Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Gooner063 on December 10, 2025, 05:09:46 pm
-
Hi
Thanks again for the help and kindness shown.
I will wait for further instruction from you
Enjoy your Sunday
Cheers
G
-
Don't send anything yet.
Give me a day or two to come up with something.
-
Wow
What a mess of an outfit POPLA are, surely going forward they need looking into by somebody.
I will forward that today Intercity, but they do say they will ignore any further correspondence, bet they read it though.
Thanks for your time my friend
Cheers
G
-
Previous POPLA complaint regarding Southgate Park;
Dear xxxx xxxxxx,
Your complaint about POPLA
Thank you for your email. This has been passed to me as I am responsible for handling complaints.
I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against NSL Limited.
As a part of your complaint, you have referred me to a previous case where a POPLA Coach apologised for our mis-assessment concerning Stansted Airport and keeper liability in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your complaint concerns similar circumstances, whereby the assessor determined that the parking operator could pursue you, the registered keeper, for the PCN in accordance with PoFA.
I have completed a full review of your case and will address my findings below:
In the assessor’s rationale, they confirm they were not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had been identified and subsequently concluded that the PCN complied with the provisions of PoFA. The assessor explained that they were not considering the appeal under byelaws, and I can see the appeal was assessed under contract law.
I fully accept that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the relevant land where PoFA is applicable includes any land which is subject to statutory control. You are correct that relevant land under PoFA excludes land subject to statutory control and the parking operator can only pursue the driver of the vehicle for the charge.
As per the complaint response you raised, the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. Whilst the assessor has not disputed this, it is evident they have incorrectly classified this as relevant land. This means that there has been a mis-assessment of your appeal.
I do apologise for this error and any resulting inconvenience that has been caused. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Whilst we always strive to issue accurate and robust decisions, (we consider over 60,000 cases a year) there is always the potential for human errors to be made. I note this is a second instance where this has occurred and therefore, I have escalated this internally. We will ensure that all assessors complete a further extensive training course on the applications of PoFA, specifically in respect of relevant land, to address this issue going forwards.
To conclude, I am sorry that you have not had a positive experience when using our service. As you are aware, we are a one-stage process and there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. I understand you intend to contact the British Parking Association (BPA) regarding the charge. You are also free to contact Citizens Advice for independent legal advice.
POPLA’s involvement with your case has now ended, and my response closes our complaints process. I must advise there will be no further review of your complaint and any further correspondence on the matter will not be responded to.
Yours sincerely,
xxxxxx xxxxx
POPLA Complaints Team
-
Yes - more nonsense from POPLA.
POPLA have already admitted, in another complaint, that their Assessors have previously messed up over Southgate Park.
Bethany Young makes a MASSIVE mistake where she states that the sale of the land moves it outside of the statutory area - that is not true and demonstrates that she has absolutely no idea how the designation of the statutory control area actually works.
Embarrassing really given the POPLA history at this site.
We can come up with a short reply which illustrates this mistake.
-
I have had the invite to pay up within 28 days and that has been ignored, I must say it came very quickly after the original decision by POPLA. So lets wait for the rest of the threatening letters to arrive.
-
Had the reply from the popla complaint, brilliantly put together by intercity. As expected the complaint was brushed away.
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLuloJ
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLlfQ1
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLGS0F
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLXDQ4
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLkZSp
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLgC2j
https://freeimage.host/i/qeLPd8b
-
Intercity that is an amazing piece of work my friend, that must have taken so much of your precious time to do, I am already indebted to you and the other guys on the forum.
This forum im addicted to, I read all the posts whether i understand them or not.
Thanks again and i will now email this over to them.
You have a great day, some good karma is coming your way.
Cheers
G
-
POPLA Complaint - Multiple procedural errors.
Assessor Name - Natalie Matthews
POPLA Appeal Code -
Dear Lead Assessor,
Background.
I have recently received a POPLA appeal response from your colleague, Natalie Matthews.
