Newquay Airport Parking POPLA appeal

DW190

Smii said:

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

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

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

James_Poisson

Smii said:

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)

I think you have misinterpreted this, to my interpretation it covers the whole of the airport, it specifically mentions for example:

Private hire vehicles-they do not go airside

Areas not covered by the road traffic act- which to my view is within the boundary of the airport perimeter.

No waiting or parking ...."on any part of the airport not covered by the road traffic enactments elsewhere than in a place designated for that purpose".

Clearly it covers the whole site,

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

Smii

Nellymoser said:

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.

Coincidentally the driver was parked for the 14hr duration stated, but due to the confusing way that the machines operated, did not pay for the full period. This is the Cornwall live story where many people were caught out by entering the reg and the machine requesting the minimum amount 

I was not the driver, and my Google Timeline record can demonstrate that.

Smii

James_Poisson said:

Smii said:

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)

I think you have misinterpreted this, to my interpretation it covers the whole of the airport, it specifically mentions for example:

Private hire vehicles-they do not go airside

Areas not covered by the road traffic act- which to my view is within the boundary of the airport perimeter.

No waiting or parking ...."on any part of the airport not covered by the road traffic enactments elsewhere than in a place designated for that purpose".

Clearly it covers the whole site (link snipped)

I'm really sorry - thank you for your help. I'm not in my comfort zone with this and I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for within the bylaws that would help or hinder my case as keeper

Gr1pr

If you are the Registered Keeper but definitely not the driver,  then you have NO legal liability under any laws for a breach on airport land for any parking charge notice from any Private Parking company like Initial Parking 

Any bylaws may apply against an Owner,  if the bylaws were used for a Penalty Notice 

Schedule 4 of POFA2012 doesn't apply on non relevant land like airports and council land 

Smii

Gr1pr said:

If you are the Registered Keeper but definitely not the driver,  then you have NO legal liability under any laws for a breach on airport land for any parking charge notice from any Private Parking company like Initial Parking 

Any bylaws may apply against an Owner,  if the bylaws were used for a Penalty Notice 

Schedule 4 of POFA2012 doesn't apply on non relevant land like airports and council land 

Presumably then I can keep my POPLA appeal to be very short and just say that I'm the registered keeper, not the driver, and I have no liability because schedule 4 of POFA doesn't apply.
Should I include my proof that I am not the driver? (The GPS log)

I am assuming that I don't need to go into a huge appeal because it's factually quite a short one - I'm not trying to convince them of anything other than the fact that I'm not the driver and that I won't name them.

Gr1pr

More or less

Study the other airport popla appeals like Stansted Airport or London airports etc, within the last couple of years,  check ones in the popla-decisions sticky thread etc too, especially Stansted

There are previous replies mentioning the errors in their NTK PCN,  so highlight those too, plus proof of not being the driver,  plus add maps showing boundaries,  that it's council land etc

Lead them by the nose to the upheld appeal conclusion they should come to

The basis of your popla appeal includes

Not relevant land under POFA2012,  with map
Keeper but not the driver,  so no keeper liability 
No landowner authority 
Poor and inadequate signage and payment issues 
The alleged breach not pleaded correctly 
No invitation for the keeper to pay 
Pofa2012 incorrectly pleaded, not applicable 

James_Poisson

You have to tell POPLA specifically why it doesn't apply, they can be quite dim or state you haven't been specific, and they are paid by the PPC ultimately and tend to fall their way if they can.

You don't need to supply a "GPS log" you word is good enough.

Smii

Thanks for all your input, everyone.

Below is a draft put together from snippets of relevant appeals from recent cases here. Please let me know if this is OK, if I've missed anything or if I've messed something up.

-----

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 Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012

2)     The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. No keeper liability.

3) No landowner authority

4) Poor and inadequate signage and payment issues

5) The alleged breach not pleaded correctly

6) POFA 2012 incorrectly pleaded, not applicable

7) Misuse of DVLA data

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 and not the driver 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. 

Fig 1 below shows the boundaries of the airport and demonstrates that the East Car park falls fully within the boundaries and is therefore not relevant land under POFA 2012.

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. Fig 2 below shows my location on the 8th October as per my Google Maps Timeline view, which confirms that I travelled between my home and my place of work.

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.

3) No landowner authority

I require Initial Parking to provide strict proof of their legal authority to operate on this land. Specifically, they must produce a complete and unredacted contract with the landowner that explicitly authorises them to issue statutory Penalty Notices (PNs) under Airport Byelaws. A contract that only permits the issuing of contractual Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) is insufficient to validate the notice in question. The absence of this specific authority would render the Penalty Notice invalid.

4) Poor and inadequate signage and payment issues

The payment system in use at the time of alleged parking infraction was confusing and misleading enough to have received attention by the press. Upon entering the registration number of a vehicle, the driver would be shown the amount due to be the minimum possible. Signage and instructions to indicate that the driver was supposed to add additional time was inadequate. This is proven by changes brought in by Initial Parking - the machine now provides a prompt after entry of a registration number that states that the tariff should be checked to be correct. This system was deceitful and designed to catch people out and goes against the standards set out by the BPA.

Instructions provided for use of the parking machines was not sufficient to prevent operators from making a mistake, given that their process is different to normal pay on exit systems.

I require Initial Parking to provide evidence of the signage on site, including the signs giving instructions for how to operate the machines at the time of the alleged parking contravention by the driver. If these instructions have changed and extra prompt(s) have been added to the parking machines, please provide evidence of when this change was made and why.

5) The alleged breach not pleaded correctly

The Notice to Keeper issued to me does not identify the alleged breach clearly and is not compliant 9.2 (c) of POFA as the reason for issuing is too vague.

Further, the Notice to Keeper states different times in the body text to the boxes with images which is contradictory and misleading. The body text indicates 06:03 to 08:04, whereas the photos show 06:03 to 20:04 with no clarifying AM/PM where appropriate on either.

6) POFA2012 incorrectly pleaded, not applicable

I am the registered keeper. Initial Parking cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, Initial Parking will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Cornwall Airport Newquay is not 'relevant land'.

If Cornwall Airport Newquay wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because Initial Parking is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for Initial Parking’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and Initial Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The notice to keeper can only hold the driver liable.

7) Misuse of DVLA data.

To access DVLA data, parking companies sign up to the Kadoe contract which allows the parking company to retrieve keeper data electronically for the reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Kadoe contracts attach several conditions to the access including that the parking company seeks recovery from the driver or the keeper if the procedure in schedule 4 of the protection to freedoms act is used. The contract states data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of POFA.

As noted in points 1) and 2), Initial Parking have not identified the driver nor can transfer of liability to keeper take place because the place of parking is not relevant land under POFA 2012.

Hence if the parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper with no evidence to suggest they were the driver then the data would have been misused, If the keeper will not name the driver in circumstances where POFA can no longer apply then they would be breaching the act if they continue to process their data.

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

-----

kryten3000

Their POFA wording is incorrect on the Notice to Keeper.  I would add a paragraph to tell the assessor why.

So point one is "not relevant land" - inside the boundary of the airport land, use the map to show this.
Point two - if, in the alternative the land is deemed to be relevant land then the notice fails POFA due to the inadequate wording.  

You will need to spell it out to the assessor in simple terms "up goer five" style https://xkcd.com/1133/