POPLA NSL Stansted Airport Drop off

Coupon-mad

If you don't want to send that complaint, I will!

I am about to send a complaint about @ramagates case, whose appeal was wrongly refused by POPLA. This will include a DVLA complaint.

Their case is here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6475106/popla-refuse-the-appeal/p1

By the way you need to do a POPLA appeal this month. Copy one from a different NSL thread where POPLA was done and either won by the appellant or NSL gave up.

Tezan23

Coupon-mad said:

If you don't want to send that complaint, I will!

I am about to send a complaint about @ramagates case, whose appeal was wrongly refused by POPLA. This will include a DVLA complaint.

Their case is here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6475106/popla-refuse-the-appeal/p1

By the way you need to do a POPLA appeal this month. Copy one from a different NSL thread where POPLA was done and either won by the appellant or NSL gave up.

Thank you @Coupon-mad for your support and guidance. Rest assure I will send that complaint as you have instructed.

Please can you see my draft POPLA appeal before I send as I am very close to 28 days (and advice any changes):

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx

NSL Parking PCN no: xxxxxxxxx

 

A notice to keeper was issued on 6th October 2023 and received by me, the Hirer of xxxxxxx for an alleged contravention of ‘FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF APPROVED PARKING AREA’ at Stansted Airport. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN. I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

 

1) NSL’s online appeal process illegally requires me to answer the question as to whether I was the driver of the vehicle and does not allow an appeal unless that compulsory field is answered thus forcing the public into taking a position on whether they were or were not the driver. This is entrapment/a sneaky attempt to force users to incriminate themselves / compromise their position.

 

2) NSL is not using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) correctly / misquoting POFA 2012: NSL have claimed in their rejection that “POFA ...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 …”. They haven’t shown they’ve met the requirements.

 

3) If NSL want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and NSL have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, their Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that NSL have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

 

4) The PCN correctly quotes 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but goes on to make a misleading claim and says that “If you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver”. That is not what 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 says and NSL have provided no basis for their claim that I am required to provide the name and postal address of the driver. If I am not required to provide these details, then NSL have no claim as they do not have the details of the driver.

 

5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws. POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

 

“As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.”

 

6) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

 

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains, I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

 

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

 

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

 

Understanding keeper liability

 

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

 

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

 

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

 

"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

 

7) Here is a recent NSL case where the POPLA Coach has admitted that they got it wrong about 'relevant land' at Airports:

 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6402952/nsl-stanstead-airport/p4

 

“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 "

Here in this case, it is evident that two POPLA Assessors were fooled by NSL pretending that Airport Land is 'private land' - and it cannot happen again.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for the POFA to apply anywhere at Stansted Airport.  If the Assessor reading this is unsure and thinks that issuing a POFA NTK was OK at this location, they are plainly wrong in law and must refer this case to the POPLA Coach or Lead Adjudicator to prevent yet another POPLA error that will be shown to the DLUHC.

 

POPLA cannot say that a POFA-worded PCN was properly given at an Airport site.  POPLA cannot say that the keeper is liable. The POPLA Coach will explain if the Assessor thinks otherwise.

 

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

 

Name and address [/quote]

Tezan23

Coupon-mad said:

No, not a brand new email, of course, as they were already copied into your complaint.

I'm saying you just forward the chain back to them both (DVLA and the BPA) with the BPA's reply showing, and say:

Never mind the BPA dragging its heels on this for months, what exactly is the DVLA doing about this, given the facts that:

- the DVLA has previously consistently banned AOS members from KADOE access, for saying that the POFA and 'keeper liability' applies when it doesn't, and

 - there is no debate about this. The POFA is crystal clear:

3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.

- the Department for Transport clarified in the official Guidance to this part of the POFA that keeper liability does not apply on byelaws land (Airports, Ports, Railways, etc.):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79d6be40f0b670a8025ccb/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

No other AOS member is attempting to use the POFA on non-relevant land.  Not APCOA, VCS, NCP, UKPPO nor any other. 

Just NSL and they are out of step and the law says they cannot do this. 

Clearly the DVLA want private operators to enforce airports and stations and they already are.  No operator has any problem operating there.  APCOA even issue Penalty Notices at stations. Others stick to Parking Charge Notices (non-POFA wording).

Even if the DVLA wants to imagine that in an ideal World based on what they seem to want, keeper liability should be 'bent' to suddenly apply, the fact is that it doesn't. The DFT state in the POFA Guidance in black and white that it doesn't.  If the DFT want to change this over a decade after POFA, it will require legislation, not 'changes by stealth' by giving the nod to their contacts at parking firms to suddenly pretend they can do what they like, and hoping no-one makes any noise.

There is noise.

This will reach the press if the DVLA are no longer consistent in suspending KADOE from operators who whinge that they 'want' to be able to use a law that does not apply. Legislate then, if the DFT want to change it! But this sort of anti-motorist 'pro-parking operator' rubbish goes completely against the Government's stance as well as being a DFT U-turn which doesn't look great with just months to go until a General Election.

Not only does moving the keeper liability goalposts not look great to voters, how will this look to the ICO?  A complaint will be made if the DVLA (without legislation) now try to retrospectively switch - or let recipients of keeper data switch - lawful basis for releasing/processing data, which on Airport land has always been provided for 'non-POFA' PCNs only.  It cannot now be released on a false premise that the keeper is liable (false, because the DFT themselves say the keeper is not).