Unfortunately, the appeal assessment demonstrates several procedural errors which ultimately lead to the assessor deeming that I am liable (for a parking charge) as a vehicle keeper - the location is a location where keeper liability cannot occur due to the location being within an airport area which is subject to statutory control.
The location is Southgate Park, Stansted airport.
I am aware that this specific location has given POPLA a number of problems over the years.
Procedural Error One.
The assessor clearly applies different evidence thresholds to each party.
In my appeal, I included a Stansted Airport site map which clearly illustrates the exact boundaries of the overall airport area under statutory control - this map was taken from the Stansted Terminal Extension document located on a Government website and is both easy to find and open for anyone to view. It is also available directly from the Stansted Airport website.
As you will be aware, areas under statutory control are not regarded as areas of 'relevant land' under the requirements of PoFA.
In her assessment, the assessor states the following (when describing my provided airport site plan), "While I have considered this image, it is not clearly labelled, its source is not independently verified, and it is undated. Although it is asserted that the document originates from a government website and is dated 7 August 2023, no supporting evidence has been provided to substantiate either the provenance or the date."
This comment sets a very high bar in terms of evidence threshold for an independent parking appeal.
However, the assessor moves on and states the following, "By contract, the operator has produced documentary evidence identifying the precise boundary of London Stansted Airport"
The operators plan is in fact a copy and paste taken from an external document and presented and used in exactly the same way as my plan - however, the assessor never applies the same evidence threshold test to the operators document in the way that she applied it to my submitted plan - the operators plan is also not clearly labelled (apart from labels which they have added), its source is not independently verified, and it is also undated.
This gives an outward appearance of an assessor who is looking to discredit my evidence due to its compelling nature - by comparison, the operators evidence is taken, unchallenged, at face value - this is a clear procedural error on the part of the assessor.
The assessor could easily check the providence if she wished to - a simple internet search reveals the document.
This is the weblink to the Government website;
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/section-62a-planning-application-s62a20230022-london-stansted-airport-bassingbourn-road-stansted-cm24-1qw
This is the link to the document containing the current airport site plan;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65097f3b22a783001343e86c/Stansted_Airport_Heritage_Statement_FINAL.pdf
The existing site plan is on page 65 and this document was compiled in September 2023.
Obviously this document demonstrates that the assessors conclusion is incorrect - the land at Southgate Park is clearly inside the Airport Area.
Procedural Error Two.
In her appeal response, the assessor writes the following, "the operator has produced documentary evidence identifying the precise boundary of London Stansted Airport" - this comment is made in respect of the Just-Stop-Oil (JSO) Court Injunction airport plan which was being put forward by the parking operator in an attempt to demonstrate the entire airport area.
The assessor's comments are demonstrably false - the JSO airport injunction plan is not a plan which identifies the precise boundary of Stansted Airport and the injunction documents makes it clear that it never purports to be such a 'precise boundary plan'.
The parking operator provided JSO injunction plan is, in fact, a plan which identifies land WITHIN the statutory airport area which the airport operator wished to protect from JSO protests - the skeleton argument document, within the JSO Injunction bundle, clearly specifies that the airport operator is only looking to protect land which it either owns and/or controls - in particular, the skeleton argument document specifically mentions that there are '3rd party areas within the airport area which are NOT under their control' - the document specifically clarifies that these '3rd party areas' are deliberately EXCLUDED from the injunction plan.
It is clearly accepted by all parties that the land at Southgate Park is owned by such a 3rd party - this is not disputed.
This means that the land at Southgate Park would NEVER appear on the JSO Injunction Application plan due to its 3rd party ownership - this means that the parking operator is deliberately putting forward a map which can never contain their client's land.
This appears to be an obvious procedural error by the assessor as her comments do not consider all of the evidence which relates to the operators plan.
Procedural Error Three.
Failure to understand the ramifications of land under statutory control.
The assessor makes a number of comments which imply that packets of land changing hands would somehow remove those packets of land from the area under statutory control - these assertions are demonstrably false.
