Author Topic: Stansted starbucks  (Read 617 times)

0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #15 on: »
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 We are also aware that they have submitted an outdated plan that remains available on the internet which they are seeking to rely on to support their argument. The plan submitted, however, was superseded and replaced when the airport sold the land in 2011.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.

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #16 on: »
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?

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #17 on: »
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.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2026, 08:52:44 am by InterCity125 »

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #18 on: »
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.

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #19 on: »
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.

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #20 on: »
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."
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #21 on: »
@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.

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #22 on: »
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.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2026, 05:53:23 pm by InterCity125 »

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #23 on: »
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

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #24 on: »
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.



Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #25 on: »
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

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #26 on: »
No problem. Give me 24 / 48 hours.
Like Like x 1 View List