Mcdonalds parking Gatwick PCN

Roknrolla

Roknrolla said:

Coupon-mad said:

I'd add paragraphs reminding POPLA of the repeated mistake they made several times in 2023 when another operator, NSL were wrongly telling POPLA that Stansted Airport was relevant land, subject to the kerper liability provisions of the POFA ... and Assessors just fell for it.  A formal complaint was made re Code ref 4822223007 and Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team apologised because POPLA Assessors had repeatedly and naively believed the operator and had got the law wrong.

She stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with her findings on 7/12/2023 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."

Lovely thank you I'll add something in regarding this and get it sent. 
Thanks for the help and advice @Coupon-mad and @LDast I will post an update when I get it. 

This is the bit I've added on to the end of my email.......... 
I would also like to draw your attention to a series of mistakes made by POPLA Assessors in 2023, specifically related to the misclassification of Stansted Airport as relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). This issue was highlighted in a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologized for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had incorrectly accepted the operator’s claims.

Given this information and with correct application of the law, the only course of action is to accept and withhold my appeal. 

Kind regards 

Roknrolla

Roknrolla said:

Roknrolla said:

Coupon-mad said:

I'd add paragraphs reminding POPLA of the repeated mistake they made several times in 2023 when another operator, NSL were wrongly telling POPLA that Stansted Airport was relevant land, subject to the kerper liability provisions of the POFA ... and Assessors just fell for it.  A formal complaint was made re Code ref 4822223007 and Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team apologised because POPLA Assessors had repeatedly and naively believed the operator and had got the law wrong.

She stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with her findings on 7/12/2023 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."

Lovely thank you I'll add something in regarding this and get it sent. 
Thanks for the help and advice @Coupon-mad and @LDast I will post an update when I get it. 

This is the bit I've added on to the end of my email.......... 
I would also like to draw your attention to a series of mistakes made by POPLA Assessors in 2023, specifically related to the misclassification of Stansted Airport as relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). This issue was highlighted in a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologized for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had incorrectly accepted the operator’s claims.

Given this information and with correct application of the law, the only course of action is to accept and withhold my appeal. 

Kind regards 

Typo in there, was meant to say "uphold" and not "withhold" 😂 

Coupon-mad

I'd quote the whole thing that I did.  It talks about retraining in December so that should alert the Assessor if they are about to get it hopelessly wrong...

Roknrolla

Coupon-mad said:

I'd quote the whole thing that I did.  It talks about retraining in December so that should alert the Assessor if they are about to get it hopelessly wrong...

Ok this is now how the end of my email looks.......... 

I would also like to draw your attention to a series of mistakes made by POPLA Assessors in 2023, specifically related to the misclassification of Stansted Airport as relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). This issue was highlighted in a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologized for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had incorrectly accepted the operator’s claims.

She stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with her findings on 7/12/2023 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." 

Given this information and with correct application of the law, the only course of action is to accept and uphold my appeal. 

Kind regards 

Coupon-mad

You missed out bolding what I bolded.  I wrote it to be copied & pasted into an email.

Also at the start, say that you couldn't access the Portal this weekend for some reason but are emailing your comments instead because there is a vital point of law that the Assessor must get right.

Roknrolla

Coupon-mad said:

You missed out bolding what I bolded.  I wrote it to be copied & pasted into an email.

Also at the start, say that you couldn't access the Portal this weekend for some reason but are emailing your comments instead because there is a vital point of law that the Assessor must get right.

Oh I did copy and paste but the bold part didn't transfer over, I will manually the bold bits, and I'll add that bit at the start about not being able to access the portal.
Thank you 

Roknrolla

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. 

I would also like to draw your attention to a series of mistakes made by POPLA Assessors in 2023, specifically related to the misclassification of Stansted Airport as relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). This issue was highlighted in a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologized for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had incorrectly accepted the operator’s claims.

She stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with her findings on 7/12/2023 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." 

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

@Roknrolla did you get a reply yet?

I've just had what looks to be the same evidence pack come through.

Hope you win.

Roknrolla

Jughead_2024 said:

@Roknrolla did you get a reply yet?

I've just had what looks to be the same evidence pack come through.

Hope you win.

Hiya @Jughead_2024 only reply I've had so far is this......

Dear........... 

We are writing to update you about your appeal.

Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on your appeal within the next 2-4 weeks. The next communication that you will receive from us will be the decision on your appeal.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

That was a week ago so I'm expecting the outcome soon. 

I'll post the result on here when I do.

Also sorry for the delay in replying but I don't get notifications for some reason. 

Roknrolla

So just a quick update on this......... 
Decision is still pending from POPLA but I've just received this in the post from MET whilst the appeal is still going through! 
The absolute cheek of them!