Parking at MET Stansted Southgate Park

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy another MET Stansted POPLA appeal by searching the forum?

That draft is far too short and includes no other points.  You have a month!  You'll lose if you rush this.

lovediy

Sorry Coupon-mad, I missed your response. I had trouble getting back on the forum, thought I had lost access for a while. Password reset would not work, but somehow I have got back in by selecting it from Google history.

The following is what I sent to POPLA based on LDast advice, followed by MET’s case summary from their response to my POPLA appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle subject to the MET Notice To Keeper (NTK) – Parking Charge Notice Number XXXXXXXXXX (Vehicle: XXXXXX)

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXXX.

MET cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control, as a matter of fact and law. MET will be well aware that they cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) provisions because Stansted Airport is NOT 'relevant land' as defined in the Act. The act states that “relevant land” means any land … other than—land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

If Stansted Airport's landowners wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because MET is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for MET's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and MET has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under a misrepresented interpretation of the law of agency. Their Notice To Keeper can only hold the driver liable.

MET are trying to say that the land is private and therefore does not "fall under airport bylaws". Even though the car park may be private land, it sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport and therefore under statutory control. MET cannot simply disregard airport bylaws by claiming the land is private. Airport bylaws regulate conduct on ALL land within the airport boundary, including private areas like this car park. Therefore PoFA is not applicable to MET’s Notice To Keeper.

NOTE: Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted 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 the same Airport (Stansted) as relevant land, which more than one Assessor took to be true merely because the operator said it was so.

Don't believe the operator in trying to convince you otherwise. 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.

The attached map below shows Stansted Airport boundary as defined by Stansted Airport themselves and by the UK Government on their website (see URL below). I have highlighted where the MET Stansted car park is located. It is clearly within the boundary of Stansted Airport and therefore is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 of PoFA. The second image amplifies the location of the MET car park to add clarity to the car park’s location within Stansted’s Airport boundary.

Stansted Site Boundary Map can be found in the following document on the government website at:

https://www.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf

 

 

 

1. MET Case Summary Response:

In the appeal to POPLA Mr. XXXXX states: • The area is not relevant land. Whilst we note Mr. XXXXX 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. • Out Notice to Keeper can only hold the driver liable. 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. Additionally, 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. 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.

 

 

 

There is also a bundle pack with the following:

1.       Another case summary (To follow)

·        The original notice to keeper

2.       Liability Trail (To follow)

·        My appeal

·        Images/plans (including site map showing location of signs; Images of signs day and night; terms displayed on signs)

·        Starbucks opening hours

·        No payment report

3.      Landowner authority (Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited) including a copy of a redacted contract with landowner stating the land is “relevant land”; including 3 paragraph extract relating to the contract (To follow)

I will attach detail to the relevant NUMBERED extracts in a separate response for ease of viewing and not sure how much I can put in one comment.

RE IMAGES section: Although pictures of all the signs and their location is included in the bundle - they state that it is for Starbucks customers only and you must pay from entry if you visit locations not in Southgate Park car park, such as McDonalds. Nowhere does it say you have to pay on entry if Starbucks is closed, nor is any evidence provided to show the driver visited any locations outside Southgate car park.

Also, I think the evidence that it is relevant land needs to come from Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited, as they have purchased or leased the land from Stansted, not MET. I'm not sure that the contract counts as proof.

Any comments or advice welcome, I need to respond Monday at the latest.

Let me know if anyone wants the images of the signs - there are a lot - it covers about 12 to 14 pages, depending on if you include the site and sign locations map.

lovediy

MET BUNDLE EXTRACTS

1.    CASE SUMMARY

The charge notice was issued as the vehicle remained in the car park without having made payment for parking. There was no free stay at the time of event as the on-site businesses were closed.

This car park is managed using ANPR CCTV cameras and parking attendants.

The car park and restaurant are situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road and next to a McDonald’s restaurant, the car park suffers from abuse from motorists using it to park whilst they go next door to the McDonald’s restaurant. As a result, our clients have restricted use of the car park to Starbucks customers whilst on the premises only.

