DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124618--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 14, 2026, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From that horrible wodge of text it seems that they completely
ignore the “not relevant land” point that you made.
It’s the problem with multiple appeal points - they answer the
ones that are easy and simply ignore the ones they can’t.
So if the operator and POPLA have denied your appeal, you need
to wait for the Letter of Claim, to which you will respond that
you deny the claim and will defend it.
You will then need to construct a defence, and courts don’t tend
to ignore defence points they don’t like in the way that
operators and POPLA do.
It’s all normal, it’s what they do. The parking operators and
POPLA just spout rubbish hoping you will be intimidated into
paying. If you don’t pay and defend, it’s usually the case that
they give up, usually prior to having to pay the court fee.
Note that the following extract from POPLA is simply untrue.
--- Quote ---
> 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
the comments regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and
the Notice to Keeper, we must advise the keeper 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. We note the keeper has advised someone else
was driving the above vehicle however, to transfer liability for
the PCN to that person, the keeper must provide their full
details; alternatively, if the keeper chooses not to then as
previously mentioned the liability remains with the vehicles
registered keeper.
--- End Quote ---
The requirements of PoFA 2012 are not met if the land is not
“relevant land”:
--- Quote ---
> 3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including
land above or below ground level) other than—
>
> (a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the
meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
>
> (b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a
traffic authority;
>
> (c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which
the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 124627--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: umars_link@yahoo.com
Date: July 14, 2026, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies if I wasn't clear - the image I posted above was the
Operator Evidence and Summary that NSL have submitted to POPLA.
POPLA have bot conducted their assessment yet, but they are
asking me to add an comments I have on the evidence that NSL
have now submitted.
Here is the email from NSL :
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/QM999Xn6/Screenshot-2026-07-14-at-13-53-24.png
And here is the NSL Operator summary/evidence that I can see in
the POPLA portal - I posted this earlier too. I will post the
evidence that NSL have submitted to POPLA in the next message.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/kgNhrmyL/Screenshot-2026-07-14-at-13-59-10.png
Based on this do I need to do anything e.g. write up any
comments to POPLA ?
#Post#: 124629--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 14, 2026, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies, I misinterpreted your post.
You should rebut every point the operator makes with which you
disagree, and having it as a wodge of text doesn’t help you, but
you should essentially quote their text followed by your
rebuttal. So I suggest as in my example when they say that they
comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012, which you should
quote and then explain why they don’t comply.
And so on for each other point in the wodge of text you disagree
with.
Essentially if you don’t rebut their falsehoods, you’re assumed
to agree with them.
Personally I’d split the points into numbered points, and
address each of them separately.
#Post#: 124630--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: umars_link@yahoo.com
Date: July 14, 2026, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks and apologies I am asking for too much. can you please
help me list out the points I should rebut and then I will
figure out how to respond.
#Post#: 124632--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 14, 2026, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First of all, please split that horrible wodge of text into
separate numbered points, along the lines of the one I’ve
already done for you.
Then you have a numbered list, and you may get advice on each of
them from contributors here.
#Post#: 124638--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 14, 2026, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They don't address any of the POFA points which were raised.
Nor to they address the contradictory markings.
Simply stating that the notice complies with POFA does not make
it compliant.
I can come up with something if you give me a couple of days.
#Post#: 124644--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: umars_link@yahoo.com
Date: July 14, 2026, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. If you are able to come up with something by Friday, I
will wait. I really appreciate your help.
#Post#: 125020--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: umars_link@yahoo.com
Date: July 17, 2026, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=6750]InterCity125[/member]
Just checking if you are still able to help write a response
POPLA today? Appreciate your help!
Thanks
#Post#: 125027--------------------------------------------------
Re: NSL / Stansted Blue Car Park — rejected at first stage, now
at POPLA. POFA "not relevant land" +
prohibitory-signage
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 17, 2026, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, yes. Pretty straight forward.
Comments on operators evidence.
Send them the following;
Dear POPLA Assessor,
Not much to comment on as my main appeal contains all the
information needed.
I note the following-
The operator's evidence appears to demonstrate three things;
1. That the operator appears to have no understanding of the
circumstances of when POFA can and cannot be applied - the land
which they are managing is land under statutory control and
therefore not relevant land for the purposes of POFA.
2. The operator has not rebutted any of the points relating to
the serving of a POFA complaint NtK which meets the requirements
of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) - the NtK simply does not meet the
requirements in terms of 9(2)(b), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f) - simply
stating that the notice is compliant does not magically make it
compliant.
3. The operator's response as a whole shows a woeful
understanding of the POPLA process - their evidence does not
rebut any of my appeal points - as other POPLA Assessor's have
stated, an operator cannot simply supply a copy of their NtK and
expect the POPLA Assessor to create rebuttal points on their
behalf.
I would be grateful if the POPLA Assessor could let me know if
POPLA themselves report breaches of the Code of Practice to the
ATA or must I do this as a separate process? It is clear that
the operator is deliberately misrepresenting POFA in a location
which is specifically excluded.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page