MET Southgate Stansted - POPLA APPEAL SUCCESSFUL

Coupon-mad

All good, but I'd remove this as it is out of date and never was 'case law'. Martin Cutts' case was just another county court outcome and POPLA will pay no heed at all to this:

"as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011."

fivestarsamz

So a bit last minute but MET sent their evidence/response to Popla on 8th October. So I've only got tomorrow to make any comments. This is what they sent:

In the appeal to POPLA Mr Arshad raises the following grounds for appeal: • No registered keeper liability We are confident that we have complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. 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. Whilst we note Mr Arshad’s 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. • Unclear signage The free 60-minute parking period is only available to motorists whilst they are a customer of Southgate Park (Starbucks). At the time the vehicle was on site Starbucks was closed and therefore the driver was not a customer. As such, they were not entitled to the free parking period and payment was required for their stay. 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. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions. We are confident that our signage complies with all relevant legislation and regulations. • No landowner authority We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. We refer you to the Supreme Court ruling on ParkingEye v Beavis for the judges’ determination on whether a parking operator is acting as an agent or principal. The ruling may be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.darl 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 businesses were 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 made for this vehicle. 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.

Is there anything I should response? I am tempted to comment something like, the signs do not include any clear site map or boundary map to show the driver where the boundary ends and begins for the relevant signs. ?? Any help would be appreciated. 


Also in the evidence pack they wrote:

On 30/08/2024 we received an appeal from the driver, Mr *REGISTERED KEEPER NAME*.

They also put the registered keeper's name and address here (I redacted it) to say the keeper admitted he was the driver?! But I didn't?!?



To this I will say: "MET have tried to be smart and mentioned that the appeal was made from the driver, and then proceeded to name the registered keeper. I have made it explicitly clear and will reiterate again that there has not been any nor will there be any admission regarding who was driving and I am appealing as the keeper only."

Any improvement on the sentence will also be appreciated. 


They have also included a lot of photographs about signs and "do not walk off site" signs in the evidence pack. If it will help to include that, then I can do so. 

fivestarsamz

I thought I should include this as well in case any of you think I should comment on it regarding landowner authority: 

Coupon-mad

I'd just say:

The operator has lied to POPLA by pretending that I appealed as driver at first stage. I did not. The driver has never been identified.

The operator has failed to prove that this part of Stansted Airport is not under statutory control.  They have failed to produce any evidence to counter the official Stansted Airport 'site boundary' map that I included in evidence.  The burden shifted to MET to respond to that point and map with evidence to the contrary and they have not. In fact, their landowner agreement names the car park as within 'Stansted Airport' so they have helped to prove my case. I cannot be held liable as keeper and the PCN was not properly given.

fivestarsamz

Thank you @Coupon-mad for reminding me to put an update on this case. And thank you ALL for all your help and making it possible to win against these private parking companies!!

The POPLA appeal was accepted on the basis that no evidence was provided by the claimant that the area is indeed relevant land. 



Thank you once again!!!

Gr1pr

Well done,  please add your case to the Popla decisions thread,  especially because its about the notorious scam site

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337/popla-decisions/p475