The point here is, although the DVLA was not pulled up by the ICO last time they were investigated, it does not mean a U-turn relating to lawful release of keeper data would be acceptable: in a guidance document  that still applies, the ICO stated:

“If you find at a later date that your chosen [lawful] basis was actually inappropriate, it will be difficult to simply swap to a different one.” It added: “Retrospectively switching lawful basis is likely to be inherently unfair to the individual and lead to breaches of accountability and transparency requirements.”

What is needed from the DVLA is the consistent approach that saw operators and debt collectors suspended in 2012, for wrongly stating that keeper liability applied.  If this isn't forthcoming this complaint will be escalated to the ICO, and publicised.

Sent! Thanks @coupon-mad

Tezan23

Tezan23 said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you don't want to send that complaint, I will!

I am about to send a complaint about @ramagates case, whose appeal was wrongly refused by POPLA. This will include a DVLA complaint.

Their case is here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6475106/popla-refuse-the-appeal/p1

By the way you need to do a POPLA appeal this month. Copy one from a different NSL thread where POPLA was done and either won by the appellant or NSL gave up.

Thank you @Coupon-mad for your support and guidance. Rest assure I will send that complaint as you have instructed.

Please can you see my draft POPLA appeal before I send as I am very close to 28 days (and advice any changes):

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx

NSL Parking PCN no: xxxxxxxxx

 

A notice to keeper was issued on 6th October 2023 and received by me, the Hirer of xxxxxxx for an alleged contravention of ‘FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF APPROVED PARKING AREA’ at Stansted Airport. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN. I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

 

1) NSL’s online appeal process illegally requires me to answer the question as to whether I was the driver of the vehicle and does not allow an appeal unless that compulsory field is answered thus forcing the public into taking a position on whether they were or were not the driver. This is entrapment/a sneaky attempt to force users to incriminate themselves / compromise their position.

 

2) NSL is not using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) correctly / misquoting POFA 2012: NSL have claimed in their rejection that “POFA ...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 …”. They haven’t shown they’ve met the requirements.

 

3) If NSL want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and NSL have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, their Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that NSL have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

 

4) The PCN correctly quotes 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but goes on to make a misleading claim and says that “If you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver”. That is not what 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 says and NSL have provided no basis for their claim that I am required to provide the name and postal address of the driver. If I am not required to provide these details, then NSL have no claim as they do not have the details of the driver.

 

5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws. POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

 

“As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.”

 

6) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

 

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains, I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

 

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

 

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

 

Understanding keeper liability

 

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

 

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

 

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

 

"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

 

7) Here is a recent NSL case where the POPLA Coach has admitted that they got it wrong about 'relevant land' at Airports:

 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6402952/nsl-stanstead-airport/p4

 

“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 "

Here in this case, it is evident that two POPLA Assessors were fooled by NSL pretending that Airport Land is 'private land' - and it cannot happen again.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for the POFA to apply anywhere at Stansted Airport.  If the Assessor reading this is unsure and thinks that issuing a POFA NTK was OK at this location, they are plainly wrong in law and must refer this case to the POPLA Coach or Lead Adjudicator to prevent yet another POPLA error that will be shown to the DLUHC.

 

POPLA cannot say that a POFA-worded PCN was properly given at an Airport site.  POPLA cannot say that the keeper is liable. The POPLA Coach will explain if the Assessor thinks otherwise.

 

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

 

Name and address [/quote]

@coupon-mad is this ok to send or does it require any tweaking?. Thanks

Fruitcake

Para 1, The operator's actions are not illegal (criminal law) but may be unlawful (civil law), so you need to remove or amend the comment about this being illegal.

"This is entrapment/a sneaky attempt to force users to incriminate themselves / compromise their position."

I think this would be better worded to say that a motorist is forced to either lie in order to appeal, or is otherwise prevented/prohibited from appealing.

Para 3, I would replace "I have had no evidence ..." with something like, "NSL have provided no evidence ..."


Para 5, You are not the registered keeper. You are the hirer and therefore the keeper, or day to day keeper.

Coupon-mad

POPLA Codes last 33 days, not 28.

Remove this waste of words at the start:

A notice to keeper was issued on 6th October 2023 and received by me, the Hirer of xxxxxxx for an alleged contravention of ‘FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF APPROVED PARKING AREA’ at Stansted Airport. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

In para 5, remove the stuff about Steve MacAllan from a hundred years ago and instead quote the POPLA Coach this year.

Search the forum for NSL POPLA Coach

Tezan23

Thank you @Fruitcake & @Coupon-mad for you amendments. I have sent off my POPLA appeal with the amendments. I will keep everyone updated here of the result when it does come. Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

What did you put about the POPLA Coach?

Tezan23

Coupon-mad said:

What did you put about the POPLA Coach?

POPLA assessor Richard Beaden recently found in August 2023 in the case of NSL limited – EW (Stansted airport), that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

 

“In this case the PCN was issued on an airport. While the operator has shown that it has a contract for the management of the site it has not show that the land is not subject to statutory control under airport byelaws and as such I cannot consider that it is relevant land. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.”

Coupon-mad

That's just stuff from an Assessor.  I said to include the POPLA Coach complaint findings.