We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Stansted Airport Parking Fine for Stopping - POPLA - comments on operator evidence
Hi, Any help and your expertise would be greatly appreciated trying to defend against the ridiculous ‘Stansted Airport Parking Fine for Stopping.’ The more threads I read the more confusing this gets and I would appreciate any assistance on how to respond best in the ‘comments on the operator evidence’ section on the POPLA website as NSL as the operator has now responded but not addressed any of the points raised.
The operator has also pursued for payment 4 days after appeal was submitted which I believe is not allowed.
On the POPLA website the following comments were submitted by the registered keeper in the ‘Your Information and Evidence’ section.
Parking charge notice: xxxx
The above parking charge notice (PCN) was issued on xxxx date for an alleged offence on the xxx date. I, the registered keeper, received the PCN by email on xxx date.
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 be very grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following
reasons.
1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA
2012.
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA
case Steve Macallan 6062356150) and Airport Act 1986.
3) The operator has not shown that the keeper is in fact the driver who was
liable for the charge. (Ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
4) Misuse of DVLA data.
5) BPA code of practice also says 20.14 no ‘reasonable cause’ explained for
requesting DVLA details.
6) Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or
formed.
7) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).
8) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
1) 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, the 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 the PCN issued so require them to evidence
their compliance to POPLA.
2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory
byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as the Registered Keeper I am
not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator
to strict proof so if they disagree with this point I would require them to
show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this
land is not already covered by byelaws and/or other statutory instruments.
As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016,
that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the
purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘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/keeper. 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.’
Furthermore, airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have
access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.
Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments
shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to
which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to
which the public has access.
Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads
to which road traffic enactments do not apply.
3) 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 Notice to Keeper.
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 I have personally not complied with terms in place
on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
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."
The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in
appeal point 2 above.
4) To access the DVLA data, parking companies sign up to the Kadoe contract
which allows the parking company to retrieve keeper data electronically for the
reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Kadoe contracts
attach several conditions to the access including that the parking company
seeks recovery from the driver or the keeper if the procedure in schedule 4 of
the protection to freedoms act is used. The contract states data can only be
used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of POFA.
Hence if the parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper with
no evidence to suggest they were the driver then the data would have been
misused, If the keeper will not name the driver in circumstances where POFA can
no longer apply then they would be breaching the act if they continue to
process their data.
5) As mentioned in point 4 above, in circumstances where the POFA can no longer
apply then NSL will be breaching the Data Protection Act if they continue to
process the data obtained from DVLA.
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.
6) The alleged contravention, according to NSL, is in 'breach of the terms and
conditions which were clearly and prominently displayed on the signage'. It
appears that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic
regulations or their permitted variations and, as such, are misleading, as they
are unable to be seen and assimilated by a driver without stopping, and
therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. NSL are required to show
evidence to the contrary.
I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the
Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: ''It is therefore very
important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such
signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be safely read by a
motorist without having to stop to look and read the signs. Signs on red
routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally
positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.'' The BPA code
of Practice states drivers must be given time to read and understand and agree
or disagree to a contract. Stopping to do this does not mean anyone has agreed
to a contract.
There appear to be no readable or even visible detailed Terms and Conditions
parking signs (Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice), especially not from a
moving vehicle.
Furthermore, the sign says ‘No stopping No waiting
At any time to drop off / pick up’. NSL have not provided evidence that any
person or item was dropped off or picked up.
7) As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice - ‘You should allow the driver
a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.
If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a
grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.’
Given the above points of ambiguous signage, not facing the driving direction,
including mixed fonts and images, it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be
able to read the entire signage whilst driving. Therefore, if a driver stops
for a brief moment to read a sign, they MUST have the opportunity to leave and
not accept the terms of an alleged ‘contract’. A few seconds I would say does
not constitute a fair grace period and therefore NSL is in breach of the BPA
Code of Practice.
8) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
The amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive and contravenes the Consumer
Rights Act 2015. £100 is excessive given the very short period that the vehicle
was stopped. The Parking Eye and Beavis case was characterised by clear and
ample signage where the motorist had time to read and consider and also decide
whether to accept or not. In this case signage is neither clear nor ample and
the motorist has not time to read the signage or consider it as the charge was
applied instantly the vehicle stopped.
I believe that the above points demonstrate that the claim made by NSL Ltd is
invalid in a number of respects. I therefore request that POPLA uphold my
appeal and cancel this PCN
None of the points have been addressed in the response provided by NSL in the ‘Operator Information and Evidence’ section.
Operator Name: NSL Limited - EW
Operator Case Summary:
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. We have noted the request for evidence that the above vehicle was parked, we must advise that all evidence including the CCTV footage captured at the time is available through our web portal (under view media) which the keeper accessed to submit an online appeal. We note the keeper has advised before or after parking in this location the vehicle was in an approved parking place where, as the keeper advised, they made payment to park however the contravention still occurred and parking in an approved location at another time does not negate that. 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.
What is the best way to respond please?
Comments
-
Go through each of your appeal points in turn, then state that the operator has failed to rebut them, and therefore the appeal must be allowed.
For example,
Point 1, NSL have failed to demonstrate that their NTK was PoFA compliant, and therefore have failed to prove the keeper is liable. Accordingly the appeal must be allowed.
Point 2, NSL have failed to demonstrate that the location where the alleged event occurred is relevant land and that byelaws do not apply. Accordingly the appeal must be allowed.
