Mcdonalds Gatwick, MET parking NTK's

Jughead_2024

So MET have replied to POPLA with their evidence.

At first glance it aeems almost identical to what roknrolla has had on 6th September. Will check it over to compare.

I already submitted a map copy of the sites location within the airport boundary when I appealed to POPLA so not sure if I need to comment to POPLA or not. I could just to re-affirm the point.

Thoughts and advice please if you would be so kind gals and guys.

Coupon-mad

Reiterate your main points briefly.

Jughead_2024

Coupon-mad said:

Reiterate your main points briefly.

1.Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability

2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3.Unclear signage

4.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

Met have responded with:

In the appeal to POPLA ............ states that they were customers of the restaurant at the time and that they overstay occurred as the restaurant was busy and they had to wait for their order. She adds that we cannot legally issue tickets here as the restaurant is situated on airport land. Whilst we note ........... comments, we are confident that the location is considered relevant land as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. It does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 3.1, and it is not subject to statutory control as defined in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4. An area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area. We would also point out that the new Single Code of Practice for the BPA and the IPC does not come into effect until 1 October and therefore is not relevant in this case. We are confident that there are sufficient signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. A motorist does not have to have read the terms and conditions of parking to enter into a parking contract, there is only the requirement that the parking operator affords them the opportunity to do so. As stated, we are confident that there is sufficient signage at the site in order to afford motorists the chance to read the terms and conditions that are in place. Upon entry to the site, it is the motorist’s obligation to seek out any terms and conditions that may be in place before choosing to park or remain on site. The terms and conditions apply to all users of the site, including paying customers, and time constraints have been put in place to maximise the spaces available. Should a motorist find they need more time, they should approach a manager during their visit and seek authorisation. We confirm we have had no correspondence from our client regarding this vehicle or this parking charge. Regarding the amount of the charge, we refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis which may be found at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf. This ruling revolved around a charge of similar size and nature and the judges ruled that the charge need not represent the loss suffered, was not excessive or unconscionable, did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and was enforceable. The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that parking is for McDonald’s customers only and there is a maximum permitted stay of 60 minutes. Please note that these terms and conditions apply to all users of the car park, which naturally includes customers of the restaurant. As the photographic evidence provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. In light of this we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

They have also uploaded pictures of the signs at the location and an extract from their contract with mcdonalds.

Jughead_2024

There are 2 NTK's as there were two cars and I am helping with both appeals.

Having compared the PDF's they have submitted, they have quoted the same vehicle reg in both! It appears to be a copy and paste job where they have changed the name but forgot to change the reg at the beggining of the document for 1 of the cases.

Coupon-mad

Jughead_2024 said:

There are 2 NTK's as there were two cars and I am helping with both appeals.

Having compared the PDF's they have submitted, they have quoted the same vehicle reg in both! It appears to be a copy and paste job where they have changed the name but forgot to change the reg at the beggining of the document for 1 of the cases.

Point it out by telling the Assessor to look at both this and the other POPLA ref xxxxxxx

Jughead_2024

Coupon-mad said:

Jughead_2024 said:

There are 2 NTK's as there were two cars and I am helping with both appeals.

Having compared the PDF's they have submitted, they have quoted the same vehicle reg in both! It appears to be a copy and paste job where they have changed the name but forgot to change the reg at the beggining of the document for 1 of the cases.

Point it out by telling the Assessor to look at both this and the other POPLA ref xxxxxxx

Indeed.

Do I need to add anything else though?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Email a map if you haven't already, to prove that this parcel of land IS within the Airport byelaws. Like Roknrolla did:


Dear POPLA team,

I am writing in response to the operator's (MET Parking Services) "evidence pack" in regards to this case.

I was unable to access the portal over the weekend, so I am emailing my comments to you. There is an important point of law that the assessor needs to get right.

The operator is under the misapprehension that they are operating on "relevant land" which they are not. The land is within the boundary of Gatwick Airport and is under statutory control (Airport bylaws) and is therefore not "relevant land" as defined in PoFA schedule 4 paragraph 3.

2(1) In this Schedule—

“relevant land” has the meaning given by paragraph 3;

3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

    (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

    (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

    (c ) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control

 

I have included a map of the airport boundary which also highlights where the McDonald's sits within this boundary.

As you can see, the land in question is within the Gatwick Airport boundary and under statutory control and as such the NtK issued by MET is not valid as "relevant land" as required by PoFA which means as the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

Their NTK can only hold the driver liable.

The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Gatwick Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control.

It is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be 'relevant land'. In the recent past, POPLA has sometimes got this wrong and your service had to apologise for a series of mistakes made by Assessors in 2023. This related to the misclassification (assumption) of another Airport (Stansted) as relevant land, which more than one Assessor took to be true merely because, like here, the operator said it was so.

Don't believe what you read from the operator.

This issue was highlighted in POPLA's reply to a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologised for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had blindly accepted what the operator said and not applied POFA properly.

On 7/12/2023 she stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with POPLA's Complaints Team findings being as follows:

"In the assessor’s rationale, they confirm they were not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had been identified and subsequently concluded that the PCN complied with the provisions of PoFA. The assessor explained that they were not considering the appeal under byelaws, and I can see the appeal was assessed under contract law.

I fully accept that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the relevant land where PoFA is applicable includes any land which is subject to statutory control. You are correct that relevant land under PoFA excludes land subject to statutory control and the parking operator can only pursue the driver of the vehicle for the charge.

As per the complaint response you raised, the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. Whilst the assessor has not disputed this, it is evident they have incorrectly classified this as relevant land. This means that there has been a mis-assessment of your appeal.

I do apologise for this error and any resulting inconvenience that has been caused. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Whilst we always strive to issue accurate and robust decisions, (we consider over 60,000 cases a year) there is always the potential for human errors to be made. I note this is a second instance where this has occurred and therefore, I have escalated this internally. 

We will ensure that all assessors complete a further extensive training course on the applications of PoFA, specifically in respect of relevant land, to address this issue going forwards." 

I assume that Assessor retraining took place earlier this year.  Given this information and with correct application of the law, the only course of action is to accept and uphold my appeal. 

Kind regards 

Jughead_2024

A map was already included in the appeals.

Thank you for the assistance.

Coupon-mad

So I'd just reiterate the above very clearly now, so your Assessor is warned not to make the same mistake as happened with Stansted Airport cases a year ago.

LDast

Just two points to raise from METs 'evidence':

She adds that we cannot legally issue tickets here as the restaurant is situated on airport land.

Did the appellant actually state that MET cannot legally issue 'tickets' because it is on airport land? No one here ever said that as it is not true. MET can issue PCNs at that location even though it is on land under statutory control. What they cannot do, is hold the keeper liable if they don't know the identity of the driver.

 Whilst we note ........... comments, we are confident that the location is considered relevant land as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. It does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 3.1, and it is not subject to statutory control as defined in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4. An area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area.

Point out that the "parcel of land" does not "surround the airport". The "parcel of land" is surrounded by the airport. Big difference and should be pointed out to the assessor. If the moronic scammers at MET are trying to bamboozle their mates at POPLA, this is a clear example of their mendaciousness.