Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Verification Code: [POPLA code]
Operator: Initial Parking Limited
PCN: [reference]
Site: Cornwall Airport Newquay – P2 Car Park (East), TR8 4RQ
Date: [date]

I am the registered keeper. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm and I decline to do so.

Preliminary point for the POPLA Assessor
Before looking at any “merits” arguments (signs, times, payments, etc.), the first thing POPLA must evaluate is whether the person being pursued can be liable at all. If the land is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), then keeper liability cannot arise and there is nothing further for POPLA to consider. This is that case.

Why this is not relevant land
PoFA Schedule 4 only applies on “relevant land”. Paragraph 3(1)(c), read with 3(3), excludes land where parking is “subject to statutory control”. Cornwall Airport Newquay is under statutory control by airport byelaws made under section 63 of the Airports Act 1986. The Secretary of State has designated Newquay Airport for the purposes of section 63 by statutory instrument: “The Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2009”. Statutory control = not relevant land = PoFA cannot be used to transfer liability from driver to keeper.

Operator’s legal misunderstanding
The operator’s Notice to Keeper states or implies PoFA keeper liability on this airport land. That is a basic legal error. Schedule 4 paragraph 3(1) shuts the door on keeper liability where byelaws apply. The operator’s reliance on PoFA here simply demonstrates a failure to comprehend the threshold question POPLA must decide first.

Driver not identified, so the keeper cannot be pursued
I am the keeper and I have not been identified as the driver. There can be no presumption or inference that the Keeper is the driver. This is confirmed in the persuasive appellate case law in VCS v Edward (2023) where the judge confirmed that without evidence, there can be no inference.

Because this is not relevant land, PoFA does not apply and there is no lawful route to hold the keeper liable. That ends the matter. POPLA must allow the appeal on this single ground.

Evidence supplied
Copy of “The Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2009” (PDF attached).
Link to section 63 Airports Act 1986 (byelaw-making power): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/31/section/63/data.html

Legal references for ease

• PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 3(1)(c) and 3(3)
• Airports Act 1986, section 63
• The Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2009

Conclusion
This airport land is not relevant land for PoFA. The driver is not identified. The keeper cannot be liable. The appeal must be allowed.

Subject: Formal Complaint – Misrepresentation of Law and PoFA Keeper Liability (PCN [reference])

Dear Initial Parking,

Your latest response is as embarrassing as it is wrong. It confirms that your company has absolutely no grasp of the law you’re attempting to rely on. I will try and simplify this or you may want to pass it to a responsible adult within your firm, who has at least a basic grasp of the law.

Cornwall Airport Newquay was designated under The Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2009 for the purposes of section 63 of the Airports Act 1986. That designation places the land under statutory control, and that’s all that matters. Whether or not local byelaws have subsequently been drafted, signed, laminated, or nailed to a wall is completely irrelevant. The land’s legal status was fixed the moment it was designated.

You might want to have the responsible adult in your office actually read the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 3(1)(c). It excludes from “relevant land” any land “on which parking is subject to statutory control.” Once excluded, you cannot — under any circumstances — invoke PoFA to pursue a registered keeper. No amount of wishful thinking or creative fiction changes that.

Your attempt to claim that the land isn’t “subject to statutory control” because byelaws “have not yet been made” is laughable. That’s like claiming the Highway Code doesn’t apply until someone prints it in colour. The statutory control is there by virtue of the Airports Act and the Designation Order — it doesn’t need your approval, comprehension, or participation.

It’s astonishing that a company authorised to obtain DVLA keeper data still doesn’t understand such a basic point of law. Misstating keeper liability in this way breaches both the Private Parking Single Code of Practice and your KADOE contract. You are operating outside the terms of your authorisation and misleading the public.

Here’s what’s going to happen next:

1. You should cancel PCN [reference].

2. You should cease misrepresenting PoFA on any airport land.

3. You should correct your NtK templates before another one of these embarrassing legal blunders leaves your office.

If you do not confirm compliance within 14 days, this correspondence will be forwarded in full to the BPA Compliance Department and DVLA AOS Investigations, along with a copy of the Designation Order and your legally illiterate response.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]
Registered Keeper of [VRM]