Inconsistent POPLA Decisions - Lost Appeal

pluspad

PCN for overstaying parking at McDonalds Stansted Airport.

I have never lost a POPLA appeal for Stansted Airport before so I am not sure what to do here. I received a notice to keeper for over staying at the McDonalds at Stansted Airport. I appealed to APCOA first and as usual they denied the appeal. So I went to POPLA with the "Not relevant land" defence, providing evidence that the McDonalds carpark in on airport land and requesting proof from APCOA that the land is not subject to bylaws. I did the same just a few months ago for the BP next door to McDonalds and won the POPLA appeal. However this time they have upheld the fine.

The APCOA argument was "We are confident that there are no applicable airport Byelaws relating to parking in effect at this location", and assessor Jason Cookson-Dean said "I am satisfied from the operator’s response that the land is not covered by byelaws" ?!?! Like what? I provide evidence the the land is airport land, and they say "Nah-ah" and that's all it takes?. Full decision below. Is there any more I can do? There is zero evidence the land isn't covered by bylaws, and plenty of evidence to show it is airport land. Plus all the previous decisions directly contradicting this one. It makes no sense.

Assessor Name
Jason Cookson-Dean

Assessor summary of your case
he appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The land falls within the boundaries of land defined as airport land and is specifically excluded from keeper liability under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and they ask the operator to provide evidence from the airport authority that the land is not already covered by byelaws. • They quote a previous POPLA case. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal advising that the operator has not provided evidence to show the land is not covered under byleaws.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs at the car park which state there is a maximum stay of 60 minutes. The signs also say that a PCN of £100 will be issued for not complying. It is the responsibility of the motorist when entering a car park that they make themselves aware of the signs and what the restrictions are. The keeper says that the land falls within the boundaries of land defined as airport land and is specifically excluded from keeper liability under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and they ask the operator to provide evidence from the airport authority that the land is not already covered by byelaws. The keeper has not provided any evidence to support their claim that the land falls under byelaws. I can base my assessment only on the evidence presented, and it isn't within my remit to gather evidence for or insist that specific evidence is provided by either party. The parking operator has rebutted the keepers grounds by stating: “We are confident that there are no applicable airport Byelaws relating to parking in effect at this location and would point out that only statutory control relating to the parking of a vehicle is relevant in relation to PoFA. Byelaws that do not relate to parking are not relevant under schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. 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 am satisfied from the operator’s response that the land is not covered by byelaws and they do have the authority operator on the land. POPLA deals with appeals on a case-by-case basis considering the merits of each case, therefore any external issues such as other parking events hold no bearing on our appeal making process. I fully appreciate that the keeper has quoted a previous POPLA case. I do not consider this to have any impact on the driver’s ability to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park on the day of the parking event. Therefore, I cannot consider this relevant to my decision. The driver of the vehicle would have been required to leave the car park before the 60 minute maximum stay expired, this may have prevented a PCN being issued. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver has exceeded the 60 minute maximum stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Kaizen2024

There is a strong argument that the reference to bylaws in POFA concerns bylaws that are relevant to the parking event only; not just any old bylaw.

pluspad

Kaizen2024 said:

There is a strong argument that the reference to bylaws in POFA concerns bylaws that relate to parking only; not just any old bylaw.

Even if that were true (I'd need to look. What is the 'strong' argument?) The operator provided no evidence regarding any type of bylaw for that particular piece of airport land.

Car1980

You seem to be forgetting that POPLA is a wallaby court. It's just not quite reached kangaroo status like the IAS.

You can complain that the assessor made an error in law and if you're lucky you might get a "yeah, you're right. But the decision still stands and we can't change it" response. Obviously include the previous cases to show he's deviated from decisions they've already made.

Coupon-mad

Complain to POPLA copying the other one like it. You provided evidence. MET didn't, so the Assessor should have allowed your appeal as usual. POPLA admitted error in the other case.

Kaizen2024

pluspad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

There is a strong argument that the reference to bylaws in POFA concerns bylaws that relate to parking only; not just any old bylaw.

Even if that were true (I'd need to look. What is the 'strong' argument?) The operator provided no evidence regarding any type of bylaw for that particular piece of airport land.

The argument is that POFA excluded land where bylaws apply as whoever wrote it (wrongly) deemed that bylaws offer a sufficient remedy to deal with the problem in hand (we all know bylaws are a waste of time). 

As such, if the bylaws offer zero remedy (e.g if there are no bylaws relating to the parking event), the land should be considered Relevant Land as it is unreasonable for a landowner to have no remedy to deal with parking issues.

In your case, if no bylaws relating to parking exist, the burden of proof shifts to the appellant as it is impossible for the Operator to evidence something that does not exist i.e it was for you to prove that relevant bylaws are in place.

fisherjim

Kaizen2024 said:

pluspad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

There is a strong argument that the reference to bylaws in POFA concerns bylaws that relate to parking only; not just any old bylaw.

Even if that were true (I'd need to look. What is the 'strong' argument?) The operator provided no evidence regarding any type of bylaw for that particular piece of airport land.

The argument is that POFA excluded land where bylaws apply as whoever wrote it (wrongly) deemed that bylaws offer a sufficient remedy to deal with the problem in hand (we all know bylaws are a waste of time). 

As such, if the bylaws offer zero remedy (e.g if there are no bylaws relating to the parking event), the land should be considered Relevant Land as it is unreasonable for a landowner to have no remedy to deal with parking issues.

In your case, if no bylaws relating to parking exist, the burden of proof shifts to the appellant as it is impossible for the Operator to evidence something that does not exist i.e it was for you to prove that relevant bylaws are in place.

Typical parking operator rubbish byelaws offer a far greater deterrent than a scammers charge if properly constructed and enforced, the Stanstead Byelaws were written in 1996 amended in 2024 to encompass Just Stop Oil infringements. 

The fact is that the lazy airport authority are quite happy to let a dozy PPC try their hand at controlling parking instead of using the byelaws in place or making sure they are fit for purpose.

It always amuses me when they come out with garbage where they claim they have issued a NTK for security reasons as an airport is a high security area. Oh yes sending out a parking charge in the post a week after the event issued from an ANPR van travelling past and not stopping is the best way to keep everyone safe!

Yes byelaws exist and it is the accusing PPC's responsibility to disprove they don't apply not the appellant and POPLA yet again fall on the side of their paymaster as they are poorly trained inconsistent and not fit for purpose.