McDonalds Southgate Park - Unsuccessful POPLA

LDast

OP, can you please tell us the POPLA reference number for this appeal and, if possible, show a copy of the letter itself. It will be useful for future POPLA appeals to head off more feckwittery by some of the more moronic POPLA adjudicators.

It could also come in useful for formal complaints about MET because they are in breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which clearly states:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

Any breach of the PPSCoP means that they are in breach of the KADOE contract and a formal complaint should also be sent to the DVLA as they are therefore unlawfully using your DVLA data.

Nellymoser

If you want to see Parking companies practice improve then sign the petition linked in the post below. Ask family, friends and work colleagues to sign too. 

Once your signature is confirmed use the shown link to 'Contact your MP to let them know you have signed this petition'. Our MPs are the ones to make this happen. 🙏

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81195013/#Comment_81195013

Silver:Courage

@Coupon-mad I tried the complaints email to Met Parking and received this helpful response, next step please? Thank you for your advice. 

Good morning,

 

Thank you for your correspondence. We note your comments however POPLA never allowed your appeal they declined it, please see attached letter. The complaint was separate, and as you read the bottom of the letter you will see that. This charge is now with our debt resolution agents, Debt Recovery Plus, all correspondence should be addressed to them. They can be contacted via the following methods:

 

Telephone: 020 8234 6775

Online: www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk

 

By law we are required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.

 

Further correspondence sent to us regarding this parking charge will go unanswered.

 

Kind regards

Customer Services

MET Parking Services Ltd

Coupon-mad

Ignore the eejits.

As previously asked, can you please tell us the POPLA reference number for this appeal and, if possible, show a screenshot of the reply from the complaints team.

It will be useful for future POPLA appeals

Silver:Courage

@LDast It was POPLA case 3862184071

Coupon-mad

abidarling said:

Latest Update. Annoyingly just found the following response from my POPLA appeal in spam.

We have now had our 8th email from Debt Recovery Plus at £170. Do you know how many more we get before it goes to the next stage?

Hubby (whose name this is in) is getting more antsy each time as doesn't want a CCJ against his name. Do we go to CAB? Or is there another way of stopping these scammers? 
Thank you for your help. 

Thank you for your webform received 15 January 2025, outlining the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

 

We offer a single stage determinative process and we would not change a decision because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to consider evidence provided by the motorist.

 

The crux of your complaint is that we have misapplied the law regarding keeper liability at Airports again.

 

You state that Airport land is not ever relevant land so you understand that schedule 4 the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) cannot apply.

 

You explain that the assessor has indicated it is optional for them to consider whether land is relevant as they considered this to be a new ground of appeal after you had reviewed the case file provided by MET Parking Solutions.

 

As this is a matter of law and is a standard POPLA consideration when considering if POFA applies as was raised in your appeal, POPLA must apply the law to determine if schedule 4 of POFA applies.

 

You advise POPLA to look at the maps provided by both parties submissions.

 

You explain that whether airport land is under statutory control is not something a registered keeper has to know and raise specifically and it is more than enough for the appellant to say keeper liability does not apply. A POPLA assessor must then consider POFA whether an appellant raises this or not.

 

You state that assessors were retrained on this after another complaint one year ago and your case is the same

 

You advise the assessor is wrong to not apply POFA correctly to your appeal and to blame you for not using the exact phrase until the comments stage is to misapply POFA on airport land.

 

It is worth explaining that my role is not to determine if the decision is correct, but to establish if the assessor has failed to follow the correct process and identify whether a procedural error has occurred.

 

In this instance, you are correct in stating that airport land is not relevant land and as such, POFA does not apply and I agree that the assessor is incorrect in considering POFA during this assessment.

 

The Airports Act1986 confirms that Stansted Airport is an Airport and Highways Authority and this site falls under statutory control and as such, MET Parking can only pursue the driver and it cannot use POFA to transfer liability to you as the registered keeper.

 

I note in your initial appeal to POPLA you state: “….This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay MET (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and MET cannot enforce byelaws themselves)…”.

 

Therefore, while you did not elaborate this in your appeal, you did provide more detail at the comments stage and as such, the assessor is wrong to state you raised new grounds. It is clear on reviewing your case and comments this is an expansion on your initial grounds of appeal and therefore, the assessor should have addressed this within the decision.

Having reviewed your case, while the assessor has misapplied POFA in this instance, it is clear that the assessor has considered all of the evidence provided. 

 

In order to improve the quality of future appeal decisions, I will, of course uphold your complaint and provide the relevant feedback to the assessor. However, as all of the evidence provided has been considered, no procedural error has occurred and therefore, the outcome will not change.

