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

Umkomaas

The NtK is not attempting to invoke keeper liability under PoFA (on either the front or back page!).  So appeal to NSL following the advice I gave earlier. 

cooldude255220

1. Do not identify who was driving. Respond as the keeper only.

2. I would appeal along these lines:

NSL are not entitled to pursue the keeper of this vehicle, either:

A: Because if it is determined the land is relevant land within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"), they have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA

The Notice is addressed to the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to hold the keeper liable under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, certain conditions must be met. There are a number of conditions which have not been met which means that keeper liability does not attach.

Firstly, Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice inform the keeper that:

     the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the 
     parking charges have not been paid in full.

The fact that the driver is required to pay is not included in the Notice. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Secondly, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice warn the keeper that:

     if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

       (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full,  

        and

       (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the 

       driver,

     the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover 

     from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

This information is also missing from the Notice. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Thirdly, paragraph 9(4) requires that, where the notice is sent by post, it is delivered within the relevant period. The alleged parking event was 28th December 2025. The notice needs to be delivered within 14 days, beginning with the day after the parking event. Taking 29th December 2025 as the first day, that means 11th January 2025 is the 14th day - i.e. the last day on which the Notice could arrive and meet the requirement of Paragraph 9(4).

The notice is dated 8th January 2026. The notice is deemed to be delivered on the second working day after posting. The 1st working day after posting is Friday 9th January 2026. The second working day after posting is Monday 12th January 2026. It is therefore deemed to have been delivered on 12th January 2026, which is after 11th January 2026.

This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

or 

B: Because if it is determined the land is not relevant land, they are unable to use POFA; and because there is no other mechanism by which to recover payment from, or to make liable, the keeper or owner of the vehicle.

To be clear, Stansted Airport's byelaws do not provide any mechanism by which to recover payment from, or to make liable, the keeper or owner of the vehicle. 

ChirpyChicken

The above appeal will in do just fine

rob610183

Thanks for the tips! -  just one  question, what are your thoughts on the scenario where a driver stops briefly at the edge of the roundabout in order to read the signs warning of the set-down/pick up fee (at the start of the ramp leading to to terminal), then turns & leaves the airport, bearing in mind the signage posted at the airport entry points? (see photo)

Coupon-mad

My thoughts are:

- the driver rejected the contract because they only stopped momentarily then left the Airport;

- the keeper isn't liable at Airports anyway.

cooldude255220

Coupon-mad said:

- the keeper isn't liable at Airports anyway.

*eye twitches*

Coupon-mad

cooldude255220 said:

Coupon-mad said:

- the keeper isn't liable at Airports anyway.

*eye twitches*

Is this based on the map earlier?

Doesn't matter anyway if the NTK was not PoFA worded.

cooldude255220

Coupon-mad said:

cooldude255220 said:

Coupon-mad said:

- the keeper isn't liable at Airports anyway.

*eye twitches*

Is this based on the map earlier?

Yes it is. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it!

Coupon-mad

If the roundabout in question is that circle (bottom right) then I agree with you, but I think we also agree that it doesn't affect the case being non-POFA due to the wording of the NTK.

Looking at the map:

The PPC might also be operating outside of their enforcement boundary of course! We've seen VCS do that before.

Glad to see you posting here, BTW. Do stay, we need more posters with a good grip on this aspect of contract law!

Never mind the futile farce of appeals, cases are a pushover and interesting to argue at court. You might enjoy lay repping parking cases if ever you get a chance. I never lost a case at any hearing where I lay repped and I only have French A level (plus a couple more irrelevant ones) from many years ago

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

If the roundabout in question is that circle (bottom right) then I agree with you, but I think we also agree that it doesn't affect the case being non-POFA due to the wording of the NTK.

Looking at the map:

The PPC might also be operating outside of their enforcement boundary of course! We've seen VCS do that before.

Glad to see you posting here, BTW. Do stay, we need more posters with a good grip on this aspect of contract law!

Never mind the futile farce of appeals, cases are a pushover and interesting to argue at court. You might enjoy lay repping parking cases if ever you get a chance. I never lost a case at any hearing where I lay repped and I only have French A level (plus a couple more irrelevant ones) from many years ago

Agreed good to have people well versed on here
I do a lot of court hearings and the more people able to do it the better!