Firstly, the JSO injunction 'skeleton argument' acknowledges that there are 3rd party areas inside the airport area which are not under their control - meaning; that it is clear that there is land, which is owned by a party (other than the airport operator) which is still within the airport area.
This means that the assessor's considerable reliance on the land registry document / government extract / accompanying images is an obvious mistake - none of those documents would have the effect of removing the packet of land at Southgate Park from the airport area under statutory control - the documents simply demonstrate that the land is privately owned - this is not contested - the fact that the land is privately owned does not somehow remove it from the area of statutory control.
In particular, the assessor states that her decision, "is based on the operator's 2011 purchase deed and associated land documentation, which establishes the extent of the relevant land and confirms that Southgate car park falls outside the airport byelaw area and is therefore subject to PoFA 2012." - once again, the sale of the land in 2011 does not 'establish the extent of the of the relevant land' - it simply evidences the fact that an area of land changed owners - the 'airport byelaw area' remains unchanged as the terminal expansion document demonstrates.
Procedural Error Four.
Collective failure to examine all evidence correctly leading to an incorrect assertion of keeper liability under PoFA.
I am the vehicle keeper in this matter and my appeal was based on the fact that no keeper liability can occur at this site.
The assessor asserts that the parking operator has successfully rebutted my assertion.
This is demonstrably false.
When the operator's evidence is examined, one piece at a time, it becomes clear that each piece of evidence is totally irrelevant.
The operator's site plan deliberately excludes 3rd party owned land - meaning Southgate Park will never be on that plan - therefore the plan is completely irrelevant as evidence.
The operator's deeds / land registry documents have no legal bearing on the legal designation of the land in terms of the land being under statutory control - therefore the deeds etc are irrelevant as evidence.
The operators 'accompanying images' are merely zoomed images derived directly, by the parking operator, from the original JSO injunction plan - no amount of 'colouring' / 'shading' / 'highlighting' / 'commentary' will change the fact that Southgate Park is 3rd party land excluded from the JSO plan because it is not owned or controlled by the airport operator - therefore the 'accompanying images' are irrelevant as evidence.
The email, from airport staff, suggesting that byelaws only apply to land owned by the airport is both legally illiterate and demonstrably false - the byelaws apply to the entire area of statutory control - that is EXACTLY what defines the area as being an area under statutory control - the area under statutory control is exactly as set out in the official airport area plan in the Stansted Expansion document - critically, the email does not state that the area at Southgate Park as being outside of the airport area and, as such, not withstanding it's very random nature, the email is irrelevant as evidence.
To summarise.
This, in my opinion, is a particularly poor appeal response - I have carefully examined many other appeals relating to the same location.
Critical evidence from the appellant is deliberately ignored despite it being drawn from a clearly identified official Government document whilst a fairly random one line email from an airport employee is seen as critical even though that email contains a clearly incorrect statement - that clearly needs some explaining - the validity of the email was specifically mentioned in my comments on the operators evidence.
The appellant provided plan is a plan which has been accepted by POPLA on numerous occasions without issue - there is no explanation as to why the assessor suddenly applies such a high evidence threshold to that one piece of evidence when the parking operator evidence is simply taken at face value - this implies that the assessor simply recognised the need to discredit appellant evidence due to its compelling nature.
The assessor then fails to realise that nothing in the operators evidence pack rebuts the appellant's claim that the area is not relevant land for the purposes of PoPLA - even the one line email DOES NOT state that Southgate Park is outside of the airport statutory area.
Given how the email is now being used by the operator, it is not clear (given the casual nature of the email) that the author recognised the apparent importance of their reply - it is clearly arguable that the author might wish to give a more formal and better thought out reply given the apparent importance of that reply.
Whilst I accept the assessor's point regarding 'each appeal being different', appeals relating to PoFA on the same piece of land will be consistent - the designation of the land at Southgate Park does not alter week on week, it remains the same and therefore other appeals are relevant when those appeals hinge of the designation of the land.
