Stansted PCN from NSL

TheEnglishBaguet

Hi all,

I have received PCN from NSL at Stansted airport which I have appealed (see photo below).

The response letter from NSL (photos below) leads me to believe that I may have a strong case to win an appeal with POPLA.

If it helps, this is approximately where I was parked (red circle):

According to Street View, there are signs that I have missed indeed, but they are not the same as mentioned in the rejection letter

Could someone please tell me if I'm correct in believing so, and, if yes, could you please proof read my defense?

1. No keeper liability – land is not “relevant land” under POFA 2012

The operator asserts keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). This assertion is denied.

The location is London Stansted Airport, which is subject to statutory control under the Stansted Airport – London Byelaws 1996, made under the Airports Act 1986 and confirmed by the Secretary of State. These byelaws regulate vehicle use, parking, and compliance with signage throughout the airport, including internal roadways.

Land subject to statutory control is explicitly excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under Schedule 4, paragraph 3 of POFA. As such, keeper liability cannot arise at this location.

The operator has failed to provide:

• any boundary map identifying the alleged location as excluded from byelaw control, or
• any statutory instrument disapplying the byelaws in this area.

Assertions that POFA applies are insufficient. The burden of proof rests with the operator, and it has not been discharged.

2. Driver has not been identified

I am the registered keeper and have not admitted to being the driver. There is no legal obligation for a keeper to identify the driver.

As POFA does not apply on byelaw‑controlled land, the operator cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. Any presumption that the keeper was the driver is unsupported and contrary to established POPLA decisions.

3. No contract can be formed – prohibitive “No Stopping” signage

The operator relies on signage stating “No Stopping”.

This wording is purely prohibitive. It does not offer parking or stopping on terms, and therefore cannot form a contractual agreement. A sign that forbids an activity cannot simultaneously offer a contract for that activity.

Such signage is consistent with regulatory control, not contractual consent. This is further supported by the airport byelaws, including (but not limited to):

• Byelaw 3(28) – failure to comply with signs
• Byelaw 5(3) – restrictions on stopping or waiting
• Byelaw 6(3) – parking only where provided by the Airport Company

These byelaws create statutory obligations enforceable by prosecution and fine, not by private civil charges. The operator cannot convert a byelaw‑backed prohibition into a contractual parking charge.

At most, a breach of a prohibitive sign could only amount to trespass, which only the landowner (not the operator) has standing to pursue. No such authority has been evidenced.

4. Location supports statutory control and undermines POFA and contract claims

The location identified by the operator is an internal airport roadway within the operational boundary of London Stansted Airport, surrounded by aircraft infrastructure, cargo facilities, and airport services. It is not part of the public highway network.

Given this location, it is overwhelmingly likely to be land regulated by airport byelaws. The operator has not demonstrated that this specific roadway is excluded from statutory control or capable of forming a private parking contract.

5. Inadequate signage and lack of site‑specific evidence

The operator relies on generic images of signage, not site‑specific evidence. They have failed to demonstrate:

• the precise sign passed by the vehicle,
• its distance from the vehicle,
• its visibility and readability at driving speed, or
• its position relative to the alleged contravention.

The BPA Code of Practice requires signage to be clear, prominent, and readable without stopping. In a complex airport road environment, any contractual terms must be intelligible while driving. The operator has not shown that this requirement has been met.

Use of CCTV enforcement must also be clearly advertised. This has not been demonstrated with site‑specific proof.

Conclusion

• The land is subject to statutory control under the Stansted Airport – London Byelaws 1996 and is therefore not relevant land for POFA.
• Keeper liability does not apply and the driver has not been identified.
• The signage is prohibitive (“No Stopping”) and incapable of forming a contract.
• Any alleged breach would be regulatory or trespass in nature, not a private contractual matter.
• The operator has failed to meet the burden of proof required by POPLA.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Any help would be much appreciated 😁

Gr1pr

Have a read of this airport thread which also mentions Stansted, in case additions, subtractions or changes need making to your POPLA appeal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6666126/hilton-garden-inn-heathrow-t2-euro-car-parks-popla-stage

Coupon-mad

It's a good appeal but better to add the POPLA Case complaint where POPLA admitted they had got it wrong in an NSL Stansted case.

You'd have to search for it, as would we, because it's not in our back pocket! But that POPLA climb-down does exist in POPLA DECISIONS from 2024 or 2025.

TheEnglishBaguet

okay thanks to you both, I will have a look into that!

TheEnglishBaguet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81981525#Comment_81981525

FYI, I believe it is case reference 4822223007.

I've added the following is section 1:

"For clarity, this interpretation is consistent with POPLA’s established position. In relation to NSL enforcement at London Stansted Airport, POPLA’s Complaints Team has previously confirmed that airport land governed by byelaws remains under statutory control and is therefore excluded from the definition of relevant land under POFA, meaning keeper liability does not apply (POPLA case reference 4822223007). The present appeal raises the same legal issue, and no evidence has been produced by the operator to demonstrate that this location is excluded from statutory control."

Coupon-mad

Yes but push that harder!

I think remove point 4 (weak point) and replace it with ALL of this, naming Bethany Young:

POPLA please be reminded of the repeated mistake your assessors made several times in 2023 when NSL were wrongly telling POPLA that Stansted Airport was relevant land, subject to the keeper liability provisions of the POFA.

Your Assessors initially fell for this lie, until a formal complaint was made re Code ref 4822223007 and Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team apologised because Assessors had naively believed the operator and had got the law wrong.

She stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with her findings on 7/12/2023 being as follows:

"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."


TheEnglishBaguet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81981605#Comment_81981605

Great, this is so helpful, thank you very much it is very much appreciated!