3. Stansted starbucks
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Stansted starbucks  (Read 3205 times)

0 Members and 54 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #30 on: »
Hi Intercity
Thank you so much for this piece of outstanding work, it seems very professional and well thought out, and is a 1000 times better than anything that I would be able to cobble together.
I will send this off this morning and keep you updated on progress.
Thanks again
G
Logged
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #31 on: »
Hi Guys
Just had an email from popla who have refused my appeal, even Im frowning and thinking how did that fail, I suppose I will be getting a deluge of letters from them now about paying up, which I wont do. Ive read through many other posts and it seems I ignore them and wait for the letter of something or another, I do forget what it is called. Old age Im afraid!
I have put up the decision and the popla persons name.
Your continued advice would be helpful and Id be very grateful
Kind regards
G
https://freeimage.host/i/qqmefcB
https://freeimage.host/i/qqyXUlI
Logged
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #32 on: »
Don't lose hope.

The POPLA rejection is entirely predictable and was to be expected.

Others will be along soon to guide you on your journey - if you dig your heels in and follow the advice here then it's 99% certain you won't pay a penny.

To get to the end goal in all of these cases (i.e they discontinue) then you have to jump through some hoops.......think of it as a game  :)
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #33 on: »
That's an amazing bit of work from POPLA there.

So MET provide an airport plan which Manchester Airport PLC specifically state only contains land that they control - that is bound to mean that Southgate Park is not inside the marked area.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #34 on: »
Hi Intercity

Im not sure I understand the comment you made my friend, could you expand a little please.
Thanks
G
Logged
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #35 on: »
Sorry, my bad.


The plan which MET Parking submitted to POPLA is an airport plan used by the airport operator in the Just-Stop-Oil injunction application - within that injunction application is a document which states that the plan ONLY includes land which they control - the document also states that third party land within the airport area is NOT included in the injunction application.

It is accepted by all parties that the land which encompasses Southgate Park is a privately owned site which is not owned by the airport operator - this means that Southgate Park would never be included in the injunction plan.

This means that the plan provided by MET Parking proves nothing since the plan provided specifically EXCLUDES areas like Southgate Park.


I can draw up a formal complaint as there are a number of issues with the assessors response.


In the meantime, I would not worry, I'd be really surprised if they took this to a physical court hearing since all you would have to do is hold them to provide precise evidence which shows the exact boundaries of the statutory area of control - if MET were forced to do this then their operations at Southgate Park would be screwed.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #36 on: »
Hi
No need to be sorry, you have been very helpful.
I find the email about the  coffee date more bizarre and their reliance on it, seems to me the subject is more interested in coffee than answering the question, seems to be added as an after thought.Strange. https://freeimage.host/i/fk0FIlp
I will wait to hear more from the people.
Thanks again for your time and knowledge
Cheers
G
Logged
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #37 on: »
POPLA Complaint - Multiple procedural errors.


Assessor Name - Natalie Matthews

POPLA Appeal Code -





Dear Lead Assessor,


Background.

I have recently received a POPLA appeal response from your colleague, Natalie Matthews.

Unfortunately, the appeal assessment demonstrates several procedural errors which ultimately lead to the assessor deeming that I am liable (for a parking charge) as a vehicle keeper - the location  is a location where keeper liability cannot occur due to the location being within an airport area which is subject to statutory control.

The location is Southgate Park, Stansted airport.

I am aware that this specific location has given POPLA a number of problems over the years.


Procedural Error One.

The assessor clearly applies different evidence thresholds to each party.

In my appeal, I included a Stansted Airport site map which clearly illustrates the exact boundaries of the overall airport area under statutory control - this map was taken from the Stansted Terminal Extension document located on a Government website and is both easy to find and open for anyone to view. It is also available directly from the Stansted Airport website.

As you will be aware, areas under statutory control are not regarded as areas of 'relevant land' under the requirements of PoFA.