Also, as mentioned in my appeal comments; the parking operator could easily establish the precise nature of this land by making an enquiry of the local authority - they would provide a concise plan which the operator could rely on - the fact that they don't do that implies that they realise that obtaining such a document would not benefit their business - the fact that a so called professional parking operator is relying on one line emails and injunction plans demonstrates that MET Parking are not conducting themselves correctly.
The fact that MET Parking submit an airport plan, where the land at Southgate Park is deliberately excluded, is particularly deceptive behaviour.
I await your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
-
Hi
No need to be sorry, you have been very helpful.
I find the email about the coffee date more bizarre and their reliance on it, seems to me the subject is more interested in coffee than answering the question, seems to be added as an after thought.Strange. https://freeimage.host/i/fk0FIlp
I will wait to hear more from the people.
Thanks again for your time and knowledge
Cheers
G
-
Sorry, my bad.
The plan which MET Parking submitted to POPLA is an airport plan used by the airport operator in the Just-Stop-Oil injunction application - within that injunction application is a document which states that the plan ONLY includes land which they control - the document also states that third party land within the airport area is NOT included in the injunction application.
It is accepted by all parties that the land which encompasses Southgate Park is a privately owned site which is not owned by the airport operator - this means that Southgate Park would never be included in the injunction plan.
This means that the plan provided by MET Parking proves nothing since the plan provided specifically EXCLUDES areas like Southgate Park.
I can draw up a formal complaint as there are a number of issues with the assessors response.
In the meantime, I would not worry, I'd be really surprised if they took this to a physical court hearing since all you would have to do is hold them to provide precise evidence which shows the exact boundaries of the statutory area of control - if MET were forced to do this then their operations at Southgate Park would be screwed.
-
Hi Intercity
Im not sure I understand the comment you made my friend, could you expand a little please.
Thanks
G
-
That's an amazing bit of work from POPLA there.
So MET provide an airport plan which Manchester Airport PLC specifically state only contains land that they control - that is bound to mean that Southgate Park is not inside the marked area.
-
Don't lose hope.
The POPLA rejection is entirely predictable and was to be expected.
Others will be along soon to guide you on your journey - if you dig your heels in and follow the advice here then it's 99% certain you won't pay a penny.
To get to the end goal in all of these cases (i.e they discontinue) then you have to jump through some hoops.......think of it as a game :)
-
Hi Guys
Just had an email from popla who have refused my appeal, even Im frowning and thinking how did that fail, I suppose I will be getting a deluge of letters from them now about paying up, which I wont do. Ive read through many other posts and it seems I ignore them and wait for the letter of something or another, I do forget what it is called. Old age Im afraid!
I have put up the decision and the popla persons name.
Your continued advice would be helpful and Id be very grateful
Kind regards
G
https://freeimage.host/i/qqmefcB
https://freeimage.host/i/qqyXUlI
-
Hi Intercity
Thank you so much for this piece of outstanding work, it seems very professional and well thought out, and is a 1000 times better than anything that I would be able to cobble together.
I will send this off this morning and keep you updated on progress.
Thanks again
G
-
The above looks good to me - POPLA used to have a 10,000 character limit for responses, which the above may exceed. If it does, removing paragraph 25, and changing point one to "Many of the assertions made by MET Parking in their submission are false" would get this under 10,000 without losing any meaning.
Good spot.
I have now updated the keeper response document using your suggestions.
I believe that I have included evidence not previously raised in appeals at Southgate Park.
It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
The operator may well pull out but let's hope that POPLA have to examine this.
Hopefully the OP will pick this up in time to add to the POPLA appeal.
-
The above looks good to me - POPLA used to have a 10,000 character limit for responses, which the above may exceed. If it does, removing paragraph 25, and changing point one to "Many of the assertions made by MET Parking in their submission are false" would get this under 10,000 without losing any meaning.
-
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.
-
No problem. Give me 24 / 48 hours.
