I have heard back from POPLA with MET's comments which are as follows:
In the appeal to POPLA Mrs X. raises the following grounds for appeal: • No keeper liability As we have not been provided with the name and address of the driver of the vehicle, we are pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please see our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our evidence pack. We note Mrs X’s comments, however, the Byelaws apply to areas where the road traffic enactments do not apply. Specifically in relation to parking they state ‘no person shall leave any cargo or baggage or park any vehicle or equipment elsewhere than in a place provided by the airport company for the accommodation of such cargo or baggage or the parking of such vehicle or equipment.’ These byelaws can be read at:
https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf We are confident that there are no applicable airport Byelaws relating to parking in effect at this location, and would point out that only statutory control relating to the parking of a vehicle is relevant in relation to PoFA. Byelaws that do not relate to parking are not relevant under schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. An area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area. • Failure to address appeal points There was no such point made in her initial appeal and as such we were not able to address it. • No evidence of clear/prominent signs We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. At no point has Mrs X claimed that the driver of the vehicle was a customer of the restaurant, nor has she provided any evidence to prove that they were. As such, this would not qualify under Section F.3(g) of the Appeals Charter. 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 the car park is for the use of Southgate Park customers only and that to receive the 60-minute maximum free stay for customers, drivers must enter their vehicle registration on arrival. Visitors that are not Starbucks customers may pay to park for 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.
Please can you advise me of my next steps? Many thanks
Show Posts