Newquay Airport Parking POPLA appeal

Smii

Hi folks,

Firstly thanks for all your documentation and efforts to make this area easier to understand and navigate. It's a minefield and I absolutely hate how it feels, so I'm grateful for your help.

I was issued with a PCN via a NTK for an alleged parking infraction at Newquay Airport - I was not the driver and at no point have I identified myself as the driver. 
This is the famous carpark that was on Cornwall Live where the parking machines show you the lowest possible amount during a pay-to-exit situation as a due amount, rather than using your arrival time to calculate what you owe. They state that this is to give flexibility, so you can pay at any point in time.
I have not yet verified but I believe a process change has been made since the above article and the machines now prompt any user to check that the tariff matches what they expect to pay - in my eyes this admits that they know that there was a problem with the previous functionality.

I appealed to Initial Parking on the basis that this was unfair and my appeal was rejected.

I am now writing a POPLA appeal. I think my strongest case is along the lines of the fact that the carpark is within the confines of an airport and it is fully owned by Cornwall Council and therefore they can't transfer keeper liability via POFA.
Would you mind casting your eyes over this appeal wording in order to check that I'm on the right lines? I have majored on the fact that I am not the driver and it is not Relevant Land rather than going near the "your machines are misleading"  point of view.

---------

POPLA Reference: <<>>
Initial Parking PCN number: <<>>

Vehicle Registration: <<REGISTRATION>>

A notice to keeper was issued on <<<DATE>>> and received by me, the registered keeper of <<REG>> on <<DATE>>>for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Newquay Airport. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1)     Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability

2)     The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

 

1)     Not Relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability

The alleged parking infraction took place within East Car Park which falls within boundaries of Cornwall Airport Newquay, which is both airport land and land owned Cornwall Council.

Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

Schedule 4 of the POFA 3 (1)(b) states
“a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;”

And goes on to state in 3 (2)

“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;

(g)   the Council of the Isles of Scilly. “

where this land falls into (e) land controlled by the council of a county, name Cornwall Council, and therefore is not relevant land even if it was not an airport. The parking area position is shown on this map below, clearly within the confines of the land owned by Cornwall Council.

 

2)     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. I have maintained throughout my appeal to Initial Parking and in communications since that I am the registered keeper, not the driver of the vehicle. There have been no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be made.

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.

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.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

--------

Please, any feedback at all would be welcomed. Thank you so much for your help.

Smii

Actually, I have been thinking about this. I think I need to mention in the POPLA appeal the nature of the unfair payment system that was covered in Cornwall Live, as the driver in this instance did purchase a ticket - but when the machine told the driver that £2.50 was due, they paid it without questioning it. 
Allegedly this process has now changed and there is a prompt page after entering your reg to remind you to check that the tariff is correct - if this is true and they've changed the process, to me this demonstrates that the previous system did have usability/clarity failings.

Nellymoser

You've left the reg no showing at the start of your appeal. I'll leave it to others to give feedback on your appeal content though I think problems with payment machines probably won't to be a winning point at POPLA.

Don't know if you read the news article online about a driver having same payment problem as you at Newquay Airport I posted link in Parking Stories in News/media thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81698558/#Comment_81698558

1505grandad

I would include the usual point in post 3 of the Newbies announcement which has a linked example:-

"Landowner Authority

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice"

Smii

Nellymoser said:

You've left the reg no showing at the start of your appeal. I'll leave it to others to give feedback on your appeal content though I think problems with payment machines probably won't to be a winning point at POPLA.

Don't know if you read the news article online about a driver having same payment problem as you at Newquay Airport I posted link in Parking Stories in News/media thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81698558/#Comment_81698558

Thanks Nellymoser. 
I'm a new member so unfortunately I can't edit just yet. I think I have to wait for a certain number of days before I'm allowed to do that...!

I had received the notice to keeper on more or less the same day that I saw the Cornwall Live article. 
I have emailed the parking team at the airport as part of plan A (get them to cancel it) but they refuse to, they claim the system was fine before but they've made a change and now it's better, or something.

The main reason for mentioning the payment machines issue is because the driver did buy a ticket but it was insufficient to cover the period, so it is a relevant factor. My worry would be that POPLA would just go "well the ticket wasn't enough to cover the parking"
It's bad enough that it's been on the news so I don't know if it would hurt to raise it as a reason why we're in this situation.

Smii

Am I right in thinking that this is not compliant with POFA because it relies on the ticket being issued on Relevant Land which it isn't? 

Smii

Apologies for double posting, it wouldn't allow both images in one post.

Kaizen2024

Non-pofa IF not Relevant Land, which should attract a complaint for claiming otherwise; if this is the case (bylaws would need reading in full).

 Also, could be argued that does not comply with 9.2 (c) of POFA as reason for issue too vague.

Umkomaas

You might throw into any appeal that the body of the PCN states that parking times were 6:03 to 8:04. Whereas the photos show 06:03 to 20:04 (not qualified with am/pm). Which is it. I'd say the PCN borders on being contradictory and misleading (and for @Kaizen2024's benefit, yes, I do understand the 24 hour clock!). 

Professional car park management, my Jim Royle!

Smii

I'm not sure I can post links yet - let's try. 
I've looked at the bylaws documents from here -

cornwallairportnewquay dot com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/CAL-Airport-Byelaws-January-2017.-1-1.pdf

cornwallairportnewquay dot com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Parking_Terms_Conditions_2023-compressed.pdf

The bylaws themselves don't say anything about public parking, by my read - it covers parking airside.

The second document does cover the public parking but doesn't mention keeper liability and basically says "see onsite signage for terms and conditions" - POFA is not mentioned.

Am I missing anything? 

Thanks for your other thoughts - you're right about the times being an issue, and the reason being vague. They didn't include the amount the driver paid Vs the overstay in this NTK. It was included in the appeal response but I think that was only because I asked.

(Turns out I can't post links, hope the above approach is fine)

Nellymoser

Well spotted by Umkomaas. Their NTK states the Period of parking is 14hrs:0.1m:31s.
So POPLA may say insufficient payment to cover period of parking. I guess you didn't remain onsite for over 14hrs.

You may want to take a look at the POPLA Decisions Announcement thread see copies of successful/unsuccessful appeal decisions.