POPLA NSL Stansted Airport

johnnypjr

Old_Slobberchops said:

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

Yes, I thought the same. The wording of the signage was my point 6 of 8 objections and the only one not copied and pasted from the newbies thread. The byelaws and not relevant land obviously isn't a cut and dried defence in the assessors eyes.

johnnypjr

johnnypjr said:

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?

The response from BPA:

Thank you for your patience while I contacted NSL Limited for further information. 

It might be helpful if I begin by explaining that our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme. Please appreciate that our remit does not extend to compelling operators to cancel charges or becoming involved in the appeals process.

NSL Limited have responded to advise that the land the Parking Charge Notice was issued on is private land therefore, it is relevant land and the Protection of Freedoms Act can be used. 

We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice is compliant with our Code of Practice and the language is not attempting to impersonate a Local Authority. 

I hope this information is helpful.

As I am unable to identify a breach of our Code of Practice, I have now closed this investigation. 

Coupon-mad

Reply and ask that this is escalated to Sara Roberts, Head of AOS, because clearly Airport land is never 'relevant land', due to the presence of Airport byelaws. If the BPA believes it is 'relevant land' they are sadly mistaken and should have been more diligent in investigating this complaint rather than repeating verbatim what their paying member tells them.  The BPA will now have to explain their error to the DVLA because this complaint will be escalated to them.  Stating that the POFA applies when it doesn't is a flagrant breach of the KADOE and CoP.  Steve Clark knew this and would never have spouted such rubbish; his influence is a sad loss to the BPA now that he has retired.

(attach a link to the Airport byelaws).

DVLA complaint emails are shown in the 5th post of the NEWBIES thread.

Umkomaas

NSL Limited have responded to advise that the land the Parking Charge Notice was issued on is private land therefore, it is relevant land and the Protection of Freedoms Act can be used. 

Advised, or provided proof?

ashapl83

I received exactly the same notice with parking charge £100 for parking in a restricted location during prescribed hours... I replied to them like you advised: 

The above parking charge notice (PCN) was issued on  14/11/ 2022 for an alleged offence on the 10/11/2022. I, the registered keeper, received the PCN by post no earlier than 18th of November 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 also appeal for the following reasons.

1.  you 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.

today they informed me that PCN was issued correctly.... WHAT NOW?

KeithP

@ashap183, you ask 'WHAT NOW?'

You really must start a new thread to progress your issue.
It is difficult to try and progress two different issues in the one thread. It can only lead to confusion.

However, you now need to be reading the third post on the NEWBIES thread to discover how to create a wining PoPLA appeal, but progress that in your new thread.

ramagates

Your complaint about POPLA case XXXXXX.

Thank you for your email. This has been passed to me as I am responsible for handling complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against NSL Limited.

As a part of your complaint, you have referred me to a previous case where a POPLA Coach apologised for our mis-assessment concerning Stansted Airport and keeper liability in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your complaint concerns similar circumstances, whereby the assessor determined that the parking operator could pursue you, the registered keeper, for the PCN in accordance with PoFA.

I have completed a full review of your case and will address my findings below:

In the assessor’s rationale, they confirm they were not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had been identified and subsequently concluded that the PCN complied with the provisions of PoFA. The assessor explained that they were not considering the appeal under byelaws, and I can see the appeal was assessed under contract law.

I fully accept that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the relevant land where PoFA is applicable includes any land which is subject to statutory control. You are correct that relevant land under PoFA excludes land subject to statutory control and the parking operator can only pursue the driver of the vehicle for the charge.

As per the complaint response you raised, the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. Whilst the assessor has not disputed this, it is evident they have incorrectly classified this as relevant land. This means that there has been a mis-assessment of your appeal.

I do apologise for this error and any resulting inconvenience that has been caused. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Whilst we always strive to issue accurate and robust decisions, (we consider over 60,000 cases a year) there is always the potential for human errors to be made. I note this is a second instance where this has occurred and therefore, I have escalated this internally. We will ensure that all assessors complete a further extensive training course on the applications of PoFA, specifically in respect of relevant land, to address this issue going forwards.

To conclude, I am sorry that you have not had a positive experience when using our service. As you are aware, we are a one-stage process and there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. I understand you intend to contact the British Parking Association (BPA) regarding the charge. You are also free to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh), for independent legal advice.

POPLA’s involvement with your case has now ended, and my response closes our complaints process. I must advise there will be no further review of your complaint and any further correspondence on the matter will not be responded to.

Yours sincerely,

1505grandad

In other words  -  "We Are  Buggard Again  -  So What?"

Umkomaas

We will ensure that all assessors complete a further extensive training course on the applications of PoFA, specifically in respect of relevant land, to address this issue going forwards.

No need for any 'extensive training course', just a simple instruction that any PCN issued at an airport is likely to be outside the scope of PoFA for keeper liability and must be assessed with extra care. Any case where the assessor is about to side with the PPC must be referred to POPLA's sector expert for countersigning!

Well done @ramagates in squeezing this from POPLA. But it's still a crap washing of hands in terms of a reassessment and a reversal of their adjudication decision.  Surely another nail in their coffin for any (declining) hope they might have for winning the contract to deliver the single appeals service for the DLUHC. 

ramagates

Credits to @Coupon-mad. You are a star