Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: umars_link@yahoo.com on June 22, 2026, 04:27:38 pm
-
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
-
Hi @InterCity125
Just checking if you are still able to help write a response POPLA today? Appreciate your help!
Thanks
-
Thanks. If you are able to come up with something by Friday, I will wait. I really appreciate your help.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :
(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.
(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 ?
-
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.
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.
The requirements of PoFA 2012 are not met if the land is not “relevant land”: 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.
-
We cannot access the other documents.
Please post the their prima facie case?
-
Hi,
I have received an email from POPLA that they have received comments from the Operator regarding my appeal and I have 7 days to respond. Do I need to do anything - please advise. I have attached a copy of the operator's comment. They have also uploaded some evidence, please let me know if you'd like to see any.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Fs79sfL9/Screenshot-2026-07-14-at-12-08-44.png)
Thanks
-
Thank you so much! I will let you know how it goes.
-
I would also add a picture of the airport plan and mark up the blue car park.
-
Stansted Airport NSL Appeal.
POPLA Code -
Vehicle Registration Mark -
Dear Assessor,
I make this appeal as the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle.
The vehicle driver is not known to the parking operator and I understand that there is no legal requirement for me to reveal the driver to an unregulated parking operator.
I am appealing on the following grounds and I would like the parking operator to rebut each appeal point;
Appeal Point One - The land at Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA - both the road way and car park which makes up the 'Blue Short Stay Car Park' fall firmly inside the statutory area which makes up Stansted Airport.
I have included the Airport site plan taken from the Government website relating to a recent Stansted Expansion planning application - its providence can be proved at the following web address;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf
Scroll down to page 6 - the 'Blue Car Park' is in the bottom right corner of the statutory area.
This land is clearly under statutory control and subject to the Stansted Airport Byelaws.
Appeal Point Two - Stansted Airport Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Manchester Airport PLC and is both an Airport Authority and Highways Authority under the Airports Act 1986 and therefore falls under statutory control - even the parking operators own documents specify that they are working on behalf of Manchester Airport PLC - this also means that the land is already subject to statutory control meaning that PoFA 'keeper liability' cannot be invoked on their land.
Appeal Point Three - That the operator is clearly in breach of their own Code of Practice since the Code expressly prohibits the use of wording (in the NtK) which implies that PoFA can be used in situations where it is not available to the operator - the operator is clearly ignoring this rule on commercial grounds - they realise that by mentioning PoFA they are more likely to encourage payment from NtK recipients who are not familiar with the true legal position - the operator then further maintains reliance of PoFA in further correspondence in a further attempt to hoodwink recipients into paying their charges - as a result the operator is also in breach of their DVLA Agreement since the operator is required to agree to follow the Code in order to access keeper records - my details have therefore been obtained in breach of the DVLA Agreement.
Appeal Point Four - The signage and road markings at the location appear to be contradictory in nature - this is in direct conflict with the Code of Practice which states that signage and markings must not be contradictory in nature - the operator claims that the area is 'no stopping' yet the road markings are double yellow lines - the Highway Code allows brief stops on double yellow lines for dropping off and picking up etc - if the operator wishes to enforce a 'no stopping' zone then they would have to use 'double red' lines as per the Highway Code.
Appeal Point Five - The wording of the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with many of the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) - in particular the notice does not state the wording required by 9(2)(b) - the notice must notify the keeper that 'the driver is required to pay the parking charge' and 'that the parking charge has not been paid in full' - the notice does not state either of these things - additionally, 9(2)(e) requires that 'the notice state that the creditor does not know the name and address of the driver and invite the driver to pay the charges or nominate another driver' - the notice fails to set out the required statement and never presents the required two limbed invite to the keeper - additionally, the notice fails to set out any of the requirements of 9(2)(f) and no 'warning to the keeper' is ever mentioned - as such the notice is totally non-complaint.
Conclusion - The land is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA as it is land which is already under statutory control - if this is in doubt then I would request that the Assessor seek the assistance of a senior POPLA Assessor / Coach as the 'statutory area' has previously caused POPLA some problems in the past.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
-
Sorry - will do this very soon.
-
HI. Gentle reminder about the POPLA appeal draft :)
-
Yes - give me 48 hours.
-
Thank you. Thats really great to hear. Can you please help me draft an appeal to POPLA or how does this work from here on.
-
The Blue Short Stay Car Park is definitely inside the area of statutory control according to the map.
Also, there is no way that their wording is PoFA complaint since massive chunks of the mandatory requirements are missed out.
We can come up with a short and sweet POPLA appeal.
-
Sure, here are both pages of the PCN. Thanks for your help!
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNDzXC21/IMG-2751.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QH0zSqX/IMG-2752.png)
-
Can you show us the back of the notice?
-
Thanks and my apologies for being a noob here. I have added the PCN in my previous message and below is their rejection to my appeal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rm4KWW1Z/Screenshot-2026-06-26-at-11-52-05.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0WtQnxN/Screenshot-2026-06-26-at-11-52-19.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qt7H55Qq/Screenshot-2026-06-26-at-11-52-37.png)
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
“READ THIS FIRST” is a bit of a hint!