 

I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.

 

You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

POPLA Support

This was the complaint made after the assessor got it wrong:

Coupon-mad said:

Complain to POPLA:


Dear POPLA Complaints Team,

Re POPLA case 3862184071

You have misapplied the law regarding lack of keeper liability at Airports again. When will POPLA Assessors finally understand that Airport Land is not ever 'relevant land', so the POFA Sch 4 cannot apply?

Your Assessor says this - below - as if it is optional for him to consider whether land is 'relevant land' when the site is clearly an Airport (look at the maps and look at both parties' submissions):

"The appellant has raised new grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states the land is within the boundary of Stanstead airport and is under statutory control. As this is a new ground and the operator has not had the chance to address, I am unable to consider it."

Don't be daft. This is a matter of law and is a standard POPLA consideration when considering whether POFA applies (as was raised in the appeal).

POPLA must apply the law - determining whether Schedule 4 applies - when a person raises the matter of 'lack of keeper liability'.  Not half cover it by glancing at the NTK only. Come on POPLA. You've been doing this for years.  At least try to get the law on keeper liability right.

Whether Airport land is 'under statutory control' is NOT a phrase that a registered keeper appellant has to know and raise specifically.  It is more than enough for an appellant to say that keeper liability does not apply. Which I did.

The Assessor must then consider the POFA fully.  In fact, they must look at that whether an appellant raises it or not, in any case where the appellant is only known to be the keeper.

Firstly, never mind the NTK; the first test is whether this was 'relevant land'. Airport land is never relevant land and Assessors were retrained on this after another complaint a year ago (re NSL and Stansted Airport). 

Here is that complaint outcome and apology from your team (my bold):

"From: POPLA Complaints<complaints@popla.co.uk>
Date: Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:18 PM
RE: : Website Enquiry Form - Complaint about POPLA

Dear xxxx xxxxxx,

Your complaint about POPLA

Thank you for your email. This has been passed to me as I am responsible for handling complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against NSL Limited.

As a part of your complaint, you have referred me to a previous case where a POPLA Coach apologised for our mis-assessment concerning Stansted Airport and keeper liability in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your complaint concerns similar circumstances, whereby the assessor determined that the parking operator could pursue you, the registered keeper, for the PCN in accordance with PoFA.

I have completed a full review of your case and will address my findings below:

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.

To conclude, I am sorry that you have not had a positive experience when using our service. As you are aware, we are a one-stage process and there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. I understand you intend to contact the British Parking Association (BPA) regarding the charge. You are also free to contact Citizens Advice for independent legal advice.

POPLA’s involvement with your case has now ended, and my response closes our complaints process. I must advise there will be no further review of your complaint and any further correspondence on the matter will not be responded to.

Yours sincerely,

 xxxxxx xxxxx

POPLA Complaints Team"

My case is the same.

The Assessor was wrong in my case not to apply POFA correctly and part of his normal determination should include: 'given this land is an Airport, the entire site is 'under statutory control' unless the operator proves it is not'.  To blame me for not using that exact phrase until Comments stage and blithely saying "so I don't have to bother to look at that" is to (yet again) misapply POFA on Airport land.

This case is in the public domain on MSE forum and will be raised with the MHCLG.

This decision shows yet again that POPLA doesn't understand the ONE LAW that you (wrongly) think is the only law which applies to parking on private land.  Yet you can't even consistently get this law right.

POPLA is seemingly not fit for purpose. 

Kindly review this complaint properly and consistently with last time your complaints team promised to retrain your assessors. What went wrong? Is he new or did he miss the retraining day?  This is a formal complaint.

Yours faithfully

abidarling said:

@Coupon-mad I tried the complaints email to Met Parking and received this helpful response, next step please? Thank you for your advice. 
...

Good morning,

Thank you for your correspondence. We note your comments however POPLA never allowed your appeal they declined it, please see attached letter. The complaint was separate, and as you read the bottom of the letter you will see that. This charge is now with our debt resolution agents, Debt Recovery Plus, all correspondence should be addressed to them. They can be contacted via the following methods:

Telephone: 020 8234 6775

Online: www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk 

Further correspondence sent to us regarding this parking charge will go unanswered.

Kind regards

Customer Services

MET Parking Services Ltd

Classy reply, given POPLA admitted fault but their system doesn't let POPLA change a wrong decision!

Nellymoser

For those with the legal knowledge...would it be possible to file a court claim against POPLA? They admit they made wrong decision, won't change their decision or offer to cover the pcn cost. They have caused the motorist to now be pursued by a debt agency for an increased cost of £170.