POPLA Action required - re NSL Stansted Airport Penalty

Kkml61

Hi all. I received NSL Stansted Airport penalty ticket. I read all the posts on newbies and searched the forum for "NSL" "Stansted" "POPLA" etc. I appealed the penalty by copying/changing some posts here. Then they refused and I escalated it to POPLA. Received a response from POPLA asking for comments? I'm stuck now. Please help. English is not my first language, it is difficult for me to understand all these. I searched everywhere and could not find what to do now. Please see below and they added lost of images with this 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. In respect to the comments regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Notice to Keeper, we must advise the keeper that the act covers the principle of ‘Keeper liability’ in specific circumstances, we believe that all those requirements have been met and the registered keeper of the above vehicle remains liable to Pay the Notice in line with the aforementioned Act. Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper meets all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act and those of the British Parking Association ’s AOS. We note the keeper has advised someone else was driving the above vehicle however to transfer liability for the PCN to that person, the keeper should have provided their full details. As they have chosen not to provide the driver details then as previously mentioned the liability remains with the vehicles’ registered keeper. 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.

Coupon-mad

Dear POPLA Assessor,

This PCN cannot have been properly given because Airport Land is never 'relevant land' and despite how they've tried to mislead POPLA, NSL can never invoke the POFA for an event at Stansted Airport.

This is very simple: my appeal tells you that I was not driving and it is legally impossible for me to be held liable on non-relevant land.

I am aware that the BPA and your Lead Adjudicator and/or your Sector Expert are this week dealing with a formal complaint about a similar Stansted Airport case that POPLA got very wrong.  A case study highlighting POPLA's failure to understand what the status of 'non-relevant land' means will be sent to the DLUHC, if POPLA continue to get this point of law wrong.

If you are about to say that you are "satisfied that this is relevant land" or that NSL has properly issued a POFA notice and can thus hold me liable as keeper, kindly stop.  You are wrong in law.

Before POPLA publish an incorrect decision (again) please refer this case to your Lead Adjudicator, because POPLA urgently needs to sort out your misunderstanding. Two Assessors have already both shown they need retraining because POPLA doesn't understand what 'relevant land' means and that it has nothing to do with the type of Notice issued.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for Airport land to be 'relevant land'.  The status of the land has nothing to do with whether or not the operator chose to issue a 'parking charge notice' (contract law) or a 'penalty notice' under the byelaws.

Here is the law explained:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

Please read section 4.

You will see that the status of Airport land is not 'relevant land' (ever) whether or not an operator uses the byelaws.

Quite simply, 'keeper liability' under the POFA can never apply on Airport land.

That non-POFA status is not dependent on, nor affected by, the type of notice issued.  However, the only types of parking contravention notice that can lawfully be issued on Airport land are the following:

(a) a penalty notice issued under byelaws, or

(b) a 'non-POFA' worded parking charge notice, which can only hold a driver liable.

Looking at the evidence pack in my case, NSL are telling POPLA that they didn't issue either of the above, and instead they are trying to invoke the POFA.

I hope you realise this is impossible.

NSL cannot have properly or lawfully issued a POFA PCN at an Airport site and if they are doing that, part of your job at POPLA is for your Leadership Team to alert the BPA, to stop the operator.

This is a clear breach of the BPA CoP section about not misleading consumers and not 'misrepresenting the level of authority or status' of a Notice.

If POPLA continue to fail to look at this issue properly and fail to demonstrate that its Leadership Team understand what is and isn't relevant land' (regardless of the type of notice issued) then the regular MSE forum poster Coupon-mad - who is known to be on the Government Steering Group regarding the new regulatory regime and statutory Code of Practice and is advising me - will personally take this evidence directly to the DLUHC this month.

One case is bad enough.

Two cases would show systemic failure.

Regretfully, this would highlight and suggest that POPLA is unfit for purpose if you don't know what you're doing regarding what is or is not 'relevant land'.  I hope I have found an Assessor who does know, or who will refer this case to your Lead Adjudicator for guidance before you make the same error.

Please restore faith that POPLA is a little better than the rival IAS, in that when your Service does get the basics of the law wrong, POPLA learns, holds its hands up, sorts out retraining and doesn't repeat it.

Kind regards,

Le_Kirk

Please restore faith that POPLA is a little better than the rival IAS, in that when your Service does get the basics of the law wrong, POPLA learns, holds its hands up, sorts out retraining and doesn't repeat it.

Kind regards,

yours faithfully

Kkml61

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk Thank you so much both! I submitted the response now. Much appreciated.