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 The assertion that this plan is 'outdated' and 'superseded' (when a packet of land was sold in 2011) is therefore completely untrue and demonstrably false.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.
