Why are airports not relevant land under POFA?

saginata

I have a bit of a theoretical question.

Background: I'm having a fight with NCP over some Gatwick Drop-off PCNs. All have been appealed with the standard "No keeper liability, not naming the driver, go away" appeals. All but the latest one have been cancelled. They did some bad things like refusing a SAR or repeatedly refering to the PCNs as fines on the phone. 

In the course of the whole thing, they said this:

Dear Sir 

Thank you for your email of 28 June, which we have passed to Gatwick Airport Limited, who have authorised NCP to administer the airport car parks, drop off zones etc on its behalf. 

“Relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is any land, including land below or above ground level, other than a highway maintainable at public expense, a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority or any land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control (paragraph 3 of Schedule 4).  The areas of Gatwick Airport which we administer on behalf of Gatwick Airport Limited and in respect of which we have served you and Ms xxxxx with notices do not fall within any of these exceptions and are therefore relevant land. 

That being the case, Gatwick Airport Limited, on whose behalf we act, is entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper(s) of the vehicle(s) if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6 11 and 12 of Schedule 4 are met (to the extent they are applicable) (paragraph 4, Schedule 4). 

We believe that the relevant conditions, insofar as they are applicable, are met; the parking charges can therefore be recovered from the keepers of relevant vehicles. In light of the same, the notices have been issued correctly. 

We note your objection to our processing of your personal data, however you will appreciate that Gatwick Airport Limited and NCP have a legitimate interest in processing this data in order to enforce the contract relating to the parking charges.  

The parking charges currently owed by Ms xxxxxx xxxxx, as keeper of vehicle xxxxxx amount to £60, provided these are paid by 30 July 2025 following which the charges will increase to £100, and we have served a valid notice to Ms xxxxx in respect of this amount. If these charges are not paid by 13 August 2025, we may institute legal proceedings to recover them. 

Kind regards, 

Data Protection Team

National Car Parks Ltd

I know this doesn't really matter in this case, because the letters are non-POFA, but I always wondered why airports as a whole are not relevant land. I thought it was the byelaws, but all the parking stuff in the Gatwick Byelaws is under the headng 

Acts for which permission is required on parts of the airport to which the road traffic enactments do not apply 

So what's stopping them saying "the parts we manage don't fall under that heading, so there are no byelaws controling parking on those parts, which means those parts can be relevant land"?

Is there something preventing an airport being considered as comprised of different kinds of land, some of it relevant and some if it not?

Or would the road traffic enactments themselves count as statutory control?

Gr1pr

Airports, ports and railway stations etc are not relevant land,  same as highways England and council roads and car parks etc, so different laws and bylaws apply 

Pofa2012 would define relevant land in England and Wales as private land not under public or government ownership,  so no statutory ownership or control 

Bylaws apply to the whole of a map at airports in and Wales,  anything within the boundary is not relevant land under POFA2012 

If this was Belfast or Glasgow or Edinburgh,  Pofa2012 doesn't even apply,  but bylaws do, because airports,  ports and railways are run under government licences,  so bylaws 

So inside the airport perimeter at Gatwick airport is not relevant land So bylaws apply to all parts, not just roads

Stanmer Park in Brighton is council land,  so not relevant land under POFA2012 

Read the recent Bransby Wilson case regarding Yorkshire Water,  not relevant land due to bylaws

Tyne and Wear Metro, not relevant land 

Etc

Pofa2012 considered everything but statutory control or public ownership or under bylaws,  defined as relevant land 

saginata

Gr1pr said:

Bylaws apply to the whole of a map at airports in and Wales,  

Even when the byelaw in question says that it doesn't?

Kaizen2024

The theory behind POFA’s reference to land with bylaws not being Relevant Land is due to the perception that the landowner has the capacity to use the bylaws as a remedy for dealing any given act by a motorist.

As such, where no bylaws exist to deal with a particular act of a motorist, there is a strong argument that the land IS Relevant Land i.e there has to be a bylaw in place to deal with the matter in hand for POFA not to apply.

No doubt the regulars will poo poo the above; however, there is nothing in POFA to suggest that this interpretation is incorrect.

Gr1pr

The group thread based on an interpretation by a retired solicitor has good information about ALL airports, not just Gatwick 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6500170/group-thread-for-heathrow-and-gatwick-drop-off-pcns/p1

The Starbucks , McDonald's , Joe Lycett case at Stansted is a good case that comes up regularly on here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81336326#Comment_81336326

And on the FTLA parking forum website too

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/15/

1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):

The alleged contravention occurred at Southgate Park, which is located within the boundary of Stansted Airport. This boundary is confirmed by a Stansted Airport-issued map provided with this appeal. Stansted Airport is governed by airport byelaws, which constitute statutory control over the land. Paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of PoFA explicitly states that "relevant land" excludes any land that is "subject to statutory control," such as land covered by byelaws. Therefore, Southgate Park is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

While the land may be private and MET Parking Services may have been contracted by the landowner’s agents to manage the car park, this does not negate the fact that it is within the airport boundary and subject to byelaws. The existence of byelaws over the land places it under statutory control, as established by law. MET Parking Services’ argument that the land is not covered by byelaws is incorrect and does not override the statutory framework. As a result, MET Parking Services cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the registered Keeper. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed. As the Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and there can be no Keeper liability in this case.

