MET Parking Stansted PCN, NTK, unsuccessful: appeal, POPLA, & complaint

sitsat

Hello everyone,

Loathe to start another thread on the topic but searching has got me only so far. The last relevant thread I could find had a successful POPLA complaint asking to review POPLA's outcome, but mine has failed.

It's the usual story - PCN issued via NTK, I appealed using PoFA, appeal failed, went to POPLA which failed because the Just Stop Oil injunction map was used as 'proof' of boundary change and also the land was sold (apparently neither matters legally). I complained because this is not the law, and they've upheld the assessors rejection. E-mail below.

I'm not entirely sure what to do now, because she signed off with "don't contact us again". Am I really just supposed to sit around while they send aggressive letters to wait-and-see if they drop it or not, and if not, go to court? I know the the advice is to sit tight and wait it out but family life is stressful right now due to illness and I just do not want this traipsing behind me for what the internet says could be up to 6 years(!)

Any commiserating or suggestions appreciated.

Spoiler Warning

Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA team, as I am responsible for responding to complaints. Thank you for also arranging third party authorisation for you to discuss the complaint by XYZ

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in the appeal against Met Parking Services.

POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service, and we do not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence and documents from either party in support of their submission, and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both parties at the time of the appeal. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed.

It is also 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 POPLA process and identify whether a procedural error has occurred.

I have summarised your complaint as follows:

You say the fact the driver had not registered the vehicle is not relevant as the driver is not being pursued for the PCN the keeper is. You say the operator cannot pursue the keeper as it does not have the power to do so as the land is not defined as relevant under PoFA 2012. You state a site map of the airport boundary, available presently on the airport's own website, was provided by the appellant which clearly shows the land on which the car park sits as within the boundary of what the airport considers to be the airport. You say the map was contested by the operator who used another map

This map was contested by MET who provided an alternate map of the airport boundary as defined by an injunction concerning Just Stop Oil protesters and this injunction does not hold any relevance to the definition of the boundary of the airport in regards to PoFA 2012 or the byelaws. You say the red line shown does not mark a statutory redrawing of the airports boundary nor does it amend Byelaws. You say the  Byelaws are a public-law overlay which cannot be superseded by the sale or lease of land to a third party, so the sale of the land in 2011 to Grove Developments is not relevant. You say that the operator has not produced any instrument which amends the Byelaws or redefines “Stansted Airport – London” so as to exclude Southgate Park, nor any instrument revoking the application of the byelaws to this land.

I have looked at the case following your complaint and can see the assessor was satisfied that operator had met requirements of PoFA 2012 and that the registered keeper could be held responsible for this PCN. The assessor stated:

“The appellant submits that Southgate car park is situated within the confines of Stanstead Airport and therefore does not constitute “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA 2012. In support of this contention, the appellant has provided two maps from the Manchester Airport Group website who own and operate the airport.

In response to the appellant’s claims, the operator has provided a copy of the map taken from the land registry, along with various maps of the area. This evidence shows that Southgate Park was previously a part of the airport but was sold in 2011. The operator has also provided a copy of the Title Register, which shows that the land is now privately owned.

In this case, I’m satisfied that the land registry and the title register taken from the government’s website are more convincing that the site is relevant land than the airport map provided by Manchester Airport Group.

On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s submission and established that the Southgate car park constitutes “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA 2012.”

I must advise that there is no clear boundary defined within the Byelaws themselves, other than to say:

“Byelaws shall apply within Stansted Airport London.” And also “the airport” means the aerodrome known as Stansted Airport – London.”

Therefore, if some of Stansted Airport - London was sold, this could alter the boundaries as that land would no longer be part of the aerodrome known as Stansted Airport - London. In the assessor’s case they reviewed the operator’s evidence and were satisfied that the land itself was sold in 2011 and due to the sale no longer formed part of the aerodrome known as Stansted Airport - London.

I have reviewed the assessor’s decision, and I am satisfied that no procedural error has occurred as the assessor considered all evidence provided when reaching their decision. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process, and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint, and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

cooldude255220

Loathe to start another thread on the topic but searching has got me only so far. The last relevant thread I could find had a successful POPLA complaint asking to review POPLA's outcome, but mine has failed.

Could you link this please?

And can you provide a Google Maps link to the location of the car park?

And also, it would be helpful if you could upload their evidence if that is possible?

Am I really just supposed to sit around while they send aggressive letters to wait-and-see if they drop it or not, and if not, go to court?

Unfortunately, yes!

sitsat

Could you link this please?

I'm too new directly but it's at this address - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631550/met-parking-pcn-stansted-ntk/p1. The evidence for the boundary was the same as in that thread, the injunction, which they can't seem to decide is the point or if it's actually the sale of the land in 2011. They seem to care more about the 2011 sale now. The injunction map is in that thread but in case you can't find it, it's also at https://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/injunction/ click 'Injunction Order' to see it.

And can you provide a Google Maps link to the location of the car park?