In her assessment, the assessor states the following (when describing my provided airport site plan), "While I have considered this image, it is not clearly labelled, its source is not independently verified, and it is undated. Although it is asserted that the document originates from a government website and is dated 7 August 2023, no supporting evidence has been provided to substantiate either the provenance or the date."

This comment sets a very high bar in terms of evidence threshold for an independent parking appeal.

However, the assessor moves on and states the following, "By contract, the operator has produced documentary evidence identifying the precise boundary of London Stansted Airport"

The operators plan is in fact a copy and paste taken from an external document and presented and used in exactly the same way as my plan - however, the assessor never applies the same evidence threshold test to the operators document in the way that she applied it to my submitted plan - the operators plan is also not clearly labelled (apart from labels which they have added), its source is not independently verified, and it is also undated.

This gives an outward appearance of an assessor who is looking to discredit my evidence due to its compelling nature - by comparison, the operators evidence is taken, unchallenged, at face value - this is a clear procedural error on the part of the assessor.

The assessor could easily check the providence if she wished to - a simple internet search reveals the document.

This is the weblink to the Government website;

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/section-62a-planning-application-s62a20230022-london-stansted-airport-bassingbourn-road-stansted-cm24-1qw

This is the link to the document containing the current airport site plan;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65097f3b22a783001343e86c/Stansted_Airport_Heritage_Statement_FINAL.pdf

The existing site plan is on page 65 and this document was compiled in September 2023.

Obviously this document demonstrates that the assessors conclusion is incorrect - the land at Southgate Park is clearly inside the Airport Area.


Procedural Error Two.

In her appeal response, the assessor writes the following, "the operator has produced documentary evidence identifying the precise boundary of London Stansted Airport" - this comment is made in respect of the Just-Stop-Oil (JSO) Court Injunction airport plan which was being put forward by the parking operator in an attempt to demonstrate the entire airport area.

The assessor's comments are demonstrably false - the JSO airport injunction plan is not a plan which identifies the precise boundary of Stansted Airport and the injunction documents makes it clear that it never purports to be such a 'precise boundary plan'.

The parking operator provided JSO injunction plan is, in fact, a plan which identifies land WITHIN the statutory airport area which the airport operator wished to protect from JSO protests - the skeleton argument document, within the JSO Injunction bundle, clearly specifies that the airport operator is only looking to protect land which it either owns and/or controls - in particular, the skeleton argument document specifically mentions that there are '3rd party areas within the airport area which are NOT under their control' - the document specifically clarifies that these '3rd party areas' are deliberately EXCLUDED from the injunction plan.

It is clearly accepted by all parties that the land at Southgate Park is owned by such a 3rd party - this is not disputed.

This means that the land at Southgate Park would NEVER appear on the JSO Injunction Application plan due to its 3rd party ownership - this means that the parking operator is deliberately putting forward a map which can never contain their client's land.

This appears to be an obvious procedural error by the assessor as her comments do not consider all of the evidence which relates to the operators plan.


Procedural Error Three.

Failure to understand the ramifications of land under statutory control.

The assessor makes a number of comments which imply that packets of land changing hands would somehow remove those packets of land from the area under statutory control - these assertions are demonstrably false.

Firstly, the JSO injunction 'skeleton argument' acknowledges that there are 3rd party areas inside the airport area which are not under their control - meaning; that it is clear that there is land, which is owned by a party (other than the airport operator) which is still within the airport area.

This means that the assessor's considerable reliance on the land registry document / government extract / accompanying images is an obvious mistake - none of those documents would have the effect of removing the packet of land at Southgate Park from the airport area under statutory control - the documents simply demonstrate that the land is privately owned - this is not contested - the fact that the land is privately owned does not somehow remove it from the area of statutory control.

In particular, the assessor states that her decision, "is based on the operator's 2011 purchase deed and associated land documentation, which establishes the extent of the relevant land and confirms that Southgate car park falls outside the airport byelaw area and is therefore subject to PoFA 2012." - once again, the sale of the land in 2011 does not 'establish the extent of the of the relevant land' - it simply evidences the fact that an area of land changed owners - the 'airport byelaw area' remains unchanged as the terminal expansion document demonstrates.