-
Thanks for looking at this intercity and i appreciate your time and the other other guys.
If you could provide a defense for popla that would be outstanding, i have a few days left
-
Everything uploaded fine.
Everything is pretty much as expected and MET Parking continue to struggle with the fact that the ownership of the land has no bearing on the fact that the land is still under statutory control.
I can tweak the Keeper comments to cover slight changes in their re-hashed arguments plus the extra email which suggests that statutory control is only limited to areas owned by the airport - this email;
https://freeimage.host/i/starbucks-4.fk0FIlp
The contents of this email are incorrect - land under statutory is by definition land covered by by-laws - that is the definition of statutory control and ownership of the land is irrelevant.
-
Good Morning Guys
Sorry for the late reply, work got in the way.
Thanks for spending your valuable time on this for me.
I have uploaded what I think may be useful rather than all of what MET replied to the POPLA appeal.
I have tried to put it into some semblance of order, but computer skills are not my forte, so bear with me.
https://freeimage.host/i/fk09Il1
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0FIlp
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0f4Va
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0q1qJ
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0BNyB
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0CyWF
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0nm74
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0xAtS
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0zGgs
https://freeimage.host/i/fk0IW6F
Thanks in advance for some guidance and patience
G
-
Framework for comments on MET Parking evidence at POPLA...
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 and totally unsupported by any relevant evidence.
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.
3. The plan submitted by the vehicle keeper is a plan obtained from an official Government website relating to the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport and was used in the planning application dated 7th August 2023.
4. The assertion that this plan is 'outdated' and 'superseded' (when land was sold in 2011) is therefore completely untrue and demonstratable false.
5. By comparison, the parking operators plan is totally irrelevant and their own narrative defeats the legal argument on which they are seemingly reliant - the parking operator openly admits that their submitted plan is one which was one used by Manchester Airport PLC (Stansted's owners) when they sought an injunction against Just-Stop-Oil on 3rd July 2024 - the plan used by Manchester Airport PLC simply encompasses the land which is under their control.
6. By MET Parking's own admission, Southgate Park is not owned by Manchester Airport PLC but by some other independent entity and as such Manchester Airport PLC did not include the packet of land at Southgate Park in their court injunction application since it was not their land.
7. The owner of the land is irrelevant when determining whether that particular area of land is subject to statutory control - it does not matter how many times a particular area of land changes hand, that area of land remains under statutory control regardless.
8. Areas of statutory control are determined by central government and not airport owners or others who may own packets of land within the designated statutory area.
9. By-laws apply to all areas of the designated statutory area regardless.
10. The extract from the title deeds is of no relevance as the sale 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.
11. 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.
12. The plan summitted by MET Parking never 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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 follow the Code of Conduct.
16. 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.
17. I would further draw your attention to the outcome of POPLA case 3862825089 which appears to hinge on similar factors.
-
@Gooner063 - you may want to refer to that POPLA assessment in your case. POPLA decisions are not binding, so the assessor in your case is not obliged to reach the same decision, but there is little harm drawing their attention to it. The relevant reference number is 3862825089.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/notice-to-keeper-met-stansted-southgate-carpark/msg102996/#msg102996
My last post in this thread is the tabulated version of the POPLA appeal - I know it would come in handy!
The interesting comments from the assessor are... "While the parking operator has provided a Parking Enforcement Agreement from Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (Tabacon).
The agreement sets out that Met Parking is permitted to manage parking on the land and that the land is relevant land for the purpose of POFA 2012.
However, I don’t consider Tabacon’s unqualified statement that the land is relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012 to hold any significant weight in what a complex land boundary dispute."
-
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
I'm not sure we've seen this "Correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the possession of the airport" before (or if I have I've forgotten). I don't think it kills the argument, I'm just curious to see it.
Yes. I'm curious as well. But I'll guarantee that it's probably just a statement on a document which carries no weight - we had similar on another recent Stansted POPLA appeal which was upheld.
