DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102410--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 14, 2025, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the continued advise guys
G
#Post#: 102981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/fl33qpp
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/flFmWKv
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/flK9hUx
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/flKJBjI
Hi Guys
As expected the appeal was refused and they decided to waste
more time and money.
I have been issued the popla code and would ask kindly for some
help with that please.
I have become addicted to reading about other cases on this
site, so have a fair amount of knowledge as how to proceed, if
you guys are busy.
Thanks again for your help and providing a great site to read,
and some of your comments do make me laugh, you sound like the
type of people id gladly have a pint with.
Cheers
G
#Post#: 102983--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you haven’t already done so, see
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/notice-to-keeper-met-stansted-southgate-carpark/<br
/>in which POPLA recently allowed a similar appeal.
A different assessor may conclude the opposite, such is the
POPLA lottery that decisions can’t be appealed and don’t set a
precedent, but I’m sure your appeal will make reference to this
decision anyway.
#Post#: 103003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: DrSatan
Date: December 18, 2025, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Gooner063 link ---
>
> I am the Keeper of the car and the driver at the time has
expressly denied me the permission to use their name, which I
agree with.
--- End Quote ---
You're getting good advice and if you follow it you won't pay a
penny, but just for anyone else reading this thread, you don't
need permission from the driver to name them.
(in legal terms, obviously. If (for example) you're married to
them and they say 'name me and i'll divorce you' that's a
different story)
But if you've fallen out with the driver and want to throw them
under the bus, then you can name them to the company without
their permission.
#Post#: 103021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The POPLA appeal I provided in the thread linked to by
[member=636]jfollows[/member] is everything you need for your
own. Use it.
#Post#: 105149--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: Gooner063
Date: January 8, 2026, 11:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guys
Happy New Year to you all.
So I received MET reply to the the popla appeal and ive cut and
pasted it here, there is also an attachment with an enormous
amount of of there evidence, do you need all of this as well.
Regards
G
In the appeal to POPLA Mrs xxxxxx states that the land in
question is not “relevant land” and therefore we have no lawful
basis to pursue the registered keeper. Firstly, we will turn to
the breach of the terms and conditions itself. In this instance,
the driver was not entitled to the free parking period as the
store was closed and they were therefore not a Starbucks
customer. As advised on the signs, only Starbucks customers are
entitled to the free parking period, and they must register
their vehicle on arrival. The driver did not make payment for
their stay as an alternative and as such the parking charge was
issued. This would not qualify under F.3(g) of the Appeals
Charter as only Starbucks customers are permitted to park for
free, which the driver was not as the store was closed. As such,
the appellant was not entitled to the further reduction when
their appeal was declined. We note that the appellant claims
that the land on which the charge was issued is not relevant
land as defined under PoFA and the basis of their argument is
that the land falls within the boundaries of Stansted Airport.
We are also aware that they have submitted an outdated plan that
remains available on the internet which they are seeking to rely
on to support their argument. The plan submitted, however, was
superseded and replaced when the airport sold the land in 2011.
The current plan for Stansted Airport can be found on the
Stansted Airport website at:
HTML https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/a7ebfb2621/mag-sealed-amended-claim-form-updated.pdf?_gl=1*3pf4ff*_gcl_au*NzgzOTEyMzEzLjE3NTkxNjMzNDE<br
/>This was used in the recent injunction against Just Stop Oil
protesters. We attach a copy of that plan below that clearly
excludes the highlighted area where the parking charge was
issued. Map of Stansted Airport from the Stansted airport
website - Area highlighted in yellow is clearly outside the
boundary of the airport We also include in section E: o an
extract from the title deeds and title plan that show the
freehold was sold on 2 August 2011 to Grove Developments; and o
correspondence received from Stansted Airport confirming that
the byelaws only apply on land that is owned and in the
possession of the airport. In light of this it is clear that the
land is not subject to the airport byelaws and instead falls
within the definition of relevant land under the terms of PoFA.
Therefore, where we do not know the name and serviceable address
of the driver and have complied with all pertinent conditions of
Schedule 4 to PoFA we may pursue the registered keeper for
payment of an outstanding charge. Please see our compliant
Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. Please also
see a full explanation of why we may pursue the registered
keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 in Section C of our
evidence pack. To summarise, the terms and conditions of parking
are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed
at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that
there is a 60-minute free stay for Southgate Park customers and
tariffs apply thereafter. Please note: as the parking event
occurred while the on-site business was closed, there is no free
stay. Should the driver have wished to use the car park while
the business is closed, they should have paid the appropriate
tariff. As the evidence we have provided in Section E of our
evidence pack demonstrates, the vehicle remained in the car park
without payment having been made. It remains the driver’s
responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply
with the stated terms and conditions. Therefore, we believe that
the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be
refused.
#Post#: 105150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 9, 2026, 2:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Gooner063 link ---
>
> We also include in section E: o an extract from the title
deeds and title plan that show the freehold was sold on 2 August
2011 to Grove Developments; and o correspondence received from
Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land
that is owned and in the possession of the airport.
>
--- End Quote ---
Can you please show us this bit?
#Post#: 105156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 9, 2026, 2:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The link which they include is NOT a link to the Stansted
Airport website. - instead it links to documents pertaining to
the Just Stop Oil court case.
This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
Their argument remains legally wrong - we accept that the
freehold may have changed hands several times but that does not
change the designation of land - the land remains land under
statutory control which means that bylaws exist and that are
technically in force.
The area shown on the Just Stop Oil map is simply the area that
Manchester Airport PLC control - the map never to pretends to be
a map which shows the entire area under statutory control.
#Post#: 105157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 9, 2026, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure we've seen this "Correspondence received from
Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land
that is owned and in the possession of the airport" before (or
if I have I've forgotten). I don't think it kills the argument,
I'm just curious to see it.
#Post#: 105159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted starbucks
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 9, 2026, 2:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=9105.msg105156#msg105156
date=1767948236]
> This is just a re-hash of their old argument.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure we've seen this "Correspondence received from
Stansted Airport confirming that the byelaws only apply on land
that is owned and in the possession of the airport" before (or
if I have I've forgotten). I don't think it kills the argument,
I'm just curious to see it.
[/quote]
Yes. I'm curious as well. But I'll guarantee that it's probably
just a statement on a document which carries no weight - we had
similar on another recent Stansted POPLA appeal which was
upheld.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page