Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Notice to keeper - MET Stansted Southgate Carpark
« on: December 17, 2025, 11:54:15 pm »
The appeal with POPLA was successful! Took more around 3 months since submitting a POPLA appeal. In my case, providing the airport boundary map was considered as convincing evidence.
Thanks a lot for the advice! If there’s a charity/NGO account, I’ll be more than happy to support.
As per b789’s replies, best is to basically copy the steps previously mentioned.
POPLA summary below:
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for remaining on site longer than the period of parking that has been paid for without authorisation. The appellant appeals on the grounds that Southgate Park falls under Stansted Airport Byelaws and is therefore under statutory control and not relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4. They say the parking operator cannot therefore rely on PoFA 2012, so the Keeper is not liable. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. It is not disputed that the parking operator can only hold the registered keeper responsible if the land is relevant land, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In this case, we have competing evidence of two maps of Stansted Airport, each with different boundaries. On the map provided by the appellant, the parking operator's car park is within the airport boundary, which would mean it is not relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012 due to Byelaws that cover the airport grounds, including for the provision of parking. On the map provided by the parking operator, the car park is outside of the airport boundary, which would mean it is relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012. I have considered each map to determine which I consider most like to be accurate. I believe the appellant's map is taken from a London Stansted Airport Terminal Extension Design and Access statement, published in 2023: Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf. The purpose of the publication of this map was to establish the boundaries of the airport for the purposes of a terminal extension programme. As the map was published by the airport, it is reasonable to believe its legitimacy and accuracy. Further, the proposed terminal extension was for works well within the boundary of the airport and would not impact the disputed area in question. Turning now to the parking operator's map, this is taken from a High Court Injunction Hearing into Just Stop Oil being denied access to several airports including Stansted, in 2024. stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf. Stansted airport was one the claimants and put forward documents for consideration along with the other claimants. That bundle includes title deeds from the claimants, from which it looks like the map of Stansted airport shown in the court order has been pulled together. The purpose of this map was to establish the boundaries of the airport to ban activities by Just Stop Oil within those boundaries. In both instances, the maps appear to be submitted by Stansted Airport – giving them equal legitimacy. Both in favour and against the operator’s map is that it has been pieced together from property deeds. One would think that this would back up the legitimacy of the map – but given the purpose – to define the land on which Stansted Airport wanted to stop Just Stop Oil Activities, it is unclear whether property deeds for the full site were submitted. Indeed, on one of the maps within the evidence bundle (page 59), the boundary of the site map is labelled “injunction”, indicating it is the boundary to which the injunction applies, which might not necessarily be the boundary of the whole airport. 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. On the available evidence I consider the appellant’s map of the airport being more reliable that the map provided as part of the Just Stop Oil injunction hearing. It is for the operator to rebut the grounds of appeal beyond a standard or proof of balance of probability. I am not satisfied that it has done so here. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
Thanks a lot for the advice! If there’s a charity/NGO account, I’ll be more than happy to support.
As per b789’s replies, best is to basically copy the steps previously mentioned.
POPLA summary below:
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for remaining on site longer than the period of parking that has been paid for without authorisation. The appellant appeals on the grounds that Southgate Park falls under Stansted Airport Byelaws and is therefore under statutory control and not relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4. They say the parking operator cannot therefore rely on PoFA 2012, so the Keeper is not liable. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. It is not disputed that the parking operator can only hold the registered keeper responsible if the land is relevant land, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In this case, we have competing evidence of two maps of Stansted Airport, each with different boundaries. On the map provided by the appellant, the parking operator's car park is within the airport boundary, which would mean it is not relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012 due to Byelaws that cover the airport grounds, including for the provision of parking. On the map provided by the parking operator, the car park is outside of the airport boundary, which would mean it is relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012. I have considered each map to determine which I consider most like to be accurate. I believe the appellant's map is taken from a London Stansted Airport Terminal Extension Design and Access statement, published in 2023: Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf. The purpose of the publication of this map was to establish the boundaries of the airport for the purposes of a terminal extension programme. As the map was published by the airport, it is reasonable to believe its legitimacy and accuracy. Further, the proposed terminal extension was for works well within the boundary of the airport and would not impact the disputed area in question. Turning now to the parking operator's map, this is taken from a High Court Injunction Hearing into Just Stop Oil being denied access to several airports including Stansted, in 2024. stn-injunction-stansted-airport-court-order.pdf. Stansted airport was one the claimants and put forward documents for consideration along with the other claimants. That bundle includes title deeds from the claimants, from which it looks like the map of Stansted airport shown in the court order has been pulled together. The purpose of this map was to establish the boundaries of the airport to ban activities by Just Stop Oil within those boundaries. In both instances, the maps appear to be submitted by Stansted Airport – giving them equal legitimacy. Both in favour and against the operator’s map is that it has been pieced together from property deeds. One would think that this would back up the legitimacy of the map – but given the purpose – to define the land on which Stansted Airport wanted to stop Just Stop Oil Activities, it is unclear whether property deeds for the full site were submitted. Indeed, on one of the maps within the evidence bundle (page 59), the boundary of the site map is labelled “injunction”, indicating it is the boundary to which the injunction applies, which might not necessarily be the boundary of the whole airport. 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. On the available evidence I consider the appellant’s map of the airport being more reliable that the map provided as part of the Just Stop Oil injunction hearing. It is for the operator to rebut the grounds of appeal beyond a standard or proof of balance of probability. I am not satisfied that it has done so here. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.