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

cooldude255220

rob610183 said:

Here's another snap from Streetview, - the end of the A120 airport slip road, showing a sign stating that Stansted Airport byelaws (1996) apply from that point onwards, so appears that 'Relevant Land' definitely not applicable

That is very interesting. That's clearly outside of the land marked on the Aerodrome Chart!

cooldude255220

Okay, so I've been doing some research. Of the 21 byelaws I've looked for:

• 12 have a plan annexed to them, showing where the byelaws apply
• 5 of them do not have a plan
• 2 of them, I cannot find
• 1 of them mentions a plan, but a copy is not included 
• 1 of them doesn't actually mention a plan in the body of the byelaws but one is included anyway

Byelaws which do have a plan

• Heathrow Airport
• Luton Airport
• Southend Airport
• Leeds Bradford Airport
• Newcastle Airport
• Manchester Airport
• Liverpool Airport
• Birmingham International Airport
• East Midlands Airport
• Bristol Airport
• Exeter Airport
• Cardiff Airport

Byelaws which do not have a plan

• Stansted Airport
• Gatwick Airport
• Southampton Airport
• Bournemouth Airport
• Humberside Airport

Byelaws which I have been unable to obtain a copy of:

• Teeside Airport
• Norwich Airport

Byelaws which refer to a plan in the body, but a copy is not included

• Newquay Cornwall Airport*

*There have been discussions on other forums which seem to suggest that these byelaws were never approved by the SoS and therefore never actually in force. I've found an archived copy on dropbox but I cannot see a copy live on the airport's site anymore. 

Byelaws which include a plan, but do not refer to it in the body

• London City Airport*

*Theoretically, this may mean the plan is not actually relevant, as it is just floating on the end of the document without any mention in the body. But I think for our purposes, referring to it shouldn't cause any problems. 

-----

Are there any airports which anyone feels are missing from this list?

I wonder if, for airport cases, people should be advised to check whether
(i) their airport is one which has a plan and
(ii) whether the location of the alleged infringement is within the boundary on the plan.

If the answer to both (i) and (ii) is YES, then include a copy of the boundary, and an annotated version showing the location of the alleged infringement in any appeal. This should theoretically be determinative. Rather than just claiming byelaws apply, so it's not relevant land, it's fairly irrefutable in those cases that they do apply if you can demonstrate it with diagrams. 

If the answer to either is NO, then you cannot use the byelaws themselves to prove the land is not relevant land. 

Specifically:
- if the answer to (i) is NO, then perhaps the generic airport appeal, but additionally the point should be made that there is no determinative Plan included in the byelaws, and in the absence of any proof to the contrary by the PPC, it should be presumed that the land covered by byelaws (but also include any airport-specific information which assists (see below)).

- if the answer to (i) is Yes, but the answer to (ii) is NO, then really the byelaws probably don't apply because it's outside of their boundary. The boundaries I've seen generally appear to be quite vast and cover more than just airside, so this may not be an issue. But, if such a case did occur, the fact that there is a Plan within the byelaws should not be volunteered. In these cases, it's probably worth sticking to the generic airport appeal as currently advised on these forums in the hope that the assessor feels the PPC hasn't proven it's relevant land (but also including any airport-specific information which assists (see below)).

Airport-specific information:
This will differ by airport and there may be some common types of information which assist, or equally one-off types of information that only apply to one airport.

As a couple of examples:

For Stansted, the NATS Boundary is not particularly helpful. But the diagram at 1.3 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf has been shown to be successful, previously, and those signs above would be helpful to the OP.

Whereas for Gatwick and Southampton for example, the NATS Boundary is helpful!

--

Keen to hear people's thoughts before I go ahead and start collating my findings - possibly as a new thread on here. 

rob610183

Another interesting point is that the sign stating you have entered private land is BEFORE the roundabout, meaning you have no choice but to proceed onto private land as the slip naturally is one-way

rob610183

Surprise surprise, NSL have refused my appeal, replying with the exact same boiler plate email as detailed in previous threads on the forum..........