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 site. There are a total of 31 signs located at this representing 1 sign to approximately every 2 parking spaces. The terms & conditions signs measure 450x650mm. All the signs are made using a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA1. This is the European Harmonised Standard that has been set for Road Traffic Signs.

In addition to their reflective nature the signs are illuminated by lamp posts they are attached to or adjacent to, ambient light and light from the vehicles themselves entering and parking on the site.

On 12/09/2024 vehicle XXXXXX was recorded as remaining without having made payment to park.

For the avoidance of doubt: As the on-site business was closed, the motorist could not have been a customer on this occasion, and therefore there is no free stay period. Should a motorist wish to use the car park while the business is closed, they should pay the appropriate tariff.

Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and a notice to keeper sent.

On 30/09/2024 we received an appeal from the keeper, Mr. VVVVV. On completing their investigation, the appeals team sent a letter to Mr. XXXXX explaining that the appeal had been refused and why.

In the appeal to POPLA Mr. XXXXX states:

• The area is not relevant land.

Whilst we note Mr. XXXXX 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.

• Out Notice to Keeper can only hold the driver liable.

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.

Additionally, 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.

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.

 

 

2.    LANDOWNER AUTHORITY

MET Parking Services Ltd are contracted by in a separate response for ease of viewingto ensure adherence to the terms and conditions of the car park. Our interest in the land arises from our obligation to perform our contractual duties by ensuring provision can be made for motorists to park and facilitate motorists to use the client’s premises.

The Judges who ruled on the ParkingEye v Beavis case considered this point and held that ParkingEye had contracted with the motorist as a principal and not as agent and the contract had been formed by way of the signage displayed at the site and the motorist parking his car on the site.

We do not feel we have to provide a copy of an un-redacted contract between ourselves and our client as it contains information which is commercially sensitive and not relevant in this instance.

We note POPLA are often asked to consider whether the contract existed at the date of the contravention and as you can see from the extract from the contract held with Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited this agreement has a commencement date of 1 November 2013 as this was the date it was signed by the client and is agreed for an initial period of 24 months after which point it becomes an ongoing agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm that neither Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited nor MET Parking have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that the contract provided adequately proves that MET Parking had sufficient authority to issue parking charges on the land, on the day of the contravention. This is also evidenced by the fact that Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited permitted MET Parking’s parking enforcement signs to be prominently displayed on the site at that time and to this date.

 

  

3.    CONTRACT

3 PARAGRAPHS

PARAGRAPH 1

PARAGRAPH 2

PARAGRAPH 5

As stated before, any comments / advice appreciated regarding a response to POPLA.

Thanks all who have been helping me.

Coupon-mad

I think just briefly reiterate:

Dear POPLA

This site is indisputably within Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'. MET has failed to show otherwise.

Ticking 'YES' on their own standard landowner document is no more than MET saying "it's relevant land".  Not evidence.  They want it to be but it isn't relevant land as a matter of fact and law. I reiterate that it is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be 'relevant land'.

Even though the car park may be private land, it indisputably sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Please take note that MET themselves even admit it is inside the Airport site because they say "The car park and restaurant are situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road."  My map evidence shows the Airport boundary. It's within.

The Airport site is under statutory control; all Airports are.  The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control.  MET cannot simply disregard airport bylaws by claiming the land is private. Airport bylaws regulate conduct on ALL land within the airport boundary, including private areas like this car park.

Therefore PoFA is not applicable to MET’s Notice To Keeper. The fact that they've used Schedule 4 wording in it misleads a keeper recipient and this is something POPLA should raise as a concern with the BPA.

POPLA Assessor please note there is already a formal complaint in with your Complaints Team last week regarding a mis-assessment by SL so please don't add to the problem.  If you are in any doubt, kindly ask your Sector Expert or Lead Adjudicator because any cases in the public domain (and this is one) that POPLA get wrong regarding 'keeper liability' law are being passed to the MHCLG.

lovediy

Hi Coupon-mad,

Thanks for the response and help.

