UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd Newcastle Airport

HO87

The copy that is made publicly available is not signed which would usually indicate that they are not valid. However, I understand that they have been signed off and if that is indeed correct then they have to be one of the least well written sets of byelaws I've read. This is the first time I've actually read them through.

The impression gained is that someone, given the job of updating them, had too many fag breaks or frankly thought that half a job would be good enough. They look rushed and have the appearance of a straightforward cut and paste – and not that well thought through. One has to ask whether they really passed the scrutiny of someone that might be reasonably presumed had a three digit IQ because their failings are really very obvious. One wonders whether these are not just the old byelaws rehashed with a few bits added in to beef them up?

Once one dissects them all becomes clear. Things are most certainly not as they seem at first glance and I’m sure they are not as was intended.

Looking at Section 6 - which establishes acts that are prohibited on the private airport roads and must therefore form the basis of the issue of some if not all of the so-called penalty/parking charges. At the very start the section sets out the areas where it applies. It is very explicit:

On any private Airport road or any other part of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply, no person shall:

This couldn’t be plainer. The byelaws do not apply on the airport roads – public or private - to which the road traffic legislation does. The problem is that, of course, whether NIAL or UKPPO like it the road traffic legislation applies to the airport's private roads by virtue of the fact that the public has access to them in the same way as they do to supermarket car parks, for example. There is no restriction. You don't have to pass through a barrier where each visitor is checked as to the reason for their visit and ne’er-do-well’s sent on their way.

The situation is different airside, as one might reasonably expect, where access restrictions are most certainly in place which means that the byelaws are then applicable.

I therefore contend – on the basis of the byelaws themselves – that no parking offences (those set out principally at 6.2, 6.3 but also at 6.11, 6.15 and 6.16) can therefore occur on one of the airport roads (I do not include in this the barrier-ed car parks). The corollary of this analysis is that if there are no offences then no byelaw penalty/parking charge can be issued and that those that are being issued are ultra vires.

This brings into question the whole basis of UKPPO’s application for DVLA data.

By way of illustrating had badly they have been put together one only needs to look at the index. This sets out the topics covered within the byelaws and under the heading of 4. ACTS WHICH ARE PROHIBITED ABSOLUTELY the penultimate offence listed is “Stopping where prohibited”. If one then goes to the body of Section 4 (at 4.39) one discovers that there is no such offence as “Stopping where prohibited”, instead the penultimate offence is in fact “Abandonment of vehicles”. Seems as though someone got as far as changing the heading but omitted to change the content – to update it or maybe just to cut and paste the required new wording.

Maybe they just forgot to save the changes?

ManxRed

@OP,

Use HO87's excellent analysis above as the basis of your response to the BPA.

AND the DVLA if they also subsequently try washing their hands as well.

bazster

HO87 correctly echoes what I have been saying all along: the byelaws simply do not apply, because the road traffic enactments apply.

keithlml

Hello Again

This arrived from the DVLA late today.

"RE: Email DVLA - DVLA Email Us Form 207
/////////////////////////////////
David Dunford
To ///////////////////// KEITH
1 attachmentPreviewOpen in browserDownload
Dear Mr //////////////////////

Thank you for your email regarding this matter. I apologise for the delay which has been caused as a result of investigating this matter.

DVLA have been in contact with the British Parking Association (BPA) regarding their comments that the Code of Practice was not applicable. The BPA have stated to the DVLA...

I can confirm that the BPA does consider the Code of Practice to be relevant where operators are issuing tickets under Byelaws.

The following Code clauses are helpful in this regard;

· 2.10 The Code covers private parking throughout the United Kingdom.

· 2.14 Standards of conduct and practice for AOS members are laid out in the Code, but if there is any conflict the law will prevail.

· 4.3 Under the Code you must keep to all the requirements laid down by law. The Code reflects our understanding of the law at the date of publication. However, you are responsible for familiarising yourself with the law on any activities covered by the Code.

I cannot comment on why differing information was provided to you initially but the above information has been provided by the Head of Operational Services in writing.

DVLA have looked at the Byelaws in question and cannot see any evidence that they are not applicable under the circumstances. DVLA is also satisfied that UK Parking Patrol Office have the authority to manage the area in question using these Byelaws

Thank you for making the Agency aware of these issues but under the circumstances, the DVLA will not be taking any further action on this matter..

Kind regards


David Dunford
Data Sharing Assurance Team
Strategy, Policy & Communications Directorate | D16 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1DY
Twitter: ///////////////////////////
GTN ///////////////////////
///////////////////////////////// "

I will send back the details of HO87's last email to get DVLA to open up the case again.

Your thoughts?

The_Slithy_Tove

Good that they recognise the CoP applies.
Bad that they can't read the Byelaws and get their applicability right
Bad that they think a private company can issue Penalties (which they would keep) in lieu of prosecution.

Herzlos

Does this need to go to the ICO or an ombudsman?

Have you stated explicitly why the byelaws don't apply, to the DVLA?

bazster

Escalate. I posted earlier a link to the DVLA's complaints procedure. Follow it, until you get to your MP if necessary.

I would also be inclined to reply to Dunford asking him if he has read all of the references to legislation you sent to him, and strongly recommend he takes legal advice. Those references again:

Road Traffic Act 1988 192(1) (definition of a "road")
Airports Act 1986 63(2)(d)
Newcastle Airport byelaws, preamble to section 6

Also thank him for confirming that the BPA Code of Practice is relevant, and ask him to explain how the operator can comply with the CoP when no independent appeal is available.

But be sure to escalate.

ManxRed

bazster wrote: »

...and ask him to explain how the operator can comply with the CoP when no independent appeal is available.

In a reply he's provided to a poster on pepipoo complaining about the exact same thing, he's stated that 'new' POPLA will now consider these appeals (whereas 'old' POPLA wouldn't).

HO87

As bazster suggests and I suspect, David Dunford's failure here is in not researching things enough.

There is a common misapprehension that privately owned roads - that is those are not maintainable at public expense - are necessarily not public roads. Well, in one respect that is true but as far as the "Road Traffic Enactments" are concerned (as they are described in the byelaws) at the chief of which is the Road Traffic Act 1988 that is most certainly untrue.

Privately owned or not there is no restriction on the public access to the airport roads (except those airside) and they sit very clearly and obviously within the definition of s.192 RTA 1988 which says:

“road”
(a) in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes

The ownership of the road is irrelevant in exactly the same way as it is in the case of the Severn Bridge, for example. The motorway passes over a private owned bridge but is most certainly a "road".

This is of course where NIAL has also failed.

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

In a reply he's provided to a poster on pepipoo complaining about the exact same thing, he's stated that 'new' POPLA will now consider these appeals (whereas 'old' POPLA wouldn't).

But presumably the new PoPLA will not hear this OP's appeal, which the old PoPLA has already declined to hear, therefore the CoP has been breached.