-
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 We are also aware that they have submitted an outdated plan that remains available on the internet which they are seeking to rely on to support their argument. The plan submitted, however, was superseded and replaced when the airport sold the land in 2011.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. -
-
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? -
-
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. -
-
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. -
-
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.
-
-
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." -
-
@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.
-
-
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. -
-
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 -
-
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.
-
-
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
-
-
No problem. Give me 24 / 48 hours.
-
-
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. -
-
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.
-
-
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. -
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1
Like x 1
View List