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

Coupon-mad

Yes that happened. But not with MET, it was about another firm.

What MET are doing is similar but for some reason one assessor recently didn't accept that a map of an Airport showed the byelaws boundary. 

It's in POPLA Decisions. Can't recall which Airport as MET are at two.

russiangoldfinch

Well Lovediy submitted such an appeal and dealt with this in comments on 5th November 2024 but as far as I can see there has been no report back as yet

• 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.

  
  

  ReportQuoteThanks
• 

  lovediy Posts: 12 Forumite 

   

  5 November 2024 at 3:02PM
  I will let you know the result as soon as I get it from POPLA - thanks again.

  ReportQuoteThanks
• 

  Scotty200 Posts: 1 Newbie 

  29 December 2024 at 11:59PM

  lovediy said:

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

  any results ?

  ReportQuoteThanks

«12

russiangoldfinch

 your advice to Lovediy on 31st October 2024 had been as follows :

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.

and L.Dast also advised on that thread. Detailed maps and contractual information had been posted by Lovediy and the content of my appeal was very much referring to the issues and advices raised in that case as it was the same airport.

ChirpyChicken

why are you getting so worked up about this
it doesnt matter if you lose you just deal with any possible court claim etc, no issue

russiangoldfinch

I have simply been trying to follow the advice I have been given in this forum !

ChirpyChicken

And you will know popla is no big deal

russiangoldfinch

That is not the impression I had from being directed to popla appeals and popla appeal threads. So much of what people seeking advice are directed to is clearly out of date. It's not a big deal, just hours and hours of reading endless rabbit holes apparently for no reason. We live and learn.

LDast

You could ask for a refund for the advice you've received here, or you could stop overthinking this. It is MET and the location is NOT relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

MET won't agree because they are thieving bar stewards. POPLA assessors can be morons at times and you, unfortunately, had one assess your appeal. It's not binding on you and let them try and sue you in court for the debt, which is unlikely, as they would get a real spanking from a judge.

Coupon-mad

That is not the impression I had from being directed to popla appeals and popla appeal threads.

So much of what people seeking advice are directed to is clearly out of date.

It isn't.

This forum is the best resource you'll find, bar none. The important sections are bang on up to date and continuously worked on.  It is even read/quoted and used by the Government to inform policy in this area.

POPLA really doesn't matter and is long overdue being replaced by the Government.  It's a stage to try, that's all. Nobody pays or cares if their POPLA appeal is won or not.

russiangoldfinch

here is the response from MET in the POPLA appeal process, for your information. They clearly dispute the airport land defence and I will very much welcome advice on this particular point, especially as to whether there has been any court findings in support of the argument against there being Keeper Liability for vehicles parked on such land which I have submitted in my appeal :   
  
'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. '

I have until 28th January to post my comments on the evidence uploaded by MET. They do not rely on any caselaw or evidence in support of their assertion that the location is considered relevant land. I will welcome advice on the current thinking about this question which appears to be a very important point in arguing against the possibility of Keeper Liability on airport land. I would like to know whether this point has been tested in court and whether there are any authorities on which I can rely. Thank you !