish enforcement activities? - In order to correctly issue compliant PCNs, the operator must first establish the true nature of the land on which it is operating, MET Parking have clearly failed to do this.

24. I would further draw your attention to the outcome of POPLA case 3862825089 which appears to hinge on similar factors.

Quote from: InterCity125 on March 01, 2026, 12:09:43 pm

Below is a response I supplied a little time back to MET Parking's so called evidence...

Ah that's fantastic, thank you very much. What was the outcome for you?

And what was POPLA case 3862825089? Was that your case per chance?

Regardless, many thanks, and I will submit something along the lines of your quoted comment tomorrow, and update here with updates as it proceeds.

No - it was purely a response I provided to another keeper to help with their case. MET Parking are serial abusers of the PoFA system. So I wrote something which I felt would be helpful in any MET Parking Stansted case.