Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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!