"Dear XXXXX

Thank you for your 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, | regret to inform you 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 | appreciate the circumstances you have described | am
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.

NSL Limited are members of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme
(AOS) in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

In respect to your comments regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the
Notice to Keeper, | must advise you that the act 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 to Pay the Notice in line with the
aforementioned Act. Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper meets all the requirements of the
Protection of Freedoms Act and those of the British Parking Association 's AOS.
| note you have advised someone else was driving the above vehicle however to transfer
liability for the PCN to that person you must provide their full details; alternatively, if you
choose not to then as previously mentioned the liability remains with the vehicles
registered keeper.

| note you have requested documentation relating to the contract between NSL and
Manchester Airport Group and or confirmation on the parties involved in this matter. | can
advise you that as NSL are acting on behalf of Manchester Airport Group in matters
relating to CCTV traffic enforcement and this arrangement is fully compliant with the
Approved Operator Scheme of the British Parking Association. If you require more
information on this matter, then you may contact the landowner directly in regards to this.

| have noted your request to have data deleted in line with the requirements of the
General Data Protection Regulations, as the above notice remains ‘in process’ in our
secure contact management system NSL Ltd and Manchester Airport Group have a valid
reason to retain the data and will continue to do so. Once a PCN has been closed the data
is stored for up to 2 years after that point to ensure we have adequate records on file to
manage any governmental or tribunal data request requirements. Following this, the data
is automatically removed from our system.

As you have not provided any mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was
parked at the above location against the restrictions in place, | am unable to consider this
matter further.

There is signage in place at this location informing motorists of the restrictions in place. |
can confirm that sufficient signage is in place and that it meets statutory/BPA AOS
requirements.

| 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 | am unwilling to cancel the Notice. Therefore, please
make arrangements to pay the balance £60.00 in full within the next 14 days.

You can pay by credit or debit card by telephoning 033 3320 2981 or by using the online
payment service at https://stansted.mysecurepay.co.uk/.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. If you still feel that your
appeal has not been adequately considered, you have the option to ask for an
independent review to be undertaken by the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) by
visiting the following website http:/Awww.popla.org.uk/ within 28 days of the date of service
of this notice.

Your POPLA verification code is: XXXXXXXX

| must however advise you that should you choose to request a review by POPLA the full
charge of £100.00 will become applicable to the above case minus any payments
received already.

If you choose to do nothing, after 35 days we will seek to recover the monies owed to us
via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. This will
lead to further charges being added.

| am sorry that this is not the outcome you were hoping fol.

Yours sincerely

Parking Services
For and on behalf of NSL Ltd and
MAG London Stansted Airport

Coupon-mad

"In respect to your comments regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Notice to Keeper, I must advise you that the act 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 to Pay the Notice in line with the aforementioned Act."

How dare they continue to mislead registered keepers that Airports fall within POFA.

Call their bluff with a copy of the Airport byelaws and a general map of the Airport from Google maps (or whichever version you can find that includes the roundabout).

Put them to strict proof that:

- there was a contravention and

- there were double reds and signs, and

- that the Airport byelaws do not apply, and

- that a keeper who wasn't driving, can be held liable at an Airport where it is the appellant's case that POFA cannot apply.

Let's see how they get around that.

rob610183

In a POPLA appeal?

rob610183

I will double check that the "Airport byelaws apply beyond this point" sign is still there (as shown on Google Streetview 2023 - I posted a pic earlier in the thread)

ChirpyChicken

Thier notice is non pofa anyway easy win

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

Thier notice is non pofa anyway easy win

Is it? I didn't look back that far.

NSL are lying then?! 

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Thier notice is non pofa anyway easy win

Is it? I didn't look back that far.

NSL are lying then?! 

From what the OP said originally  (unless I have misunderstood)