In maps, put: MET PARKING CM241PY

This was the next reply I came up with but honestly it's like talking to a brick wall, I wasn't sure if it's better to just go to sit-and-wait since she specifically told me not to contact them again:

Spoiler Warning

I understand you do not want me to contact you again, but you have failed in your email to understand exactly the point I was making and have made it for yourself, in reverse. If the land WAS 'Stansted Airport' before it was sold to Grove Developments in 2011, it still IS Stansted Airport because the private sale of land does not overrule byelaws. The land is sold with the byelaws in place - sales do not revoke byelaws unless there is information which says so specifically. As none has been provided, the byelaws still apply. If you aren't aware of what this means or how byelaws are applied, please escalate this. You have in your email noted exactly this - the land WAS considered Stansted Airport. The argument that the sale of the land in 2011 overrules a byelaw is a failure to understand the law. MET cannot legally uphold this claim - if you are going to facilitate an independent appeals process which allows private companies to deliver penalties and charges to individuals you have a responsibility to be impartial and to understand the law.

cooldude255220

Thank you, that's helpful.

Is it still possible to access the operator's evidence and upload a copy to dropbox for example? I'm especially interested in the land registry documentation mentioned.

The issue is defining where the byelaws apply, which is not particularly straightforward.

My take:

It is not necessarily true to say that if the byelaws did apply to that land pre-sale, then they still apply post-sale. Whether or not that is true depends on what the byelaws say.

For example, TFL's railway byelaws apply to "trains, track and stations that are part of Transport for London‟s
railway", and railway is defined as:

(a) the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its
subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any
associated equipment; and

(b) any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time
being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services
under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries;

That means that if, for example, a railway station stops being owned by TfL or its subsidiaries, or used for providing railways services under an agreement with TfL or any of its subsidiaries, then the byelaws would cease to have effect with respect to that station.

Some byelaws pretty much just say - this is a map of where the byelaws apply. In those cases I would argue land ownership is irrelevant.

Some Airports define the airport as being land which for the time being used for the airport and is shown on the Plan. In those case, there's an argument to say that if the new owner's use is completely unrelated to the airport, then even though it's included within the boundary, it's no longer "for the time being used for the airport" and so the byelaws wouldn't apply.

In Stansted's case, the byelaws apply "within Stansted - London", but that isn't really further defined anywhere.

So the question is, what does that actually mean? And does it hinge on the ownership?

For future cases, I think we need to construct an argument that says ownership is irrelevant. But that's why seeing their evidence pack would be helpful.

For you, however, you've reached the end of the line and there's no point emailing them again.

sitsat

I can only go off what POPLA and MET give me - I'm not a legal professional. If they state that the land is "no longer" Stansted Airport because of a private sale, with no evidence to prove it, then all I have is that private sales do not immediately supersede byelaws. Stansted's byelaws are available freely online if you want to dig through them but personally I've had enough of it.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence provided wrt land registry. It's just things they're saying. The only thing uploaded was the map, in counter to mine (mine being taken from Stansted's website, since the boundaries aren't defined in the byelaws I thought Stansted's own definition of 'the airport' would suffice.) I will double check the appeal later to confirm.

I understand that there's a lot of nuance and argument to be had with these kinds of cases, but the thing is, they have not upheld any of it. They aren't providing any evidence that the sale supersedes the byelaws. In my mind there's not much point in speculating whether or not the sale might or might not supersede them - if it did, there would be evidence they could point to. As they haven't, there is no evidence, so why is the appeal rejected. I'm just an ordinary person, the idea that it's on me to prove what is or isn't Stansted is ridiculous when it seems quite plain that if the byelaws didn't apply, there would be a concrete way for them to highlight that immediately that didn't involve talking in circles.

Coupon-mad

Yes but 'end of the line' means "ignore", let's be clear!

It's only a matter of laughing at some letters, nothing onerous or scary at all even if anxious people live in the household. Come on, it's a letter chain. Anyone can laugh at £170 threatograms and it's amusing, if anything!

And if it's MET Parking then it doesn't drag on for years. They'll pass it to DCB Group and you'll get a claim form - later this year - which is what you want.

You'll know what happens in the end from reading @Umkomaas' DCB Legal thread!

sitsat

Duly noted. Will check out Umokmaas' thread, thank you for the pointer

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030040#Comment_82030040

Stansted's byelaws are available freely online if you want to dig through them 

Believe me, I'm well aware of the various byelaws!

If this is POPLA's new stance, then we need to try and formulate an argument that says "this is why the byelaws apply to this land, and this is why the other maps/sales don't change that fact".

If they state that the land is "no longer" Stansted Airport because of a private sale, with no evidence to prove it, then all I have is that private sales do not immediately supersede byelaws. 

I've just tried to explain to you why this is a flawed argument. It's not that the sale overrides the byelaws, but it could be that the sale means the byelaws no longer apply.

Let's take it to the extreme though. If the byelaws stated: these byelaws apply to the Met car park at [address]", then clearly yes, any sale wouldn't have an effect because the location is explicitly fixed in the byelaws.

But they don't.

They say "within Stansted - London". And on one view, there is certainly some force in the argument that if they have sold off that land, then it is no longer within Stansted and therefore the byelaws do not apply.

So the counter-argument has to be why that land - which may be no longer owned by Stansted, apparently - is nonetheless part of the airport.

And off the top of my head that would include the fact that the byelaws don't require the land to be owned by Stansted; that the signage at that location includes the word "Stansted"; and that the map provided on Stantsted's site includes the location.

Coupon-mad

None of which is needed now though.

No 'argument' is needed once on this (easier then POPLA) pathway to discontinuance!

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030095#Comment_82030095

This is very true! I was more thinking in terms of future POPLA appeals.

Jimbo516

A slight aside but I got a NTK from MET Parking just this week, and they now include a paragraph about the 28 day right to recover so as I understand it the initial PoFA grounds are no longer a valid argument to cancel the charge - is that correct?