Parking at MET Stansted Southgate Park

lovediy

Hi Scotty200.

Sorry for the delayed response. No result - still in assessment. Didn't think it would take this long, even with the Christmas period. Been over 10 weeks now. Hopefully get a result soon.

lovediy

Hi all. 

Good news. My appeal was successful. Thanks everyone for your input and support through this. It took a long time for POPLA to assess the appeal and reach a decision, but we got there in the end.

My take on the decision is that MET did not disprove my evidence that the car park was within Stansted Airport’s boundary. Also, that they did not prove the land was relevant land, after I pointed out that they did not acquire the land from Stansted, but that they lease it from a third party, namely Tabacon Stansted 2, who obtained the land from Stansted; and that it is incumbent on MET to get evidence of the contract between Tabacon Stansted 2 that proves the car park is on relevant land.

The assessor seems to imply that it is incumbent on MET to prove the car park is outside Stansted Airport’s boundary and/or that it is on relevant land, which it failed to do.

The following is the decision from POPLA:-

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being longer than the period od parking that had bene paid for or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that: • The parking operator can not pursue the keeper of the vehicle as it relates to a car park within the boundary of statutory land. • They are unable to use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it is not relevant land. • The car park sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport so it is under statutory control, under Airports Act 1986, even if it is a private car park. • They have evidence of the land being within the airport boundary from the UK Government and Stansted Airport. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments regarding the landowner contract. The appellant has provided a boundary image of Stansted Airport showing the location of the car park within the boundary as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of Stansted airport, and the area within which the vehicle was parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, however no evidence has been provided by the parking operator to show the car park is located on relevant land. I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the appellant is incorrect. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence before me. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Coupon-mad

lovediy said:

Hi all. 

Good news. My appeal was successful. Thanks everyone for your input and support through this. It took a long time for POPLA to assess the appeal and reach a decision, but we got there in the end.

My take on the decision is that MET did not disprove my evidence that the car park was within Stansted Airport’s boundary. Also, that they did not prove the land was relevant land, after I pointed out that they did not acquire the land from Stansted, but that they lease it from a third party, namely Tabacon Stansted 2, who obtained the land from Stansted; and that it is incumbent on MET to get evidence of the contract between Tabacon Stansted 2 that proves the car park is on relevant land.

The assessor seems to imply that it is incumbent on MET to prove the car park is outside Stansted Airport’s boundary and/or that it is on relevant land, which it failed to do.

The following is the decision from POPLA:-

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being longer than the period od parking that had bene paid for or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that: • The parking operator can not pursue the keeper of the vehicle as it relates to a car park within the boundary of statutory land. • They are unable to use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it is not relevant land. • The car park sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport so it is under statutory control, under Airports Act 1986, even if it is a private car park. • They have evidence of the land being within the airport boundary from the UK Government and Stansted Airport. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments regarding the landowner contract. The appellant has provided a boundary image of Stansted Airport showing the location of the car park within the boundary as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of Stansted airport, and the area within which the vehicle was parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, however no evidence has been provided by the parking operator to show the car park is located on relevant land. I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the appellant is incorrect. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence before me. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Great news!

You got lucky with an Assessor who understood that the burden to disprove your evidence lay with MET, and they had not done so.  We've had POPLA go the other way, same location!

Please post this decision in POPLA DECISIONS so future victims can find it there in the resource bank of cases.

Scotty200

I was also successful with POPLA arguing McDonald’s car park is not relevant land / can’t rely on POFA to chase registered keeper  ( sits within airport boundaries ) 

Coupon-mad

Scotty200 said:

I was also successful with POPLA arguing McDonald’s car park is not relevant land / can’t rely on POFA to chase registered keeper  ( sits within airport boundaries ) 

Nice!

If you got an actual POPLA DECISION from an Assessor, please post it in the sticky thread of the same name BUT please add ten paragraph breaks into the decision, as we can't read a wall of text copied wholesale from POPLA's portal.