POPLA Decisions

Smii

Newquay Airport / Initial Parking (Cornwall Council)

Decision: Successful

Initial Parking withdrew before the POPLA appeal took place, and cancelled the PCN. Details in the thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6635246/newquay-airport-parking-popla-appeal/p1
Appealed on the grounds that the NTK was not POFA compliant because the carpark is on airport land and is therefore not relevant land.

broomy23

POPLA are not interested in the high court injunction cited by MET in relation to Stansted Airport. 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as they never paid for parking or remained for longer than authorised. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • The car park falls within the Stansted Airport Bylaws Boundary Airports Act 1986 and is governed by airport byelaws and is not relevant land and does not fall under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section and added that the evidence the operator have included is of a court injunction, with the map where protestors are not permitted to protest. This is not an accurate reflection of the airport boundary map. The appellant included photographic evidence of the airport boundary (times three) in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. I have allowed the PCN for the following reason: By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the driver was not authorised to park on site. After very careful consideration of the appellant's grounds of appeal and photographic evidence and the operator's case file I can see the appellant states they are the registered keeper and will not divulge who the driver was on the date in question. The appellant states the car park is not relevant land and falls under the boundary for Stanstead Airport which means POFA is not applicable. POFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. However, POFA does not apply to land that is not relevant, like airports. The appellant included a copy of the site map from the Stanstead website, which proves Stanstead Airport boundary includes Southgate car park. However, the operator have included a map which has been drawn up due to a High Court injunction preventing protestors from protesting on airport land. In this map, Southgate car park is not included in the boundary for Stanstead Airport. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I can see that the High Court injunction map is the area where protestors are not permitted to protest, and this does not necessarily mean that is the Stanstead Boundary. In contrast the appellant's photographic evidence of the Stanstead boundary is taken directly from the Stanstead Airport website, and it would be safe to say, on the balance of probabilities that the evidence available on Stanstead Airport’s own website would be considered the more accurate site boundary. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Southgate car park falls on relevant land, and as such, the liability can’t be transferred to the registered keeper. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I feel this PCN was issued incorrectly. In conclusion, I can see that the appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that these need to be reviewed based on the outcome reached. Overall, I am not satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly, therefore I must allow this appeal.

Le_Kirk

broomy23 said:

POPLA are not interested in the high court injection cited by MET in relation to Stansted Airport. 

Well done on the win but should that be injunction?  Mind you wouldn't mind if PPCs had an injection!