Stansted Airport NSL PCN - Is the PoFA 2012 "not relevant land" defence still vaild?

ChirpyChicken

My guess is that this is non POFA due to being on airport land.  They have changed their notices are being pulled up on i suspect.  Claiming keeper liability when it is not the case
However there is no need to any PCN to comply with POFA if a parking company so wishes,  This has been the case for some parking for years and years
Smart Parking was non POFA 2012 to April 2025
Highview/Group Nexus / CP Plus (apart from those issued via DRP/CSL) were non POFA 2012 to 2022ish
APCOA is non POFA still

cooldude255220

ChirpyChicken said:

My guess is that this is non POFA due to being on airport land.

Airport land isn't the test in POFA. I've explained the legal definition and put forward an argument earlier in this thread as to why this land is indeed relevant land. 

I am genuinely interested in whether anyone has a credible argument to the contrary, instead of just seeing the word airport and immediately reckoning it's not POFA. 

ChirpyChicken

As has previously been advised NSL have changed their notice wording (unless its on the back which i doubt) because they used to claim this was relevant land for POFA.
Not it appears they do not believe this to be the case and therefore issue non POFA notices 
I am well aware of POFA and the relevant test (s) , it is something i use daily within my paid work 

cooldude255220

ChirpyChicken said:

As has previously been advised NSL have changed their notice wording (unless its on the back which i doubt) because they used to claim this was relevant land for POFA.
Not it appears they do not believe this to be the case and therefore issue non POFA notices 
I am well aware of POFA and the relevant test (s) , it is something i use daily within my paid work 

APCOA also do not use POFA-compliant Notices for land which is uncontrovertibly relevant land. It's crazy to me, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the land in law is relevant land. 

If you're aware of the tests, then I think it would be helpful to not imply that airport land is automagically not relevant land. Not all airport land is land under statutory control within the meaning of POFA. 

ChirpyChicken

cooldude255220 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

As has previously been advised NSL have changed their notice wording (unless its on the back which i doubt) because they used to claim this was relevant land for POFA.
Not it appears they do not believe this to be the case and therefore issue non POFA notices 
I am well aware of POFA and the relevant test (s) , it is something i use daily within my paid work 

APCOA also do not use POFA-compliant Notices for land which is uncontrovertibly relevant land. It's crazy to me, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the land in law is relevant land. 

If you're aware of the tests, then I think it would be helpful to not imply that airport land is automagically not relevant land. Not all airport land is land under statutory control within the meaning of POFA. 

This is an argument parking firms like VCS put forward and it has indeed been discussed between people @ the IPC and VCS.  Indeed i believe JMW hold similar views and has often been discussed within the BPA

cooldude255220

ChirpyChicken said:

cooldude255220 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

As has previously been advised NSL have changed their notice wording (unless its on the back which i doubt) because they used to claim this was relevant land for POFA.
Not it appears they do not believe this to be the case and therefore issue non POFA notices 
I am well aware of POFA and the relevant test (s) , it is something i use daily within my paid work 

APCOA also do not use POFA-compliant Notices for land which is uncontrovertibly relevant land. It's crazy to me, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the land in law is relevant land. 

If you're aware of the tests, then I think it would be helpful to not imply that airport land is automagically not relevant land. Not all airport land is land under statutory control within the meaning of POFA. 

This is an argument parking firms like VCS put forward and it has indeed been discussed between people @ the IPC and VCS.  Indeed i believe JMW hold similar views and has often been discussed within the BPA

Thanks - this is the kind of information I'm looking for, I'll see if I can dig out some discussions on the topic!

ChirpyChicken

cooldude255220 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

cooldude255220 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

As has previously been advised NSL have changed their notice wording (unless its on the back which i doubt) because they used to claim this was relevant land for POFA.
Not it appears they do not believe this to be the case and therefore issue non POFA notices 
I am well aware of POFA and the relevant test (s) , it is something i use daily within my paid work 

APCOA also do not use POFA-compliant Notices for land which is uncontrovertibly relevant land. It's crazy to me, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the land in law is relevant land. 

If you're aware of the tests, then I think it would be helpful to not imply that airport land is automagically not relevant land. Not all airport land is land under statutory control within the meaning of POFA. 

This is an argument parking firms like VCS put forward and it has indeed been discussed between people @ the IPC and VCS.  Indeed i believe JMW hold similar views and has often been discussed within the BPA

Thanks - this is the kind of information I'm looking for, I'll see if I can dig out some discussions on the topic!

Indeed and no disrespect but i suspect you probably work within the parking industry (not saying thats a bad thing) but there is plenty of "guidance" from their relevant legal teams on this from either the BPA/IPC.  

Coupon-mad

If the NTK is non POFA (in wording) it doesn't matter if the land is relevant land or not.

cooldude255220

ChirpyChicken said:

cooldude255220 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

cooldude255220 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

As has previously been advised NSL have changed their notice wording (unless its on the back which i doubt) because they used to claim this was relevant land for POFA.
Not it appears they do not believe this to be the case and therefore issue non POFA notices 
I am well aware of POFA and the relevant test (s) , it is something i use daily within my paid work 

APCOA also do not use POFA-compliant Notices for land which is uncontrovertibly relevant land. It's crazy to me, but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the land in law is relevant land. 

If you're aware of the tests, then I think it would be helpful to not imply that airport land is automagically not relevant land. Not all airport land is land under statutory control within the meaning of POFA. 

This is an argument parking firms like VCS put forward and it has indeed been discussed between people @ the IPC and VCS.  Indeed i believe JMW hold similar views and has often been discussed within the BPA

Thanks - this is the kind of information I'm looking for, I'll see if I can dig out some discussions on the topic!

Indeed and no disrespect but i suspect you probably work within the parking industry (not saying thats a bad thing) but there is plenty of "guidance" from their relevant legal teams on this from either the BPA/IPC.  

Haha, I don't work within the parking industry. I'm actually here because I'm assisting a friend with a PCN they've recently received. 

I do however have a law degree, and a Master's in Legal Practice, and that is why I'm so keen to nail down the legal position, rather than rely on the perceived wisdom being offered - which I think in some aspects is erroneous.

And whilst I appreciate your engagement with me, (and this is being thrown open to the forum in general) I am still waiting for even the foundations of an argument that my view earlier in the thread is incorrect. 

rob610183

Lads/Lasses, here is the reverse of the NTK, any thoughts?