Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would also add a picture of the airport plan and mark up the blue car park.

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.




Thanks

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.

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.

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. If you are able to come up with something by Friday, I will wait. I really appreciate your help.