Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Why are you only telling us now that the driver is not an England/Wales resident? Introducing new evidence (such as naming the driver) at the POPLA evidence rebuttal stage is risky because POPLA is not obliged to consider new information that wasn’t part of the original appeal. The rebuttal window is strictly to comment on the operator’s evidence, not to add new factual material or legal arguments that weren’t already raised. You can identify the driver later, if POPLA do not accept your appeal, although that is not likely to be necessary.
However, just to prove how utterly incompetent their solicitor is, here is a link to the published byelaws at Cornwall Airport Newquay, which prove, without a doubt, that the land is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA:
Cornwall Airport Newquay Byelaws 2017
You can copy and paste the following into the POPLA webform for your rebuttal of the operators evidence:QuotePOPLA comments – Rebuttal of operator’s evidence on relevant land and keeper liability
The operator has dumped 52 pages of photos of signs and machines. None of that matters unless they first prove that this is “relevant land” for PoFA Schedule 4. That is the gateway issue POPLA must decide before looking at anything else. They have not proved it, so the rest of their bundle is irrelevant.
The operator’s central claim is that no byelaws have ever been made at Cornwall Airport Newquay. That is plainly wrong. Cornwall Airport Limited has published airport byelaws made under sections 63 and 64 of the Airports Act 1986. See:
https://www.cornwallairportnewquay.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/CAL-Airport-Byelaws-January-2017.-1-1.pdf.
Those byelaws include provisions regulating parking and vehicle use on the airport estate. That means parking on this land is subject to statutory control. Land subject to statutory control is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3. Because it is not relevant land, keeper liability cannot arise.
The operator’s “evidence” on this point is a self-ticked box in a private contract and a solicitor’s email. A private checkbox cannot override statute. A solicitor’s opinion (especially an incompetent one) is not statutory proof and, in any event, is contradicted by the airport’s own published byelaws. The burden of proof is on the operator to demonstrate that the land is relevant land under PoFA. They have not done so and cannot do so in the face of those byelaws.
I am the registered keeper and I have not identified the driver. With PoFA unavailable on this site, there is no lawful route to hold the keeper liable. That ends the matter. There is nothing else for POPLA to consider.
Separately, the operator’s Notice to Keeper states or implies keeper liability under PoFA at this airport location. That is a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.1(d), which requires that operators MUST NOT state the keeper is liable under PoFA where they cannot be held liable.
Misstating PoFA also breaches their DVLA KADOE obligations, which require PPSCoP compliance as a condition of data access. I will be making separate complaints to the BPA and DVLA about these compliance failures.
Conclusion: The airport byelaws demonstrate statutory control over parking at Cornwall Airport Newquay. The land is not relevant land for PoFA. The operator has not identified the driver. Keeper liability cannot apply. The appeal must be allowed.
??