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

Coupon-mad

No, it hasn't been tested in court.  And POPLA agreed with MET in at least one case, but of course the motorist didn't pay because they're here and know they'd win v MET in court.

Bottom line:

- if byelaws apply at that place, then it's not 'relevant land'. No keeper liability can apply.

- if byelaws don't apply at that place (for example, if the byelaws only apply to the 'Airside' & central area and 'landside' roadways then it IS 'relevant land'.

Your job is to convince POPLA that the Airport Byelaws do apply to that exact place.

LDast

Just highlight their intellectual malnourishment, re-read this bit from their appeal rejection and then look at the map below and tell us if you see their stupidity for what it is:

"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."

Coupon-mad

Yep but their excuses fooled POPLA once already. The OP's job is to convince POPLA that the Airport Byelaws do apply to that exact place.

If it doesn't work, the OP (of course) goes into the tried & tested 'ignore mode' like everyone else.

Nellymoser

We so badly need protected from this greedy nasty industry. Please join the motorists in demanding the re-launch of Govt-backed Parking Code of Practice.

A simple signature, share if you can. 🙏

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701453

Good luck with your appeal.

kryten3000

I'm surprised they're bothering to fight this since all the recent POPLA appeals I've done for this location have been "withdrawn" by the operator - i.e. they chickened out because they know they've been rumbled.

russiangoldfinch

Thank you all

russiangoldfinch

I have submitted my comments and will let you know the response from Popla in due course

russiangoldfinch

greetings, I just heard from POPLA that they have allowed my appeal and I am copying and pasting the decision here for your information :

' Successful

Assessor Name

Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The vehicle was on land within the boundaries of Stansted Airport as the BP Stansted SF Connect garage at postcode CM24 1PY is on the airport land and it is well established this is subject to the Stansted Airport-London Byelaws which have been in effect since December 1996. • They are not the driver and the parking operator cannot transfer liability to them as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle as the site is on airport land which is never 'relevant land' within The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which means any land other than land which is subject to statutory control. • 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 2012 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' can never apply on airport land. • The parking operator does not refer to PoFA 2012 in its Notice to Keeper (NTK) but issued them with a warning which purported to make them liable, which was misleading and legally incorrect. It also incorrectly • In response to their appeal the parking operator stated its NTK complies in all respects with PoFA 2012 requirements, which is incorrect for the reasons given. • The date of issue of the NTK was Friday 27 December and it was received on Thursday 2nd January. The parking operator incorrectly states it is entitled to pursue them, from 25th January, which is at odds with the requirements of PoFA 2012. • The parking operator’s interpretation of PoFA 2012 is flawed in relation to both airport land and the incorrectly worded warning. • To omit any reference to PoFA 2012 in the NTK feels 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. • Lack of any evidence of its standing authority in this particular location, they request an unredacted record of its contract with the landowner. • The parking operator have submitted no evidence to show where the vehicle was parked on the site. • There is no clear information on the signs, the parking charge does not appear on all the signs and the parking operator has not provided evidence to show what a driver would have been able to see in the darkness and evidence of this should be provided. • This means that in all the circumstances the parking operator is incorrect to say that its NTK is PoFA compliant. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. • The parking operator has not submitted any evidence such as documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not covered by their byelaws and as the site is on airport land without such proof it is simply inadequate for the parking operator to rely on unfounded 'confidence' and mere assertions which carry no weight at all. • They have not been able to copy and paste available maps here but are happy to produce them on request. • They refer POPLA to page 28 of the Uttesford Local Plan (2005) where this land is clearly denoted as airport land, Title Number EX438483.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case the parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation. The appellant appeals on the grounds that they are not the driver and the parking operator cannot transfer liability to them as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle as the site is on airport land and this is never 'relevant land' within The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which means any land other than land which is subject to statutory control. They say the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control and this is key in making a determination over PoFA 2012 compliance. The parking operator responds stating it is confident that the location is considered relevant land as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. They says 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. The parking operator says 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. While I acknowledge the parking operator's comments, I am not satisfied that it has fully rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal, as I would have expected to see evidence to support its statement. The parking operator may be confident in its assertion but it has failed to provide evidence to show the location where the appellant parked is outside the airport boundary, or not subject to statutory control. I have also reviewed the redacted copy of the contract with the landowner and note that the following question has not been answered, "Is the land “Relevant Land as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - yes/no." POPLA is not responsible for evidence gathering and can only assess the case on the evidence freely provided by both parties. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these. '

Thank you again for all the information and assistance on this forum.

Gr1pr

Excellent result,  well done , clearly that assessor understood the finer points, costing MET the popla fee

Please post a brief report and also a link to this thread in the Popla decisions thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  so other victims can benefit from this and other cases, especially due to the maps and background information 

Please complain online to the BPA AOS compliance team regarding the use by MET of Pofa2012 paragraphs on non relevant airport land, it should not feature in their paperwork,  OR, they should clearly state that its not a Pofa2012 pcn right from the get go

Castle

russiangoldfinch said:

greetings, I just heard from POPLA that they have allowed my appeal and I am copying and pasting the decision here for your information :

' Successful

Assessor Name

Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I have also reviewed the redacted copy of the contract with the landowner and note that the following question has not been answered, "Is the land “Relevant Land as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - yes/no." POPLA is not responsible for evidence gathering and can only assess the case on the evidence freely provided by both parties. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these. '

Something to highlight in every POPLA appeal for this site.