NSL Stanstead Airport

Coupon-mad

Good.  So no letters will go to Leaseplan anyway.

pathris

Hi all,

I am writing back with an update from Popla.

"Dear xx

Thank you for your email, which has been passed to me to investigate, in conjunction with John Gallagher, the Lead Adjudicator. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay of this response.

The crux of your complaint is that the original assessment, and subsequent response to your initial complaint, incorrectly concluded that the parking operator was correct in pursuing the charge against the registered keeper, having transferred the liability in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

I have taken the opportunity to review the case in its entirety, my findings are as follows:

In their original assessment, the assessor concluded that the identity of the driver had not been clearly established and therefore they considered whether the provisions of PoFA had been met in the parking operator’s attempt to transfer liability to the registered keeper. I can see from their report rationale that they considered the PCN to be PoFA complaint.

The assessor considered the appeal, not under byelaws, but under contract law based on the fact that the parking operator issued a parking charge notice, rather than a penalty charge notice. Further, in my view, the confirmation letter from the Landowner, addressed to the DVLA, stating they had contracted the parking operator to undertake road enforcement through the issue of parking charge notices, persuaded the assessor that the landside roads of the airport boundary were relevant land.

I disagree. I am satisfied that the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, fall under statutory control. This is key in making the determination over PoFA compliance.

As you correctly point out in your email, under section 3 of schedule 4 of PoFA, relevant land means any land other than land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. This effectively means that in this case, the parking operator may only pursue the driver of the vehicle.

Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, it is evident that a mis-assessment has occurred. The assessor, when reviewing the requirements of PoFA should have recognised that the airport roads were not relevant land and allowed the appeal. This is because the PCN failed the ‘PoFA test’.

Clearly we got this decision wrong, and I can only apologise for the undoubted inconvenience caused by the error. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been as positive as we would have liked. However, I must point out that POPLA is a single stage, determinative process, and there is no recourse to reconsider the appeal, or change the outcome. That said, please be assured, I will use the learning from this case as part of our continuous improvement initiatives

Yours sincerely

xxxx

POPLA Coach "

I am happy that with the great help of cupon-mad we got there in the end and hopefully this will help other people and teach the assesors not to make the same mistake.

I wonder though what is next for me if the decision can not be overturned?

Coupon-mad

At last!

Took them long enough and it was hardly rocket science to understand that Airport land is never 'relevant land'. Never has been.

Email Sarah at the BPA and ask her to speak to NSL to ensure they are aware of this error and will not pursue you. Tell her how frustrating it is that MSE forum members have to step in and teach POPLA something as utterly basic as. "Airport land can never be relevant land"

Come on POPLA, come on BPA. You should know this. Steve Clark did. Ask her how many times POPLA has identified it has made this fundamental mistake recently, because it's a new error (POPLA used to know this basic stuff, so it MUST be a 2022/2023 training error causing slipping standards) and we know it's not a one-off; we've seen it twice on MSE (you can tell the BPA that from me). Ask the BPA what is being done to spread the net wider and review all NSL decisions made by POPLA in the last 12 months and identify the multiple errors since the training mistake caused this.

And ask why NSL are getting away with saying that a keeper can be held liable ehen they cannot be. Something Steve Clark used to crack down on the minute it was apparent. NSL cannot mislead keepers and assessors about keeper liability and if the BPA don't nip this misleading conduct by NSL in the bud, you can tell Sarah I'll raise it with the DLUHC and the DVLA.

Umkomaas

Well done on getting POPLA to concede.

I can see from their report rationale that they considered the PCN to be PoFA complaint.

First time I've seen POPLA spell that correctly! Alleluia. 😄

B789

POPLA said:

However, I must point out that POPLA is a single stage, determinative process, and there is no recourse to reconsider the appeal, or change the outcome. That said, please be assured, I will use the learning from this case as part of our continuous improvement initiatives

Pathris said:

I wonder though what is next for me if the decision can not be overturned?

