NSL appeal change from 'owner' to 'driver'!

Coupon-mad

No-one knows the name of the POPLA Coach. I told that other poster EXACTLY what to write.

Boredtog

Thanks very much. I've just submitted the rebuttal as suggested on the other thread, so I'll report back when I get an update.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Boredtog said:

Thanks very much. I've just submitted the rebuttal as suggested on the other thread, so I'll report back when I get an update.

Thanks again

And I have today made a formal complaint about NSL to:

- the DVLA
- the BPA
- Stansted Airport

Boredtog

Update on my case. Appeal was successful at POPLA. Thanks so much for all your help Coupon Mad and others who gave advice.

POPLA response as follows:

Decision Successful

Assessor Name ***************

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • The operator are not using Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • They have raised the Airport Act 1986. • They feel the PCN amount is a penalty. • They feel it is not relevant land under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The operator have not shown the person they are pursuing is the driver. • Signage misleading and unclear. • No landowner contract or legal standing to form a contract to charge drivers. • Photographic evidence invalid. • No grace period given. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. The appellant raised additional grounds in the motorist's comments section relating a previous POPLA complaint. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal on the following reason: POPLA’s remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. After reviewing the appellant's initial appeal I note they have put : Status – Driver, however throughout their entire initial appeal to the operator and to their appeal to POPLA, they have steadfastly stated that they were not the driver on the date in question. As I am unsure of the choices afforded the appellant on the operator's system and that they state more than once that they were not the driver, I and not satisfied this status information stating: Driver proves to me that they were the driver. I will be assessing this appeal on the basis that they were the registered keeper. Additionally, The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) is a law that allows parking operators to transfer liability to the registered keeper in the event the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question does have the correct Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 paragraph to a point, however it does not mention that the PCN must be passed to the driver and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability correctly. The PCN is not PoFA compliant. or that the keeper will be pursued after 28 days if they don’t know who the driver was. As the appellant is not liable for this PCN, I must allow this appeal. In conclusion, I can see that the appellant has referenced many other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that these need to be reviewed based on the outcome reached. Overall, I am not satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly, therefore I must allow this appeal.

--- End of Appeal Response ----

Obviously very happy that the appeal was successful but, unless I'm reading it wrong, It seems it was upheld due to the PoFA wording being incorrect on the PCN, not that PoFA simply cannot be applied on airport land.

In any case, is there anything that would be useful to others for me to follow up with this?

Boredtog

Just to clarify the point about 'status - driver'. This happened during the initial appeal stage with NSL Ltd. I had chosen 'Keeper' from the drop down box on their form but when I submitted the appeal, the details noted 'Driver'. No doubt yet another underhand tactic by NSL to have an appeal thrown out!

Umkomaas

Obviously very happy that the appeal was successful but, unless I'm reading it wrong, It seems it was upheld due to the PoFA wording being incorrect on the PCN, not that PoFA simply cannot be applied on airport land.

Well done on a successful POPLA appeal - would you mind copying and pasting into the POPLA Decisions Announcement at the top of the forum index, with NSL showing as the PPC (for context) and a link back to this thread. It will remain visible there long after this particular thread has rapidly slid down the forum.  

POPLA always swerve any potentially sensitive area, or stuff they haven't the wherewithal to comprehend. 

Boredtog

Umkomaas said:

Obviously very happy that the appeal was successful but, unless I'm reading it wrong, It seems it was upheld due to the PoFA wording being incorrect on the PCN, not that PoFA simply cannot be applied on airport land.

Well done on a successful POPLA appeal - would you mind copying and pasting into the POPLA Decisions Announcement at the top of the forum index, with NSL showing as the PPC (for context) and a link back to this thread. It will remain visible there long after this particular thread has rapidly slid down the forum.  

POPLA always swerve any potentially sensitive area, or stuff they haven't the wherewithal to comprehend. 

Will do. Thanks very much.

It's a shame that a n appeal body refuse to deal appropriately with a PPC that so blatantly breaks the law!

Trainerman

Boredtog said:

Umkomaas said:

Obviously very happy that the appeal was successful but, unless I'm reading it wrong, It seems it was upheld due to the PoFA wording being incorrect on the PCN, not that PoFA simply cannot be applied on airport land.

Well done on a successful POPLA appeal - would you mind copying and pasting into the POPLA Decisions Announcement at the top of the forum index, with NSL showing as the PPC (for context) and a link back to this thread. It will remain visible there long after this particular thread has rapidly slid down the forum.  

POPLA always swerve any potentially sensitive area, or stuff they haven't the wherewithal to comprehend. 

Will do. Thanks very much.

It's a shame that a n appeal body refuse to deal appropriately with a PPC that so blatantly breaks the law!

Which clearly illustrates why PoPLA are totally unfit for purpose

Coupon-mad

Boredtog said:

Just to clarify the point about 'status - driver'. This happened during the initial appeal stage with NSL Ltd. I had chosen 'Keeper' from the drop down box on their form but when I submitted the appeal, the details noted 'Driver'. No doubt yet another underhand tactic by NSL to have an appeal thrown out!

Did you point this out to Gemma at the BPA in your complaint?

This is really important. The appeal page can't change the status you selected.

That decision is laughable - you are right that the Assessor has assumed it's relevant land or not even thought about it.