-
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
I'm not sure we've seen this "Correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the possession of the airport" before (or if I have I've forgotten). I don't think it kills the argument, I'm just curious to see it.
-
The link which they include is NOT a link to the Stansted Airport website. - instead it links to documents pertaining to the Just Stop Oil court case.
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
Their argument remains legally wrong - we accept that the freehold may have changed hands several times but that does not change the designation of land - the land remains land under statutory control which means that bylaws exist and that are technically in force.
The area shown on the Just Stop Oil map is simply the area that Manchester Airport PLC control - the map never to pretends to be a map which shows the entire area under statutory control.
-
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.
Can you please show us this bit?
-
Hi Guys
Happy New Year to you all.
So I received MET reply to the the popla appeal and ive cut and pasted it here, there is also an attachment with an enormous amount of of there evidence, do you need all of this as well.
Regards
G
In the appeal to POPLA Mrs xxxxxx states that the land in question is not “relevant land” and therefore we have no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper. Firstly, we will turn to the breach of the terms and conditions itself. In this instance, the driver was not entitled to the free parking period as the store was closed and they were therefore not a Starbucks customer. 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. This would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter as only Starbucks customers are permitted to park for free, which the driver was not as the store was closed. As such, the appellant was not entitled to the further reduction when their appeal was declined. 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 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. 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 there is a 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers and tariffs apply thereafter. Please note: as the parking event occurred while the on-site business was closed, there is no free stay. Should the driver have wished to use the car park while the business is closed, they should have paid the appropriate tariff. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park without payment having been made. 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.
-
The POPLA appeal I provided in the thread linked to by @jfollows is everything you need for your own. Use it.
-
I am the Keeper of the car and the driver at the time has expressly denied me the permission to use their name, which I agree with.
You're getting good advice and if you follow it you won't pay a penny, but just for anyone else reading this thread, you don't need permission from the driver to name them.
(in legal terms, obviously. If (for example) you're married to them and they say 'name me and i'll divorce you' that's a different story)
But if you've fallen out with the driver and want to throw them under the bus, then you can name them to the company without their permission.
-
If you haven’t already done so, see https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/notice-to-keeper-met-stansted-southgate-carpark/ in which POPLA recently allowed a similar appeal.
A different assessor may conclude the opposite, such is the POPLA lottery that decisions can’t be appealed and don’t set a precedent, but I’m sure your appeal will make reference to this decision anyway.
-
https://freeimage.host/i/fl33qpp
https://freeimage.host/i/flFmWKv
https://freeimage.host/i/flK9hUx
https://freeimage.host/i/flKJBjI
Hi Guys
As expected the appeal was refused and they decided to waste more time and money.
I have been issued the popla code and would ask kindly for some help with that please.
I have become addicted to reading about other cases on this site, so have a fair amount of knowledge as how to proceed, if you guys are busy.
Thanks again for your help and providing a great site to read, and some of your comments do make me laugh, you sound like the type of people id gladly have a pint with.
Cheers
G
-
Thanks for the continued advise guys
G
-
I'd email the following response to them:
Subject: PCN [XXXXXXXX] – Kindly Escalate to a Responsible Adult
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper.
Your latest correspondence would benefit from being reviewed by a responsible adult within your organisation who is capable of comprehending a simple geographical and legal fact.
The location you describe as “Southgate Park (Starbucks)” is within the Stansted Airport boundary and is subject to Stansted Airport byelaws. As such, it is not relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is not a matter of opinion, nor is it altered by creative wording on your paperwork.
Your continued insistence that PoFA applies is therefore demonstrably false and constitutes a clear breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, namely making misleading statements about keeper liability where no such liability exists. That breach also places you in breach of your KADOE contract. This misuse of keeper data is being reported to the DVLA irrespective of whether you choose to persist with this fiction.
Your apparent belief that leasing arrangements involving Tabacon 2 Stansted Ltd somehow revoke statutory control is legally illiterate. A private lease does not extinguish byelaws. Statutory control remains exactly that: statutory.
