Free Traffic Legal Advice

Wow b789,  thats hilarious and great/on point.   

@b789

This is the evidence pack submitted to popla from initial.

https://limewire.com/d/TXiqv#aT87xsyF0L 

all VRN and personal details have been redacted.  The last page is an email from the BPA solicitor - that was already redacted when the pack was received.

They seem to be upset about the AI part but a simple 15 second scan shows no AI at all - That sort of sets the standard for them.

Their  reasoning is as there is no bylaw regarding parking then everything is ok and POFA applies.

Obviously the  response needs to be hard / strong and very clear as im positive POPLA will side with initial given the solicitors  claim in the last page.



If in the event of a loss at POPLA  and the driver being a non UK resident  what then?  Can the registered keeper then simply say  " this was the driver - contact them" ?

Thanks in advance.

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:

POPLA 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.

Quote

Why are you only telling us now that the driver is not an England/Wales resident? 

They mentioned it in their opening post.

My bad. Too much to trawl back through.

Anyway, you should also send the following email, addressed to both the BPA and the DVLA at info@britishparking.co.uk and kadoeservice.support@dvla.gov.uk and CC yourself:

Subject: Formal Complaint – Initial Parking Ltd: Misuse of DVLA Data and Misrepresentation of Keeper Liability under PoFA (Cornwall Airport Newquay)

Dear [BPA/DVLA] Investigations Team,

This complaint has been submitted simultaneously to the British Parking Association (AOS Compliance Team) and the DVLA (KADOE Compliance Team) as both are responsible for oversight of operator compliance and data handling.

I write to lodge a formal complaint against Initial Parking Ltd (AOS Member, BPA) for systemic breaches of both the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and their KADOE contract with the DVLA. This complaint concerns the company’s repeated misrepresentation of keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in relation to parking charge notices issued at Cornwall Airport Newquay (P2 East, TR8 4RQ).

1. Summary of Misrepresentation
Initial Parking’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) for PCN [reference] explicitly invokes PoFA keeper liability on airport land that is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4, paragraph 3(1) of the Act. Cornwall Airport Newquay is owned by Cornwall Council, a statutory body, and designated under the Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2009 for the purposes of section 63 of the Airports Act 1986. Airport land subject to statutory control is excluded from PoFA by definition.

The operator’s misstatement of PoFA liability therefore constitutes a breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), which explicitly states:

“The parking operator MUST NOT serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”

This unlawful claim of keeper liability is aggravated by the operator’s access to DVLA data under a contract which expressly prohibits such misuse.

2. