POPLA Decisions

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

MET Stansted POPLA Outcome

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6609808/met-parking-stansted#latest 

Case reference

3860695079

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Kevin Woodall

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below.

• They advise they are the keeper but say they were not the driver on the 7th February 2025.

They say there is no legal obligation for them to identify the driver and the 28 day warning they have been given purports to make them liable as though the provisions of POFA apply to them.

They say the notice to keeper has no express reference to POFA.

 • They state this is misleading as it is legally incorrect as the McDonald’s site at Southgate Road Stanstead is within the airport boundary and as such cannot be held to be 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

 • They say the land is subject to the Stansted-London byelaws which came into effect in December 1996.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs state “…60 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY…”

The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images to demonstrate when the vehicle entered and left the site.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver.

In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.

They have advised the land is subject to byelaws. I must advise this is not a byelaws case. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued.

In this case, the operator has provided evidence which shows the contract started with the landowner on 31 August 2010 for 12 months and continued after this date and would terminate if 12 weeks’ notice in writing had been provided.

I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements of section 14 and a contract to enforce PCN’s was in place the date the appellant parked. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the vehicle remained on site longer than the maximum stay, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

 

Umkomaas

No Code of Practice can override the law. Plenty of other successful POPLA appeal decisions for this site confirm that. Complaint to Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher in order.

No paying this @AnotherDayAnotherDestiny!

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

No Code of Practice can override the law. Plenty of other successful POPLA appeal decisions for this site confirm that. Complaint to Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher in order.

No paying this @AnotherDayAnotherDestiny!

Yep. The Assessor was wrong about this:

They state this is misleading as it is legally incorrect as the McDonald’s site at Southgate Road Stanstead is within the airport boundary and as such cannot be held to be 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

Thanks both, I will email John Gallagher once I find his email address. I'll check out what others have emailed him as well.

Coupon-mad

It's complaints@

doubledotcom

It won't change the decision but it does leave a paper trail and they are required to respond. Yet more evidence of the substandard intellectual capabilities of POPLAs assessors.

Did the operator provide a copy of the contract in their evidence pack, the one where the selection for "PoFA" liability is not ticked?

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

doubledotcom said:

It won't change the decision but it does leave a paper trail and they are required to respond. Yet more evidence of the substandard intellectual capabilities of POPLAs assessors.

Did the operator provide a copy of the contract in their evidence pack, the one where the selection for "PoFA" liability is not ticked?

The evidence pack is no longer available for me to view but I can't recall seeing a copy of the contract when I looked previously - I didn't download it.

Coupon-mad

When you complain also ask for an emailed copy of the evidence pack because POPLA's error has condemned you to being sued then withheld access to the exact data you need.

There is already a POPLA complaint written for this exact error in Airport/not relevant land cases and it is on a MET thread somewhere.

AnotherDayAnotherDestiny

Coupon-mad said:

When you complain also ask for an emailed copy of the evidence pack because POPLA's error has condemned you to being sued then withheld access to the exact data you need.

There is already a POPLA complaint written for this exact error in Airport/not relevant land cases and it is on a MET thread somewhere.

Great, thanks Coupon-mad.
Is it worth copying in Andrew Pester of BPA - I saw previous threads where Steve Clark had been copied but I'm not sure if he is at BPA anymore.
And should I update this thread or move my updates to my original thread at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6609808/met-parking-stansted#latest 

Coupon-mad

No there is no point copying the BPA into a POPLA complaint.

You do need to reply only on your thread, as this one isn't meant for ingoing discussion.