You are fully aware that land governed by airport byelaws cannot engage keeper liability under PoFA. You are also fully aware that your parking charge is not a byelaws penalty, does not go to the public purse, and is instead a speculative invoice based on an alleged contract with an unidentified driver only.
The driver will not be identified.
If you decline to cancel this charge now, you are invited to waste further time and money by issuing a POPLA code so that this matter can be disposed of decisively. The evidence held by the Keeper — including definitive boundary mapping — will not change, and the outcome will not change.
This is your opportunity to end a process that is already fatally flawed.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
-
No point, it won’t make a difference.
MET know all about this, but all they want is your credit card number, so they simply ignore the inconvenient facts.
If you do decide to contact them, be very sure not to identify the driver in any way. I wouldn’t bother.
For now, simply appeal with the following, only as the Keeper and come back for the POPLA appeal once they reject that:
You’ll get a POPLA code in due course.
-
Good Morning guys
Ive had a speedy reply from MET.
Im unsure how to reply to this and don't want to mess things up.
My guess is forwarding the map to them, that shows it is actually on airport property.
What would you advise please
Thanks
G
https://freeimage.host/i/fYvuaGp
https://freeimage.host/i/fYvJmBf
-
Thank you I have used their portal for the appeal and used your wording as advised, and thanks for the map, this one is very clear, the others I have looked at have been blurred.
G
-
You don/\'t use post for anything if you can help it. Use email or, for an appeal, you can use their portal if necessary.
After the appeal rejection, you cause these maps in your POPLA appeal to show that the location is within the Stansted Airport byelaws boundary.
(https://i.ibb.co/mFCyCync/STN-boundary-map.png)
-
Thank you so much guys, would you say its best to do the appeal by post or email, I'm keen to give them as little information as possible. B789 thanks for taking the time to explain this to me and the links posted by Mustek were very informative.
-
There is no Keeper liability if the driver is not identified for the reason given above. Whilst you, as the named recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) cannot be liable for the charge if the driver is not identified and you have even stated categorically that you were not the driver anyway, you will have to go through the appeals process or initial appeal, rejection, POPLA appeal, possible success. Anything beyond that we will cross that bridge if we ever come to it.
The simple fact is that MET have issued you a speculative invoice for an alleged brach of contract by the driver who is unknown to them. There is no legal obligation on you, the Keeper, to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. Because the location is within the official Stansted Airport boundary, it is land that is covered by airport byelaws and therefore no "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA 2012, which means that the Keeper cannot be liable for the charge if the driver is not identified.
For now, simply appeal with the following, only as the Keeper and come back for the POPLA appeal once they reject that:
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.
-
Hi Mustek
Thanks for the very prompt reply and any help would be nice.
As requested here is the rear of the charge notice.
https://freeimage.host/i/fRbNy22
Thanks again
G
-
You won't be paying a thing as this is within the Stansted Airport Byelaws, so they can't hold the keeper liable as long as you don't give away who the driver is.
Could you post the back of the PCN as well.
Here's similar posts on this location:
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/30/
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-airport-met-southgate-park-starbucks/
-
Hi
This has been asked many times im sure but I am not great on a computer and found the existing information about these MET people quite confusing.
I am the Keeper of the car and the driver at the time has expressly denied me the permission to use their name, which I agree with.
The driver mistakenly drove into the starbucks site in the middle of the night for 11 minutes, it took the driver this long to go to the signage and read it and come back to the vehicle and drive out, it was past midnight and as you can see by the the photos very dark. How on earth are you meant to accept terms whilst driving past a sign, which were barely visible anyway.
https://freeimage.host/i/fRDKVAQ
Would someone be kind enough to put in laymans terms what I am to do next please.
Im happy to cut and paste and alter things so my details can be put in the appeal.
I am a 66 year old pensioner who cant afford this charge for nothing, starbucks was closed anyway so we drove off.
Kind regards