Parking ticket One Parking Solution (OPS) at Brighton City Airport

CallumJ94

Good Afternoon,

Having looked around the forum for answers I think I have managed to get the jist of what I need to say in my letter of appeal to OPS regarding a parking charge at Brighton City Airport. 

From what I understand ticketing at an Airport is subjected by local byelaws and as such under the POFA they cannot enforce keeper liability. On another visit to recheck the site, some signs are saying CCTV and/or parking attendants and on some signs it says ANPR/CCTV and/or parking attendants will enforce the site. The signs which state the ANPR is in use are in very small print and in awkward positions.

I have drafted an appeal letter to OPS and attached is a copy of the NTK they sent, would someone be able to confirm if this is a POFA compliant NTK or whether it is their Non-POFA NTK?

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, I am not liable for this charge for the following reasons:

 

1) NOT RELEVANT LAND
The registered keeper cannot be held liable because this is land covered by statutory control, which is defined in the POFA as 'not relevant land'. Regardless of the wording or date of any NTK, there can be NO keeper liability.

The POFA states:
''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.

...2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) — ''parking place'' has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act and ''traffic authority'' means each of the following—
(a)the Secretary of State;
(b)the Welsh Ministers;
(c)Transport for London;
(d)the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)a parish or community council''

 

Brighton City Airport, under The Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2011, signed by the secretary of state for transport, Theresa Villiers on the 16th March 2011, and enforced on the 13th April 2011, exercises the powers conferred by section 63 (1) of the Airports Act 1986.

 

2) ILLEGIBLE SIGN, NOT AT THE PARKING BAYS
The sign is illegible and placed well away from the bays, in fact in the online photo evidence I can see just one white sign high on a wall, near a pavement and doorway to one flat; a walking route not taken by the driver.

Why set the single sign that far back, not even where a person would walk? OPS have failed to put any sign next to the parking bays, nor at the building entrances. Signs must meet the ‘red hand rule’ for prominence and position and large lettering, which this pale sign does not:

PICTURE REDACTED BUT YOU CAN GET A SIMILAR PALE ILLEGIBLE ONE, I EXPECT!

I would also point out that the signs do not say ANPR Cameras are in force for ticketing. The wording on the signs state CCTV and/or parking attendants, at no point does it mention ANPR cameras, and in the BPA code of practice it states in section 21.1:

You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

As your signs do not state that ANPR technology is in use, nor does it mention what you will use the data for, the cameras are purely there as a security feature and cannot be used for ANPR purposes relating to parking charges.

 

3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

 

4. NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
OPS do not own this land, Brighton City Airport Ltd do. I require OPS to show their landowner contract for this site. Even if OPS produce a contract or Witness Statement, they will merely confirm that this is owned by Brighton City Airport Ltd, land which is covered by statutory control, with byelaws set out in section 63(1) of The Airport Act 1986, and so not 'relevant land'.

Coupon-mad

Shoreham Airport.  You could have parked free had you chosen a different car park within the boundary.  That's the bit by the cafe isn't it?  I know it.

Why no pay and display ticket?

nicestrawb

Yeh that's the cafe, it's not obvious it's a pay and display, especially if you are approaching from the west since you won't see the sign in entry... I remember it being a pain to pay for parking too. Looks like they are using both ANPR and CCTV at that site. In fact it's infested with cameras. They can find the money for that but not a sign. Odd...

CallumJ94

It is the main area in front of the terminal, I was actually flying, my other half was waiting to pick me up, she never left the car. It never crossed her mind to get a ticket for waiting. It has a large green sign saying a pay and display car park as you approach from the east, but this was hidden due to a van being in the way, and she never usually comes down with me. She didn’t realise there was cameras, and hence the parking ticket. 

Where is the free parking? 

I realise there is error in not purchasing a ticket, however it’s more the NTK on relevant land? As Shoreham is registered as a commercial airport under the airport act 1986, can they legally enforce keeper liability for this? 

Coupon-mad

Where is the free parking? 

All the other small car park areas near buildings along both sides, some of which have no signs!  There are several, no doubt because those building owners don't want OPS bothering their staff and customers.  She could have waited there and moved on if asked, without causing any detriment to anyone.

Of course people have to pay and display and sitting in a car doesn't mean you don't have to.  Not realising there were cameras is no excuse.  There are cameras everywhere in towns nowadays, you pass ANPR every time you go to a large retail park and they aren't obvious either.

Oh dear, I see no defence position here, except this:

As Shoreham is registered as a commercial airport under the airport act 1986, can they legally enforce keeper liability for this? 

Yes and no, they will pretend they can but the POFA says they can't.  Worth a try at POPLA, especially if the keeper wasn't driving and you evidence the byelaws as an attachment and refer to the right part of Schedule 4 about 'relevant land' and the DFT Guidance on Schedule 4 (section 56 POFA), which explains what 'relevant land' is.

D_P_Dance

Have you ccomplained to yor MP?

CallumJ94

@Coupon-mad do you know where I can find the byelaws written out? 

If I’m not mistaken schedule 4 of the POFA which was quoted on the OP.

she realises she made an error by parking there without a ticket, and we would happily pay for the price of parking, but didn’t realise the fine. 

Thanks for the help so far! 

Unicorn51

On their website the t&c's for parking include the following:

There is a fixed penalty scheme in operation

9.2 If you do not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 9.1, you may be issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The car parking is managed on behalf of the Airport by OPS Limited.

CallumJ94

I realise this, I fly from there regularly. But it so happened to be my other half was picking me up and didn’t see the signs.

Coupon-mad

No, we are laughing about them calling it a fixed penalty!