Procedural Error Four.

Collective failure to examine all evidence correctly leading to an incorrect assertion of keeper liability under PoFA.

I am the vehicle keeper in this matter and my appeal was based on the fact that no keeper liability can occur at this site.

The assessor asserts that the parking operator has successfully rebutted my assertion.

This is demonstrably false.

When the operator's evidence is examined, one piece at a time, it becomes clear that each piece of evidence is totally irrelevant.

The operator's site plan deliberately excludes 3rd party owned land - meaning Southgate Park will never be on that plan - therefore the plan is completely irrelevant as evidence.

The operator's deeds / land registry documents have no legal bearing on the legal designation of the land in terms of the land being under statutory control - therefore the deeds etc are irrelevant as evidence.

The operators 'accompanying images' are merely zoomed images derived directly, by the parking operator, from the original JSO injunction plan - no amount of 'colouring' / 'shading' / 'highlighting' / 'commentary' will change the fact that Southgate Park is 3rd party land excluded from the JSO plan because it is not owned or controlled by the airport operator - therefore the 'accompanying images' are irrelevant as evidence.

The email, from airport staff, suggesting that byelaws only apply to land owned by the airport is both legally illiterate and demonstrably false - the byelaws apply to the entire area of statutory control - that is EXACTLY what defines the area as being an area under statutory control - the area under statutory control is exactly as set out in the official airport area plan in the Stansted Expansion document - critically, the email does not state that the area at Southgate Park as being outside of the airport area and, as such, not withstanding it's very random nature, the email is irrelevant as evidence.


To summarise.

This, in my opinion, is a particularly poor appeal response - I have carefully examined many other appeals relating to the same location.

Critical evidence from the appellant is deliberately ignored despite it being drawn from a clearly identified official Government document whilst a fairly random one line email from an airport employee is seen as critical even though that email contains a clearly incorrect statement - that clearly needs some explaining - the validity of the email was specifically mentioned in my comments on the operators evidence.

The appellant provided plan is a plan which has been accepted by POPLA on numerous occasions without issue - there is no explanation as to why the assessor suddenly applies such a high evidence threshold to that one piece of evidence when the parking operator evidence is simply taken at face value - this implies that the assessor simply recognised the need to discredit appellant evidence due to its compelling nature.

The assessor then fails to realise that nothing in the operators evidence pack rebuts the appellant's claim that the area is not relevant land for the purposes of PoPLA - even the one line email DOES NOT state that Southgate Park is outside of the airport statutory area.

Given how the email is now being used by the operator, it is not clear (given the casual nature of the email) that the author recognised the apparent importance of their reply - it is clearly arguable that the author might wish to give a more formal and better thought out reply given the apparent importance of that reply.

Whilst I accept the assessor's point regarding 'each appeal being different', appeals relating to PoFA on the same piece of land will be consistent - the designation of the land at Southgate Park does not alter week on week, it remains the same and therefore other appeals are relevant when those appeals hinge of the designation of the land.

Also, as mentioned in my appeal comments; the parking operator could easily establish the precise nature of this land by making an enquiry of the local authority - they would provide a concise plan which the operator could rely on - the fact that they don't do that implies that they realise that obtaining such a document would not benefit their business - the fact that a so called professional parking operator is relying on one line emails and injunction plans demonstrates that MET Parking are not conducting themselves correctly.

The fact that MET Parking submit an airport plan, where the land at Southgate Park is deliberately excluded, is particularly deceptive behaviour.



I await your considered response.


Best wishes,


xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx


« Last Edit: March 04, 2026, 08:07:10 am by InterCity125 »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Stansted starbucks
« Reply #38 on: »
Intercity that is an amazing piece of work my friend, that must have taken so much of your precious time to do, I am already indebted to you and the other guys on the forum.
This forum im addicted to, I read all the posts whether i understand them or not.
Thanks again and i will now email this over to them.
You have a great day, some good karma is coming your way.
Cheers
G
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »
  3. Stansted starbucks