I did a bit of digging as the contract appears to be a Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd form. Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd appear to have purchased/leased the land from Stansted – not clear which. It seems to be signed by someone from Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd, after checking on companies house. MET lease the land from Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd. Do you think I should add the following bold bit to your second paragraph:-

MET are claiming they lease the land from Tabacon Stansted 2, who purchased/or leased the land from Stansted – not clear which. If that is the case then it is incumbent on MET obtaining proper evidence from Tabacon Stansted 2 on their agreement with Stansted that proves the land being obtained by them is “relevant land". Ticking 'YES' on their own standard landowner document is no more than MET saying it's “relevant land".  Not evidence. Evidence can only come from Tabacon Stansted 2. They want it to be but it isn't relevant land as a matter of fact and law. I reiterate that it is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be 'relevant land'.

What do you think?

Thanks again

LDast

• The area is not relevant land.

Whilst we note Mr. XXXXX 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.

The intellectual malnourishment you are dealing with here is clearly displayed in their response. No one has said that a parcel of land surrounding an airport cannot be relevant land. Only the land within the airport boundary is not relevant. Duh!

• Out Notice to Keeper can only hold the driver liable.

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.

Additionally, 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.

No one has argued that they don't have a contract to issue PCNs. The argument is that they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable for any PCN issued. Simple really... to anyone with anything higher than an IQ of 5.

lovediy

Thanks LDast, good points. I will point out those points in the response.

Thanks again.

lovediy

Thanks for your advice - this is what I sent to POPLA:

Dear POPLA

In section ‘A’ ‘Case Summary’ of MET’s response under heading “The area is not relevant land.” MET stated: “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.”

 

No one has said that a parcel of land surrounding an airport cannot be relevant land. Only the land within the airport boundary is not relevant. This site is indisputably within Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land'. MET has failed to show otherwise.

MET are claiming they lease the land from Tabacon Stansted 2, who purchased or leased the land from Stansted – not clear which. If that is the case then it is incumbent on MET obtaining proper evidence from Tabacon Stansted 2 on their agreement with Stansted that proves the land being obtained by them is “relevant land". Ticking 'YES' on their own standard landowner document is no more than MET saying it's “relevant land".  Not evidence. Evidence can only come from Tabacon Stansted 2. They want it to be, but it isn't relevant land as a matter of fact and law. I reiterate that it is legally impossible under PoFA for an Airport to be 'relevant land'.

Even though the car park may be private land, it indisputably sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport. Please take note that MET themselves even admit it is inside the Airport site because they say "The car park and restaurant are situated very close to the Stansted airport perimeter road."  My map evidence shows the Airport boundary. It's clearly within the airport boundary.

The Airport site is under statutory control; all Airports are.  The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control.  MET cannot simply disregard airport bylaws by claiming the land is private. Airport bylaws regulate conduct on ALL land within the airport boundary, including private areas like this car park.

Therefore PoFA is not applicable to MET’s Notice To Keeper. The fact that they've used Schedule 4 wording in it misleads a keeper recipient and this is something POPLA should raise as a concern with the BPA.

In section ‘A’ ‘Case Summary’ of MET’s response under heading “Out Notice to Keeper can only hold the driver liable” MET stated “Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach”.

 

No one has argued that they don't have a contract to issue PCNs. The argument is that they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable for any PCN issued.

POPLA Assessor please note there is already a formal complaint in with your Complaints Team last week regarding a mis-assessment by SL so please don't add to the problem.  If you are in any doubt, kindly ask your Sector Expert or Lead Adjudicator because any cases in the public domain (and this is one) that POPLA get wrong regarding 'keeper liability' law are being passed to the MHCLG.

lovediy

I will let you know the result as soon as I get it from POPLA - thanks again.

Scotty200

lovediy said:

I will let you know the result as soon as I get it from POPLA - thanks again.

any results ?