Etcetera.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2 -
I'd say:
Dear POPLA,
I wasn't driving. This is Airport land. This is not 'relevant land' (as my appeal already pointed out). I cannot be held liable and you cannot uphold the PCN under the POFA.Don't get this wrong yet again please, POPLA.
If you think I am wrong please escalate this case before providing an outcome, because this farce is going to the DLUHC now if POPLA can't sort out your errors with NSL Stansted cases and move forward properly with these decisions.
Please read these comments:
The BPA has a continuing investigation that is still ongoing, about a complaint that NSL (and only NSL) is issuing 'PoFA NTKs' on Airport land and is apparently misleading POPLA repeatedly.
The BPA's Gemma Dorans has confirmed the BPA is unhappy and is still investigating. The complaint ref is BPA-044007 and without hesitation, I will join this case into that complaint, if POPLA fail to allow my appeal. And a member of the DLUHC's Statutory Code Steering Group will show POPLA's repeated errors to the Government, to question why the BPA has made no progress in sanctioning NSL and to highlight that POPLA is failing keepers.
To summarise:
It is in the public domain that NSL continues to mislead POPLA by submitting a POFA-worded NTKs even though Schedule 4 excludes land that is under statutory control (all Airports).
- NSL Stansted; error case one: 4823142005
A complaint was escalated in April to the POPLA Coach, who admitted that POPLA "got it wrong" about 'relevant land' at Airports and retraining was promised:"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 concludedthat 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 "
- NSL Stansted; error case two: 4822223007
On 7th December (only last week) Bethany from the POPLA Complaints team responded to a similar complaint, promising a 'further extensive training course' due to this pattern of error:"Dear xxxxx ,
Your complaint
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.
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,
Bethany xxxxx
POPLA Complaints Team"
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD6 -
If this is a 'stopping' case, why are NSL saying the following?We note the keeper has advised before or after parking in this location the vehicle was in an approved parking place where, as the keeper advised, they made payment to park.If it is for 'stopping', the contradictory statement by NSL suggests they are using a template response to POPLA and have in no way given 'careful consideration'!
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street3 -
Hi Umkomaas, Many thanks for taking the time to respond.Umkomaas said:If this is a 'stopping' case, why are NSL saying the following?We note the keeper has advised before or after parking in this location the vehicle was in an approved parking place where, as the keeper advised, they made payment to park.If it is for 'stopping', the contradictory statement by NSL suggests they are using a template response to POPLA and have in no way given 'careful consideration'!
The alleged contravention was for 'Parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours' and so as evidence for the first stage appeal the register keeper submitted supporting evidence of the Official Stansted meet and greet valet parking confirmation that was booked showing that there was no need for parking/stopping/dropping etc on the approach road to the valet drop off.
1 -
Hi Fruitcake,Fruitcake said:Go through each of your appeal points in turn, then state that the operator has failed to rebut them, and therefore the appeal must be allowed.
For example,
Point 1, NSL have failed to demonstrate that their NTK was PoFA compliant, and therefore have failed to prove the keeper is liable. Accordingly the appeal must be allowed.
Point 2, NSL have failed to demonstrate that the location where the alleged event occurred is relevant land and that byelaws do not apply. Accordingly the appeal must be allowed.
Etcetera.
Thank you so much for taking the time to provide this advice. Much appreciated.1 -
Hi Coupon-mad,Coupon-mad said:I'd say:
Dear POPLA,
I wasn't driving. This is Airport land. This is not 'relevant land' (as my appeal already pointed out). I cannot be held liable and you cannot uphold the PCN under the POFA.Don't get this wrong yet again please, POPLA.
If you think I am wrong please escalate this case before providing an outcome, because this farce is going to the DLUHC now if POPLA can't sort out your errors with NSL Stansted cases and move forward properly with these decisions.
Please read these comments:
The BPA has a continuing investigation that is still ongoing, about a complaint that NSL (and only NSL) is issuing 'PoFA NTKs' on Airport land and is apparently misleading POPLA repeatedly.
The BPA's Gemma Dorans has confirmed the BPA is unhappy and is still investigating. The complaint ref is BPA-044007 and without hesitation, I will join this case into that complaint, if POPLA fail to allow my appeal. And a member of the DLUHC's Statutory Code Steering Group will show POPLA's repeated errors to the Government, to question why the BPA has made no progress in sanctioning NSL and to highlight that POPLA is failing keepers.
To summarise:
It is in the public domain that NSL continues to mislead POPLA by submitting a POFA-worded NTKs even though Schedule 4 excludes land that is under statutory control (all Airports).
- NSL Stansted; error case one: 4823142005
A complaint was escalated in April to the POPLA Coach, who admitted that POPLA "got it wrong" about 'relevant land' at Airports and retraining was promised:"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 concludedthat 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 "
- NSL Stansted; error case two: 4822223007
On 7th December (only last week) Bethany from the POPLA Complaints team responded to a similar complaint, promising a 'further extensive training course' due to this pattern of error:"Dear xxxxx ,
Your complaint
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.
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,
Bethany xxxxx
POPLA Complaints Team"
Thank you so much for your detailed advice and response.
Really appreciate your expertise and help. It is so great to know that there are people such as yourself giving your time to help newbie people like me navigate through this process. Thank you.2 -
Send that exactly. You need to leave POPLA no wriggle room in your case.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2 -
Have POPLA replied yet? Surely they are not so dumb that they don't know this one must be cancelled?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards