POPLA NSL Stansted Airport

brassneck_2

Thanks.  The only thing is on the appeal web form there is a button which says yes / no to being the driver. I am the vehicle keeper - what happens if I say I wasn't driving when I was?

Coupon-mad

They are not allowed to ask that either. Send a complaint to the BPA about these two things immediately.

Fruitcake

There is nothing stopping the keeper from appealing by post.

johnnypjr

Coupon-mad said:

Right!

Immediate complaint to the BPA on two counts (WITHOUT SAYING WHO WAS DRIVING):

1.  They are using a POFA NTK to mislead the keeper about liability but this is an Airport (Stansted) and it's not 'relevant land'.  This is specifically disallowed under the Code and by the DVLA.  A serious breach, which the BPA has stopped before with other rogue operators, e.g. when the pariahs of Sussex One Parking Solution were using a POFA NTK re land owned by BHCC.  Land under statutory control cannot fall under POFA Schedule 4 and the keeper cannot be liable.

2.  The contravention attempts to impersonate a Local Authority penalty charge, by using the specific phrase 'during prescribed hours' which is meaningless in this context, but a clear copy of LA code 01.  This breaches the Code of Practice by impersonating a level of authority that NSL do not have and making it appear to be a Code 01 penalty.  Misleading wording is being eradicated by the DLUHC and operators are supposed to be cleaning up their act, not inventing new ways and phrases to get around the new incoming Government regulation.



P.S.  Use the exact wording above in your online complaint to the BPA and please tell us the complaint ref you are allocated, so others can use the same reference in future complaints.

P.P.S   Do this complaint WHETHER OR NOT you win at POPLA.  No paying!

Did you do your comments already, pointing out this is land under Statutory control and the keeper CANNOT be held liable, and a complaint has been made to the BPA about NSL knowingly using a POFA NTK for land that is always specifically outside of POFA.

Thanks so much for your help, really appreciate it.

I have submitted my comments to POPLA including the Statutory control part.

I have complained to BPA with your 2 points above. I was issued a case number - is this what you meant by complaint ref?

Coupon-mad

Yes, please can we have that so others can follow your complaint and refer to the same investigation.

People need to also complain about the website demanding to know who was driving, which is a breach of the Code as well.

johnnypjr

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, please can we have that so others can follow your complaint and refer to the same investigation.

People need to also complain about the website demanding to know who was driving, which is a breach of the Code as well.

Case ref relating to NSL Ltd Stansted Airport is 

BPA-033381

Coupon-mad

johnnypjr said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, please can we have that so others can follow your complaint and refer to the same investigation.

People need to also complain about the website demanding to know who was driving, which is a breach of the Code as well.

Case ref relating to NSL Ltd Stansted Airport is 

BPA-033381

Thanks!

Other NSL Stansted victim posters please note and use the same complaint ref to the BPA, citing the three specific areas of complaint already highlighted on this thread.

johnnypjr

Happy to report a successful POPLA appeal against NSL Stansted Airport! Thank you everyone for all your help. It's not the fine that matters, it's the principal!

Will also post in the main POPLA appeal thread

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Spencer Lawrence

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for being parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that they were misdirected and stopped to read the sign, did not agree to the terms of the sign, then left. They state it was not possible to read the sign without stopping the vehicle. They state the following reasons: 1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. 2. Non relevant land under POFA. 3. The operator has not shown that the keeper is the driver who was liable for the charge. 4. Misuse of Driving and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) data. 5. No reasonable cause to request DVLA data under Section 20.14 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 6. Misleading and unclear signage. The sign states ‘No stopping No waiting At any time to drop off / pick up’, and the operator has provided no evidence that a drop off or pick up took place. 7. No grace period given under Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. 8. The amount demanded is a penalty and not a parking charge. The appellant has commented on the operator’s evidence reiterating the grounds made in their initial statement.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the land. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant codes of practice or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions and the PCN has been issued correctly. After fully reviewing the operator’s evidence, I am not satisfied that it supports the reason the PCN was issued. The operator has stated the PCN was issued as the appellant parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours. Upon reviewing the evidence of the signage, the sign states, “Restricted ZONE: No stopping: No waiting At any time to drop off / pick up.” The appellant says that they stopped in order to read the signage whereby they rejected the terms and left. Therefore, the appellant has not dropped off or picked up. The wording on the signs only makes it clear that you cannot stop or wait to pick up or drop off at any time. The signs do not state that a PCN will be issued for simply stopping in the area. As the signs do not just state no stopping or waiting, and specifically mention drop off and pick up, then a PCN cannot be issued for a vehicle simply stopping in the area. The evidence the appellant’s vehicle the operator has provided only shows times between 10:10:42 and 10:10:452, therefore there is no evidence to show the appellant did drop off or pick up in the area. The appellant says they stopped in order to read the signage. If the operator wants to issue a PCN for simply stopping or waiting in the area, then the signs need to make this clear, which based on the evidence provided I am not satisfied is clear. I have to assess the reason that the PCN was issued as stated on the PCN and determine if the evidence provided supports the reason for the PCN being issued. The operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the driver has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. Based on the evidence provided, I am unable to conclude that the site has a condition of being issued a PCN for simply stopping in the area. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the driver has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I note the appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. However, I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. For the reasons stated above, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I have to allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Very well done!

Congratulations!

And...

...please don't leave us yet!  Stick around.

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens later this year, once the new Ministers are fully appraised.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers! You have a personal story to tell about the culture and how intimidating it all feels.

And indeed, the DLUHC need to hear from people and be reassured that, had this been a fair cop (fair reason for issue) and a lower parking charge like £50/£25 then you may well have taken it on the chin and paid up, as people do with most Local Authority PCNs.

They ALSO need telling that the proposed London level of £130/£80 is extortionate and unnecessarily high, at 30% higher than the current BPA and IPC cap.  If London needs to be slightly higher for certain contraventions, then cap it at £100 - don't increase it!

No-one asked for £130. Not even the parking industry.  It is FAR TOO HIGH and a dangerously intimidatory and penal level. Obviously open to rampant abuse by PPCs in London, who will be let loose to have a field day at £130 a pop.

Old_Slobberchops

Coupon-mad said:

Very well done!

Congratulations!
.

Note that the assessor ducked the issue of byelaws and not relevant land and went further down the list. I've seen a few now where they are reluctant to find "not relevant land" at airports despite it glaring them in the face. Truly they are barristas and "resting" nail technicians. The sooner a proper appeal service that understands the law, rather than a provided scipt,  the better