Dropping in petrol station at airport.

Computersaysno

Parking scumcos issue PCNs for people 'dropping/collecting in petrol station' on airport grounds.

Note airport parking is not regulated under byelaws so sadly they can use POFA 2012…

They issue to RK who then transfers liability to driver.

Driver says to scumco - I stopped to use the petrol station/attached shop…and passengers chose to get out.

What am I supposed to do? Lock them in car [aka false imprsonment]?.

Scumco reject appeal.

POFA 2012 doesn't make the driver or RK liable for the actions of their passengers.

Thoughts??

twopenny

Did they get out with suitcases?

cooldude255220

Who is the PPC?

Can you post suitable redacted pictures of the Notices? (Just because the land may well be relevant land doesn't mean POFA automatically applies); there may be issues with the Notices to pick up on).

And is the "independent" appeal IAS or POPLA?

Half_way

unloading/loading is not parking (jobs n vs homeguard), so therefore no parking "event" took place, so no valid parking charge can be issued

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81873159#Comment_81873159

Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E

Coupon-mad

Devil's Advocate moment:

Why do people think it's acceptable to drop off or pick up airline passengers at Airport Petrol stations? Of course it isn't!

I mean, I am of course on the side of consumers against this out of control industry but this is a flagrant misuse of premises which isn't made OK by bunging in twenty quid of petrol.

I just don't understand the mentality of drivers thinking for one second that this is OK! What are people playing at?

Jopson doesn't apply. There is no right or easement allowing this conduct, which there was in Jopson.

Obviously don't pay the scam charge but that's because the signage is crap and the CCTV covert (illegal).

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81873212#Comment_81873212

I don't disagree overall with what you're saying, but in terms of the caselaw, my reading is that it does apply.

Paragraph 21 of the judgment makes it clear that the fact she was not parked was an additional reason why she was not liable; i.e. the easement was enough on its own to make her not liable, and because she was not parked was on its own enough to make her not liable.

I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact … the appellant’s car was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.

Coupon-mad

That's a literal interpretation but ignores the context of the land in question.

I wouldn't use Jopson in a case like this if I was before a judge. An average grumpy judge would not entertain this argument in this context (in my experience as a lay rep), and I suspect I'd be given short shrift.

I think someone would struggle by trying to rely on Jopson in any case other than where there is a right or reasonable expectation to drop off passengers (such as at a residence, hotel, other business or a shop where they were patrons).

Clearly Airport Petrol stations are not a free drop off zone. To try to use it that way is unreasonable, so the better argument would be against the prominence of terms & signs, the lack of overt info about camera surveillance, and a POFA argument.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81873289#Comment_81873289

In a way, the parking argument is a POFA argument. Schedule 4 applies to parking, and if the conduct in question is not (as a matter of fact) parking, then they cannot rely on POFA to pursue the keeper.

That doesn't mean they have to abide such conduct; it's open to them to prove on the balance of probabilities that the keeper was driving and is therefore liable.

doubledotcom

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6654171/dropping-in-petrol-station-at-airport

The OP’s premise is wrong.

If the petrol station is within the airport boundary and the land is subject to airport byelaws, then it is not relevant landfor the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That is a binary question of land status. It is not optional, and it is not fact-sensitive in the way some suggest. Land either is, or is not, subject to statutory control. If it is, PoFA cannot apply and keeper liability cannot arise.

Airport operators and their parking contractors routinely attempt to blur this by asserting that “parking” at petrol stations is somehow carved out from byelaws. That proposition has no legal basis. Byelaws apply to land, not to individual activities selectively defined by a parking firm. If the petrol station sits within the byelaw boundary, PoFA is excluded in full.

There is no such thing as a keeper “transferring liability” under PoFA. What has happened here is that the Keeper, wrongly assuming PoFA applies, named the driver. That does not create liability; it simply removes the need for the operator to prove driver identity. The operator still has to prove a valid contract and a breach by that driver.

That leads to the passenger point. PoFA does not impose liability on a driver for the independent actions of passengers. A driver stopping lawfully to refuel or use a shop does not become liable because a passenger chooses to exit the vehicle. There is no principle in contract law that creates vicarious liability in those circumstances. The “what was I supposed to do, lock them in the car?” question is not rhetorical hyperbole; it exposes the absence of any coherent legal basis for the charge.

On the devil’s-advocate point about whether dropping off at an airport petrol station is “acceptable”, I understand the argument being explored. But behaviour has to be viewed in context.

The UK is now almost unique in having monetised airport drop-off to this extent. In the USA and Canada, almost every airport, major and regional alike, provides free drop-off and pick-up as a normal part of airport access. Drivers there are not forced to improvise or adapt their behaviour to avoid charges.

What we see in the UK is not drivers developing a peculiar mentality, but a system deliberately engineered by unregulated private parking firms and embraced by airports because it generates easy revenue. That commercial model is then retrospectively defended by recharacterising ordinary conduct as “misuse”.

None of that alters the legal analysis. Approval or disapproval of the behaviour has no bearing on land status, PoFA applicability, contract formation, signage adequacy, consideration periods, or whether a driver can be held liable for a passenger’s actions.

Jopson does not need to be stretched here. It is useful in explaining what “parking” is not, but airport petrol station cases stand or fall on land status, PoFA exclusion, signage, and the absence of any contractual term imposing liability on a driver for passengers.

In short:
– airport petrol stations within byelaw land are not relevant land
– PoFA does not apply
– keepers cannot be made liable
– drivers are not liable for passengers’ independent actions
– opinions about “acceptable behaviour” carry no legal weight

Everything else is noise.

cooldude255220

Land either is, or is not, subject to statutory control. If it is, PoFA cannot apply and keeper liability cannot arise.

No, if it is land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control then POFA cannot apply.

POFA applies if the land subject to statutory control but where that control does not including the parking of a vehicle.

I appreciate that it is your view that the byelaws do cover parking, and therefore it is not relevant land, but I think it's important to be precise.