DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 58341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: February 16, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all, i have now appealed. Will update you when i have a
reply!
#Post#: 60847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 6, 2025, 3:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got this back today, bit blunt compared to other replies I've
seen on the forums...
[center]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/dM5NkvF.png[/center]
#Post#: 60935--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: March 6, 2025, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Around the last week in February, this was a POPLA decision that
MET were unable to prove that the location is not on land under
statutory control:
--- Quote ---
> Decision: Successful
>
> Assessor Name: XXXXXX XXXXXXX
>
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to
being longer than the period of parking that had bene paid for
or without authorisation.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant’s case is that:
>
> • The parking operator can not pursue the keeper of the
vehicle as it relates to a car park within the boundary of
statutory land.
> • They are unable to use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
as it is not relevant land.
> • The car park sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport so
it is under statutory control, under Airports Act 1986, even if
it is a private car park.
> • They have evidence of the land being within the airport
boundary from the UK Government and Stansted Airport.
>
> It is important to note that the appellant was provided the
opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the
appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments
regarding the landowner contract.
>
> The appellant has provided a boundary image of Stansted
Airport showing the location of the car park within the boundary
as evidence to support their appeal.
>
> The above evidence will be considered in making my
determination.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the
operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions
has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof
begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant
has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim.
>
> I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
>
> The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of
Stansted airport, and the area within which the vehicle was
parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its
confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as
defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, however no
evidence has been provided by the parking operator to show the
car park is located on relevant land.
>
> I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the
motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no
evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map
provided by the appellant is incorrect.
>
> That is not to say the site is certainly located within the
airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might
have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my
decision based on the evidence before me.
>
> I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for
appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this
reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
--- End Quote ---
Here is the map I provided to evidence that the location is
within the Stansted airport boundary and therefore it is land
under statutory control, irrespective of what MET would have you
believe:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/57P2tH5.jpeg
So, if you want to respond to that letter, I suggest you tell
them to refer the map to a responsible adult who is not
suffering from intellectual malnourishment and can comprehend
the fact that the location is indeed at “the airport” and so
Keeper liability cannot apply.
Also, remind them that they are in breach of the PPSCoP because
their NtKs falsely state that they are relying on PoFA when it
cannot do so, in breach of section 8.1.1(d). A breach of the
PPSCoP means that they have invalidated their KADOE contract
with the DVLA and are also in breach of the Data Protection Act
2018.
#Post#: 61059--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 7, 2025, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, i will draft something and put it here beforehand to get
an opinion. Unless someone already has something i can adjust?
#Post#: 61492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 9, 2025, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Something along those lines?
The Appeals Department
Parking Charge Notice XXXX
As per my previous letter, MET cannot hold a registered keeper
liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under
statutory control and MET will be well aware that they cannot
use the PoFA provisions because Stansted Airport is not
'relevant land'.
Below is a Stansted Airport issued map which clearly states that
Starbucks is located within the airport boundary making it land
under statutory control.
In addition, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely states reliance
on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) when it cannot do so,
putting you in breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking
Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP). This breach invalidates your
KADOE contract with the DVLA, meaning you have obtained my data
unlawfully, in direct violation of the Data Protection Act 2018.
I request that you immediately cancel this charge.
#Post#: 61506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: March 9, 2025, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd be a bit more forthright with them:
--- Quote ---
> Dear MET,
>
> It is beyond comprehension that you are still claiming
Southgate Park, Stansted Airport is "relevant land" for the
purposes of PoFA. This is not a grey area, a technicality, or up
for debate. It is an undeniable fact that land under statutory
control cannot be relevant land under PoFA. Your repeated
failure to understand this is either utter incompetence or a
deliberate attempt to mislead motorists.
>
> Since this appears to be a struggle for you, let me break it
down in the simplest terms possible:
>
> 1. Southgate Park Falls Under Stansted Airport Byelaws
>
> Southgate Park is within the boundary of Stansted Airport. The
attached map is produced by Stansted Airport. It clearly shows
the official boundary of the airport. I have highlighted in red,
the location of Southgate Park, which is clearly within the blue
airport boundary.
>
> Stansted Airport is governed by Stansted Airport Byelaws. Any
land subject to statutory control, such as Byelaws, is not
relevant land under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability
cannot apply. It is basic logic that even a toddler should be
able to understand.
>
> It does not matter that Southgate Park is not right next to
the terminal. The only legal test that matters is whether the
land is subject to statutory control. Since it is, PoFA does not
apply. End of story.
>
> 2. “Private Land” Does NOT Automatically Mean “Relevant Land”
>
> I have heard that MET tries to claim that "because Southgate
Park is private land, it must be relevant land" is legally and
factually absurd. "Private land" does NOT mean "relevant land"
under PoFA. "Relevant land" means land where no statutory
control applies. Since Byelaws apply to Southgate Park, it is
NOT relevant land.
>
> To put it in terms even you might understand... Train station
car parks are also private land, yet PoFA does not apply to them
because they are covered by Railway Byelaws. The exact same
principle applies to Southgate Park because it is covered by
Stansted Airport Byelaws. If you still cannot grasp this, you
should not be in the business of issuing legally enforceable
documents.
>
> 3. Your Conduct is a Clear Breach of the PPSCoP
>
> By falsely claiming Keeper Liability under PoFA at Southgate
Park in your NtKs, you are in breach of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.1(d)
>
> [indent]"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in
its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held
liable."[/indent]
>
> Yet you misrepresent liability, issue misleading notices, and
falsely claim the Keeper is liable when you have zero legal
basis to do so. This is not an accident. This is clearly a
deliberate and ongoing breach of industry standards.
>
> 4. DVLA KADOE Breach
>
> You are in clear breach of your KADOE agreement because you
are using Keeper Data to falsely assert PoFA liability where
none exists. While you may have obtained the data lawfully, you
are now misusing it by misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal
position. PoFA does not apply at Southgate Park, yet you have
knowingly issued an NtK that falsely states the Keeper will be
liable under PoFA if they do not provide the driver’s details.
>
> This is a clear breach of KADOE, as the Keeper’s data must not
be used for purposes that are legally invalid. You are not just
issuing unlawful demands; you are misleading the Keeper into
believing they are liable when they are not.
>
> However, the central issue is your complete failure to
understand and apply the law correctly. The DVLA matter, which
will be reported, is secondary—your utter stupidity in not
comprehending why PoFA is not applicable is the real problem.
>
> Final Word: Stop Making This Ridiculous Argument
>
> Your pathetic insistence that Southgate Park is "not at the
airport" and "private land" therefore PoFA applies, is not just
legally wrong, it is embarrassingly ignorant.
>
> Stop issuing unlawful PCNs, stop misrepresenting Keeper
Liability, and stop pretending PoFA applies when it clearly does
not. You look like clueless amateurs every time you try to argue
otherwise.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 61700--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 10, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can clearly see whos got more experience writing these lol
Thanks so much, is it worth adding a bit at the end about
issuing a POPLA code? How many times will they want to go back
and forth...
#Post#: 61724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: March 10, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do not add to it. They will issue the POPLA code when they
finally reject the appeal.
#Post#: 61939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: juicymarbel
Date: March 11, 2025, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
I have sent this off.
#Post#: 61942--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 11, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> How many times will they want to go back and forth...
--- End Quote ---
Frankly, let them! They're paying some poor sod to spend their
time sending this drivel.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page