POPLA NSL Stansted Airport

johnnypjr

Hi, I'm looking for advice on my POPLA appeal against NSL. I have searched the forum but can't find anything relating to NSL and Stansted airport.

We were photographed by a cctv vehicle stopping on a double yellow line at the entrance to a short stay car park. We were looking for the covid testing centre which was not sign posted and I didn't want to enter the short stay car park and be forced to pay unnecessarily. The place we stopped was before the no stopping signs and this is when we read the terms.

I appealed using then blue template (thanks MSE people!) and received this rejection:

Thank you for your email concerning the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at Stansted Airport by NSL Ltd on behalf of Manchester Airport Group. The PCN was issued for the following contravention: Parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that the PCN will not be cancelled on this occasion as the PCN was issued correctly. As the above vehicle came to a halt without a valid external reason including traffic or pedestrians walking the vehicle is said to have parked and as such is subject to the parking restrictions in place. Parking is not permitted where the above vehicle was observed via CCTV capture irrespective of duration. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances you have described I am unable to accept them as a valid reason to cancel the above PCN. It is the responsibility of the driver to be aware of and to adhere to the relevant signage, or to seek alternative parking arrangements to ensure the vehicle is parked without contravening the restrictions in force. I note you have requested documentation relating to the contract between NSL and Manchester Airport Group and or confirmation on the parties involved in this matter. I can advise you that as NSL are acting on behalf of Manchester Airport Group in matters relating to CCTV traffic enforcement and this arrangement is fully compliant with the Approved Operator Scheme of the British Parking Association. If you require more information on this matter, then you may contact the landowner directly in regards to this.
I have noted your comments however, as Stansted Airport is privately owned, all PCNs are issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act and in line with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. By parking on this land, you are agreeing to acknowledge, and park in accordance with the parking restrictions stated on signage around the area. I have noted that you’ve asked for more evidence however as you will have seen when you accessed the online appeal portal there is clear CCTV available showing the above vehicle along with other stills taken from that video. There is signage in place at this location informing motorists of the restrictions in place. I can confirm that sufficient signage is in place and that it meets statutory/BPA AOS requirements. I have inserted below examples of the signage in place across the airport roadways:

In conclusion, a full review of all the evidence regarding the issuing of the PCN has taken place, and, in light of the findings I am unwilling to cancel the Notice. Therefore, please make arrangements to pay the balance £60.00 in full within the next 14 days. You can pay by credit or debit card by telephoning 033 3320 2981 or by using the online payment service at stansted.mysecurepay.co.uk/ You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you still feel that your appeal has not been adequately considered, you have the option to ask for an independent review to be undertaken by the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) by visiting the following website popla.org.uk/ within 28 days of the date of service of this notice.
Your POPLA verification code is: 9999999 I must however advise you that should you choose to request a review by POPLA the full charge of £100.00 will become applicable to the above case minus any payments received already. If you choose to do nothing, after 35 days we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. This will lead to further charges being added. I am sorry that this is not the outcome you were hoping for.

Do I just use the APCOA POPLA appeal for Luton Airport, with mention of bylaws etc?

Do I mention the reason we stopped?

Do I mention the sign says No stopping No waiting At any time to drop off / pick up and they have no evidence anyone was dropped off or picked up?

If I lose the POPLA do I have to pay the full £100, I don't want to go to court.

Many thanks in advance for any advice.

Fruitcake

Has the identity of the driver been given at any point? If not, then include airport byelaws, not relevant land, PoFA does not apply, no keeper liability, stopping is not a byelaws offence, in addition to all the relevant points available to you linked from the third post of the NEWBIES.

Pick all that are relevant.

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures

Search for other Stanstead/airport/byelaws threads

Get your own photos of the site and signage. (On foot, or using a dashcam/video recording)

johnnypjr

I haven't given the identity of the driver at any point. Is it best to keep the argument legal then? Or should I give a reason for stopping (will that make any difference)?

Fruitcake

PoPLA won't consider mitigating circumstances.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Have you complained to your MP about this as well?

johnnypjr

I haven't complained to the landowner or my MP, I am cynical that it would make any difference.

Fruitcake

I guarantee that it will make absolutely no difference if you don't complain.

The Private Parking Bill that was introduced in law recently, and public consultations about the unregulated private parking industry and the forthcoming introduction of a mandatory parking code of conduct with a fully independent appeals process is a result of people complaining to their MPs.

johnnypjr

Hi, would really appreciate if someone could scan my POPLA appeal. Thanks in advance.

The above parking charge notice (PCN) was issued on Friday 24 June 2022 for an alleged offence on the 16th June 2022. I, the registered keeper, received the PCN by post no earlier than 25th June 2022. The documented contravention was ‘Parking in a restricted location during prescribed hours’ at Stansted Airport. I was not the driver of the vehicle and would be very grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150) and Airport Act 1986.
3) The operator has not shown that the keeper is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (Ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
4) Misuse of DVLA data.
5) BPA code of practice also says 20.14 no ‘reasonable cause’ explained for requesting DVLA details.
6) Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or formed.
7) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).
8) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.

1) If NSL want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and NSL have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that NSL have complied with these BPA Code requirements for the PCN issued so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as the Registered Keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof so if they disagree with this point I would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by byelaws and/or other statutory instruments.

As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer/keeper. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

Furthermore, airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.

Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.

Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply.

3) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability - “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

4) To access the DVLA data, parking companies sign up to the Kadoe contract which allows the parking company to retrieve keeper data electronically for the reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Kadoe contracts attach several conditions to the access including that the parking company seeks recovery from the driver or the keeper if the procedure in schedule 4 of the protection to freedoms act is used. The contract states data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of POFA.

Hence if the parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper with no evidence to suggest they were the driver then the data would have been misused, If the keeper will not name the driver in circumstances where POFA can no longer apply then they would be breaching the act if they continue to process their data.

5) As mentioned in point 4 above, in circumstances where the POFA can no longer apply then NSL will be breaching the Data Protection Act if they continue to process the data obtained from DVLA.

The BPA code of practice also says 20.14 “when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.“' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.


6) The alleged contravention, according to NSL, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions which were clearly and prominently displayed on the signage'. It appears that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and, as such, are misleading, as they are unable to be seen and assimilated by a driver without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. NSL are required to show evidence to the contrary.
I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: ''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be safely read by a motorist without having to stop to look and read the signs. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.'' The BPA code of Practice states drivers must be given time to read and understand and agree or disagree to a contract. Stopping to do this does not mean anyone has agreed to a contract.

There appear to be no readable or even visible detailed Terms and Conditions parking signs (Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice), especially not from a moving vehicle.

Furthermore, the sign says ‘No stopping No waiting At any time to drop off / pick up’. NSL have not provided evidence that any person or item was dropped off or picked up.


7) As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice - ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.’

Given the above points of ambiguous signage, not facing the driving direction, including mixed fonts and images, it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to read the entire signage whilst driving. Therefore, if a driver stops for a brief moment to read a sign, they MUST have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged ‘contract’. A few seconds I would say does not constitute a fair grace period and therefore NSL is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.


8) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
The amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive and contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015. £100 is excessive given the very short period that the vehicle was stopped. The Parking Eye and Beavis case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read and consider and also decide whether to accept or not. In this case signage is neither clear nor ample and the motorist has not time to read the signage or consider it as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped.
I believe that the above points demonstrate that the claim made by NSL Ltd is invalid in a number of respects. I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN

1505grandad

Are you using/quoting from BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020

Coupon-mad

They say this, which is untrue:

I have noted your comments however, as Stansted Airport is privately owned, all PCNs are issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act.

Not possible on Airport land and they are not allowed to mislead a keeper that they are liable and that POFA applies.

Complain to the BPA (that NSL are lying about POFA applying at Airports) because that might see it cancelled.

Can you show us the NTK front and back (cover your name and address)?  Haven't seen an NSL one and we want to see if it's  worded to mislead about POFA, too, as that would add to your BPA complaint.

johnnypjr

1505grandad said:

Are you using/quoting from BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020

I'm not sure, I copied from another poster.

I submitted as is.

johnnypjr

Coupon-mad said:

They say this, which is untrue:

I have noted your comments however, as Stansted Airport is privately owned, all PCNs are issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act.

Not possible on Airport land and they are not allowed to mislead a keeper that they are liable and that POFA applies.

Complain to the BPA (that NSL are lying about POFA applying at Airports) because that might see it cancelled.

Can you show us the NTK front and back (cover your name and address)?  Haven't seen an NSL one and we want to see if it's  worded to mislead about POFA, too, as that would add to your BPA complaint.

Sorry, I've only just seen your reply.

I will upload the NTK when I get access to a scanner.

I submitted to POPLA and have just received the NSL response:

Thank you for the email concerning the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at Stansted Airport by NSL Ltd on behalf of Manchester Airport Group. The PCN was issued for the following contravention: Parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours. After careful consideration, we regret to inform the keeper that the PCN will not be cancelled on this occasion as the PCN was issued correctly. As the above vehicle came to a halt without a valid external reason including traffic or pedestrians walking the vehicle is said to have parked and as such is subject to the parking restrictions in place. Parking is not permitted where the above vehicle was observed via CCTV capture irrespective of duration. Whilst we appreciate the circumstances described we are unable to accept them as a valid reason to cancel the above PCN. It is the responsibility of the driver to be aware of and to adhere to the relevant signage, or to seek alternative parking arrangements to ensure the vehicle is parked without contravening the restrictions in force. We note the keeper has requested documentation relating to the contract between NSL and Manchester Airport Group and or confirmation on the parties involved in this matter. We can advise that as NSL are acting on behalf of Manchester Airport Group in matters relating to CCTV traffic enforcement and this arrangement is fully compliant with the Approved Operator Scheme of the British Parking Association. If more information on this matter is needed, contact the landowner directly in regards to this. We have noted the comments however, as Stansted Airport is privately owned, all PCNs are issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act and in line with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. By parking on this land, all drivers are agreeing to acknowledge, and park in accordance with the parking restrictions stated on signage around the area. We have noted the keeper has asked for more evidence however as they will have seen when they accessed the online appeal portal there is clear CCTV available showing the above vehicle along with other stills taken from that video. There is signage in place at this location informing motorists of the restrictions in place. We can confirm that sufficient signage is in place and that it meets statutory/BPA AOS requirements. We have inserted below examples of the signage in place across the airport roadways: In conclusion, a full review of all the evidence regarding the issuing of the PCN has taken place, and, in light of the findings we are unwilling to cancel the Notice.

Do I respond to this in the POPLA comments box?