You have to do as @Coupon-mad has advised and write to the BPA telling them to tell their member to drop the charge. However, if they are too stupid to do that, they could, effectively, call out the DRAs and start chasing you up to and including making a claim. Not that you wouldn't win but you don't want the hassle because POPLA admitted they were wrong but will not change the outcome, meaning that it will remain on their records as a fail for the appellant and a win for the PPC.

Coupon-mad

Please give Gemma Dorans (it wasn't Sarah, was it) a URL link to this thread and please use my words.

It's not an idle threat when I say that I will share this failure with the DLUHC and DVLA if not resolved. I am fuming about what looks like NSL misleading keepers and POPLA too.  How many keepers have suffered the same error?

It's bad enough that more than one POPLA Assessor fell for it and that it took the POPLA Leadership Team an embarrassing several weeks to understand the simple legal truth that they were meant to have already had ingrained in their minds about "land under statutory control".

But NSL's conduct looks worse to me; their wording to POPLA was clearly likely to deceive, IMHO.  They cannot do this.

Umkomaas

I am fuming about what looks like NSL misleading keepers and POPLA too.  NSL cannot do this.

Plenty of examples with the dirty work they do for councils!

pathris

Hi all, 

I received an update from BPA - Germma Dorans

Thank you for your email.

 Please be advised as we are not a regulatory body we cannot compel a member to cancel a parking charge notice. 

We have contacted NSL to ask for their comments and as soon as we receive an update we will be in touch.

 You will need to progress a complaint with POPLA directly for any complaint regarding their processes or other decisions made as they are an independent appeals service. 

 I will be in touch shortly.

 Kind regards

Gemma Dorans

I will be chasing for a response by the end of the week. In the meantime shall I take any other steps? 

Coupon-mad

pathris said:

Hi all, 

I received an update from BPA - Germma Dorans

Thank you for your email.

 Please be advised as we are not a regulatory body we cannot compel a member to cancel a parking charge notice. 

We have contacted NSL to ask for their comments and as soon as we receive an update we will be in touch.

 You will need to progress a complaint with POPLA directly for any complaint regarding their processes or other decisions made as they are an independent appeals service. 

 I will be in touch shortly.

 Kind regards

Gemma Dorans

I will be chasing for a response by the end of the week. In the meantime shall I take any other steps?

I'd point out that the BPA must intervene because an allegation of an operator misleading people about keeper liability is a serious breach of the BPA CoP and always has been.  Several AOS members were banned for that in 2012. It's not just that POPLA screwed up.  It's pointing out anywhere that NSL said - either in the NTK or rejection letter or in the POPLA evidence pack - anything misleading about 'keeper liability' at this location or mentioned the POFA or pretended it is 'relevant land'.  It is also unacceptable that LeasePlan are still being pursued, unlawfully, due to NSL breaching the BPA CoP by wrongly saying they were able to hold them liable and pulling the wool over POPLA's eyes.

I can't recall if they did mislead LeasePlan, you and POPLA but thought there was something? Check.

Can you please post your 10 digit POPLA code here now the decision has been made and mistake is clear and admitted by the POPLA Coach?  We can use it to help others win their POPLA appeals.

KeithP

Gemma Dorans said:

...it is evident that a mis-assessment has occurred. The assessor, when reviewing the requirements of PoFA should have recognised that the airport roads were not relevant land and allowed the appeal.

Clearly we got this decision wrong, and I can only apologise for the undoubted inconvenience caused by the error.

However, I must point out that POPLA is a single stage, determinative process, and there is no recourse to reconsider the appeal, or change the outcome.

That is scandalous.

The next sentence of that reply should surely say something like...
However, as we have clearly got this so wrong, on this occasion we have reversed our earlier decision and instructed NSL to cancel the charge.

Good job it wasn't a hanging offence.
Can you imagine a court, having passed sentence, saying "Yes I know we got it wrong, but you are going to have to die anyway. Sorry about that. Rules is rules".