Read the appeal by Ldast 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80933494/#Comment_80933494

If you substitute NCP for APCOA and Gatwick for Heathrow,  its exactly the same argument,  as it now is at Manchester Airport,  plus Birmingham,  East Midlands,  Bristol,  Liverpool,  Cardiff etc

Parking companies can argue about it, and often do,  but it is generally accepted that anything inside the airport perimeter is covered by bylaws, be it roadways,  drop offs, petrol stations or fast food parking etc, so is not considered to be relevant land under Schedule 4 of Pofa2012 

It wouldn't even come up as a topic at Airports in Scotland or Northern Ireland 

Parking Eye and Lea valley ( and Lea valley Ice rink  ) is another one that comes up a few times, as does Parking Eye at the Red Funnel to IOW port on the south coast

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80603964#Comment_80603964

As for railway land,  read this by a time served retired solicitor 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80632586/#Comment_80632586

So as troublemaker22 also has considered the London airports,  who do you believe,  ?  A solicitor or a Parking company lackey ( or me  ?  Because I am not a lawyer, never was, but am acquainted with a few   )

saginata

Gr1pr said:

So as troublemaker22 also has considered the London airports,  who do you believe,  ?  A solicitor or a Parking company lackey ( or me  ?  Because I am not a lawyer, never was, but am acquainted with a few   )

This is not really about believing one or the other. I certainly don't believe NCP, seeing as they don't even know what their own PCNs look like and don't understand the difference between a parking charge and a fine. I believe that the argument is widely accepted and works in appeals all the time. 

I was wondering why, and if the answer is simply "because nobody bothered to strongly challenge it so far" that's ok. 

doubledotcom

Kaizen2024 said:

The theory behind POFA’s reference to land with bylaws not being Relevant Land is due to the perception that the landowner has the capacity to use the bylaws as a remedy for dealing any given act by a motorist.

As such, where no bylaws exist to deal with a particular act of a motorist, there is a strong argument that the land IS Relevant Land i.e there has to be a bylaw in place to deal with the matter in hand for POFA not to apply.

No doubt the regulars will poo poo the above; however, there is nothing in POFA to suggest that this interpretation is incorrect.

The statement put forward above is a prime example of how those working within, or aligned with, the private parking industry will twist legislation beyond recognition in a desperate attempt to justify their predatory operations.

The claim that PoFA only excludes land if there is a specific byelaw covering the exact act in question is not only wrong—it is a wilful distortion of the law. This is not a misunderstanding; it is a calculated attempt to mislead the public, to expand the reach of keeper liability beyond what Parliament ever intended.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is clear. It excludes from "relevant land" any land that is subject to statutory control. It says nothing about needing a byelaw to match the particular behaviour. The status of the land is what matters. If the land is governed by a statutory regime—such as byelaws made under the Airports Act 1986—then it is excluded from PoFA, and keeper liability simply does not apply.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is settled by the plain words of the statute. The claim that there's “nothing in PoFA to suggest that this interpretation is incorrect” is laughable. There’s also nothing in PoFA to suggest that unicorns must be excluded from car parks, but that doesn't mean the law supports fairy-tale readings. The Act explicitly says land subject to statutory control is not relevant land. It does not say that only parts of land with a matching byelaw are excluded.

What makes this attempt at reinterpretation particularly laughable is that airport byelaws do regulate parking. Section 14 of most airport byelaws deals explicitly with parking, waiting, and stopping. So even on their own ludicrous premise—that the byelaw must cover the specific “act in hand”—they still fail. The land is under statutory control, and the conduct is covered.

The person pushing this argument is not making an innocent mistake. This is someone speaking from the warped perspective of the parking enforcement industry, where the truth is whatever helps extract the most money from motorists. It's a glimpse into the mindset of those who will cheerfully distort plain legal principles if they think it will keep the keeper on the hook.

This kind of reasoning is not legal analysis—it is propaganda. It shows how low some within the private parking world are willing to sink: to pretend that land governed by legislation is not governed, and that clear statutory exclusions somehow vanish if they’re inconvenient.

The real danger here is not that this argument is persuasive—it's that it's dressed up to sound like it might be. That’s why it needs to be called out for what it is: legally wrong, intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

When you have to rewrite PoFA in your head to make your business model work, it’s probably time to admit the model is the problem.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

The theory behind POFA’s reference to land with bylaws not being Relevant Land is due to the perception that the landowner has the capacity to use the bylaws as a remedy for dealing any given act by a motorist.

As such, where no bylaws exist to deal with a particular act of a motorist, there is a strong argument that the land IS Relevant Land i.e there has to be a bylaw in place to deal with the matter in hand for POFA not to apply.

No doubt the regulars will poo poo the above; however, there is nothing in POFA to suggest that this interpretation is incorrect.

My goodness, we agree. In part...

The section 56 POFA Guidance is clear that the law is talking about byelaws that refer to the parking of vehicles:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79d6be40f0b670a8025ccb/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

But surely the Airport Byelaws do include reference to vehicles?

And if that is only under the heading:

'Acts for which permission is required on parts of the airport to which the road traffic enactments do not apply'

...then by definition, road traffic enactments apply everywhere else. And road traffic enactments are statutory control.

No area of an Airport is relevant land.