-
Sorry I am new to this firum I couldnt figure out how to uplaod an image, why is why I posted the text from the letter. Hope you can see the attached PCN now.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNDzXC21/IMG-2751.png)
-
Sorry, I don't see the original PCN???
-
Thanks for your help. Here is the original PCN and the appeal rejection. Any advice would be apprecaited.
Original PCN :
Parking charge amount due: £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14-days of the date of service of this notice.
Contravention: Parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours.
On 22/05/2026 vehicle YB69DNY was observed at:
Stansted – Blue Car Park
at 21:33. The signage, which is clearly displayed, states that this is private land. The area is managed by NSL on Behalf of MAG and parking restrictions apply.
By stopping/parking in this area, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage displayed on site is a breach of the terms and conditions displayed, and the Parking Charge is now payable to (Operator) as the Creditor. As the terms were not complied with, we requested keeper details from the DVLA under reasonable cause.
As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver's full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this notice to them. Once this information is received, we will pursue the driver.
Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any amount that remains unpaid. Failure to pay the full amount of this notice within 28 days may result in the proceeding of debt recovery action and/or issuing court proceedings against you. Additional costs may be incurred.
Payment Information
Online – https://stansted.mysecurepay.co.uk/
Telephone – 033 3320 2981
Appeal rejection :
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, I 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 (on double yellow lines) 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 I appreciate the circumstances you have described I 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.
You have advised that as the above vehicle was not parked that the notice be cancelled
however as you will have seen when you accessed the online appeal portal there is clear
CCTV evidence available (under the view media section) showing the above vehicle
parked, along with other stills taken from that video so I must advise I cannot cancel the
notice on this ground.
NSL Limited are members of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme
(AOS) in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act.
MAG London Stansted
Airport В РАЙ
BERATO
Confidential
ROSL
part of Marston Holdings
In conclusion, a full review of all the evidence regarding the issuing of the PCN has taken
place, and, in light of the findings I 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://www.popla.org.uk/ within 28 days of the date of service
of this notice.
Your POPLA verification code is: *******.
I must however advise you that should you choose to request a review by POPLA the full
£100.00 will become applicable to the above case minus any payments
charge of 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.
I am sorry that this is not the outcome you were hoping for.
-
Can you post up the original PCN?
-
Sorry for the duplicate messages
-
First-stage appeal rejected; about to file at POPLA and would value a sanity-check on my grounds.
The charge
Operator: NSL (Marston Holdings), on behalf of MAG / London Stansted Airport
Type: private parking charge — Notice to Keeper
NSL's wording: "Parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours" (it's actually a no-stopping / drop-off zone in the Blue Car Park)
Charge: £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days). BPA Approved Operator.
Registered keeper: my partner.
What happened
Driver briefly stopped to turn around and decided to drop off a passenger on the side of the road without entering the gated parking — under ~30 seconds, no parking bay, didn't leave the vehicle.
Where it's up to
Appealed to NSL as registered keeper, without naming the driver.
NSL rejected on 15 June 2026, expressly relying on POFA keeper liability, and issued POPLA code 4821******.
POPLA deadline ~10–13 July 2026. Haven't paid anything (know the discount is gone once at POPLA).
Grounds I intend to run at POPLA (want these checked)
Not "relevant land" — POFA can't transfer liability. Stansted is airport land governed by the Stansted Airport Byelaws 1997 (Aviation Security Act 1982), so my understanding is it falls outside Schedule 4 POFA 2012. NSL invoked POFA in their rejection, but if this isn't relevant land they can't hold the keeper liable at all. Driver not identified.
No contract — signage is purely prohibitory. NSL's own rejection reproduced their signage, which reads "No Stopping at any time." A prohibition offers nothing to accept, so no contract can form (distinct from a "park and pay" offer). Seems like a strong point — keen to confirm.
No landowner authority shown. NSL haven't produced a contract proving they can enforce charges in their own name.
Strict proof. Putting NSL to proof on CCTV (actual duration stationary), a signage site map + legible photos at the exact spot, and landowner authority.
Not relying on the charge cap — I understand no statutory cap is in force and £100/£60 is a lawful amount, so this is a fight on liability, not quantum.
Questions
Is the not-relevant-land / byelaws point the right ground to lead with at POPLA for Stansted Blue Car Park specifically, and any preferred wording?
Is the "prohibition = no contract" argument as strong as it looks, and should it sit ahead of or behind the byelaws point?
NSL invoked POFA in the rejection — worth expressly putting them to proof that the land IS relevant land / that byelaws don't apply?
Any recent POPLA assessor decisions against NSL/MAG at Stansted worth citing, and the usual things they fail to evidence (landowner contract)?
Any pitfalls now I've appealed as keeper without ever naming the driver?
Grateful for any steers before I file.