MET NTK Parking Charge Notice BP Stansted non PoFA notice which contains the PoFA warning

russiangoldfinch

hello peeps, here is my appeal, for good or ill

I wish to appeal to Popla because MET Parking have not addressed the main reason for my appeal to them, which is that the vehicle was on land within the boundaries of Stansted Airport.

The BP Stansted SF Connect garage at postcode CM24 1PY is on the airport land which it is well established is subject to the Stansted Airport-London Byelaws which have been in effect since December 1996.

I confirmed with MET that I was not the driver.

I made my Appeal to Met and I am making the Appeal to Popla as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.

In their Notice to Keeper (NTK) MET did not mention the Provision of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) but they did issue me with a warning which purported to make me liable. I appealed to MET on the basis that this warning to me was misleading and legally incorrect as they are not interpreting PoFA correctly. I referred to the definition of 'relevant land' in PoFA which means any land OTHER THAN land which is subject to statutory control.

 This is not a new error on the part of parking operators and I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that this has come before Popla previously. Popla adjudicators and coaches have found that airport roads are NOT 'relevant land'.

The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control and that this is key in making a determination over PoFA compliance.

It has been accepted by Popla that the status of airport land is not ever 'relevant land' whether or not an operator such as the garage use the byelaws themselves and whether or not the land is considered to be or described as private. This means that 'keeper liability' as is being pursued by MET in this case can never apply on airport land and I will be very grateful if you would agree to accept my appeal for this reason.


 I would also like to submit my concern that in the original NTK MET did not actually refer to PoFA, as I have mentioned above. However in their response to my appeal to them MET did then refer to POFA, stating that their NTK complies in all respects with its requirements. I respectfully submit that this is not correct for the reason that MET cannot have properly or lawfully issued a PoFA Parking Charge Notice to a Keeper at this airport site for the reasons given above. I submit that this is of concern to me and a further reason for me to appeal to Popla because MET are making misleading statements and misrepresenting the level of authority or status of their NTK. I am particularly concerned that this has happened on previous occasions. It seems to be a systemic issue and I hope that having agreed this point previously Popla can give a consistent and favourable response to my appeal.

 I cannot see how MET can invoke PoFA in my case as they would simply be incorrect in law to pursue the registered keeper when they have confirmed that they do not have the identity of the driver. I have confirmed that I was not the driver and I understand that I am not obliged to identify the driver. Despite this and indeed without addressing this question of airport land at all, in their further warning to me in their response to my appeal MET state 'where the charge has not been paid in full and 29 days have passed since we issued the charge and we still do not have the name and address for service of court papers of (sic) the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge'.

I am concerned that this further warning is muddled at best, misleading, legally incorrect and oppressive. The date of ISSUE of the NTK was Friday 27th December. It was received at my home on Thursday 2nd January. I understand that if my evidence as to the date on which the NTK was delivered ie 'given' to me were not accepted then the deemed date of service would be on the second working day after the date of issue, which would be Tuesday 31st December, 2 days earlier than the actual date of delivery.

 MET are stating now in their response to my appeal that they are entitled to pursue me, which I submit they are not, from 25th January. This is at odds with the requirements of POFA on which they apparently now in their reply to my appeal seek to rely and with which they are now expressly saying they are compliant as this further warning contradicts the warning in their NTK and produces an incorrect time period and misinterpretation of the PoFA requirements regarding the warning set out in paragraph 9 (2) (f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA.

According to the further warning 29 days from the date of issue of the charge of 27th December is 25th January.

 The requirement is for 28 days from the day after the NTK is 'given' , ie served. From the day after the deemed date of service of 31st December this would be 29th January 2025, or if taken from the actual delivery date of 2nd January this would be 31st January 2025.

I submit that this further warning set out in their reply to my appeal shows that MET's interpretation of POFA is fatally flawed in relation to both airport land and the incorrectly worded warning. MET have shown that they do not understand the law which they seek to apply but instead they misinterpret it in a somewhat oppressive and confusing manner. To omit any reference to PoFA in the NTK feels to me like sharp and misleading practice and this is compounded by the very clear and established fact that the site in question is land within the Stansted Airport boundaries.

 I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

I should add that MET have not dealt satisfactorily or at all with the other points which I made in my appeal to them and I reserve the right to refer to them in comments if you need to adjudicate on them especially regarding the lack of any evidence of their standing authority in this particular location at the BP garage postcode CM24 1PY. I submit that MET should provide clear evidence if they do continue to reject my appeal such as an unredacted record of their contract with the landowner or tenant at the premises showing exactly what their authority is on this site as there is no clear information on the signs which I have now received from MET that they are authorised to make contracts with visiting drivers or to enforce any charges in their own name.

 I also submit that the parking charge does not appear on all the signs and MET have submitted no evidence to show where the vehicle was parked on the site which was in darkness nor have they provided any photographs to show what a driver would have been able to see on the night of 22nd December. If they do choose to continue to object to these further points in my appeal to them I submit that they should at least be asked to provide appropriate photographic evidence of signs taken in hours of darkness together with evidence demonstrating whether the signs can be read when a light source such as from a vehicle is shone upon them. The images of signs which they provided in their response to my appeal are not sufficient in all the circumstances.

 However I hope that I have made clear that the main reason for and focus of my appeal in this case is in relation to the fact that MET are incorrect in claiming that they are entitled to transfer liability to me as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle as the site is on airport land which is never 'relevant land' within POFA. This means that in all the circumstances MET are incorrect to say that their PCN in their NTK is POFA compliant. I therefore hope that my appeal can be allowed by Popla.

Le_Kirk

Regulars (some) are going to find it hard going to read that wall of text!  Since you have editing privileges can you add some breaks please?

russiangoldfinch

I did carefully  break this into paragraphs on the Popla site but when finalised it came out as this wall of text and I just copied and pasted it ---- so irritating I know. Let's hope that it doesn't irritate Popla too much .. Do I have privileges ? I will do what I can !

russiangoldfinch

Thank you for drawing the editing function to my attention -- I have done this and hope that this helps. I am aware that my sentences are too long at the best of times. I will welcome thoughts on my appeal to Popla.

LDast

russiangoldfinch said:

I did carefully  break this into paragraphs on the Popla site but when finalised it came out as this wall of text and I just copied and pasted it ---- so irritating I know. Let's hope that it doesn't irritate Popla too much .. Do I have privileges ? I will do what I can !

Ha! Wait 'till you see the POPLA verdict. 

Le_Kirk

In their Notice to Keeper (NTK) MET did not mention the Provision of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

It's the Protection of .............

Coupon-mad

POPLA will reject it. Ignore them.

russiangoldfinch

why do you say that this will be rejected given that the information on this forum includes Popla acknowledging that Keeper liability cannot apply in cases on airport land ?

Coupon-mad

Because POPLA is not fully independent (it is funded by the parking industry, and the Lead Adjudicator and their supposed Sector Expert 'work closely' with the BPA).

Most appellants lose.

And from reading every recent post in the top POPLA Decisions Announcement thread (as I have) I think the most recent MET one was POPLA saying that the appellant hadn't proved that the car park wasn't relevant land!

russiangoldfinch

But people have then been encouraged to complain, after being encouraged to make those appeals, after reading the endless threads, and the Popla adjudicators coaches etc have upheld those complaints and talk about retraining within Popla and this is why I clearly mention this in my appeal.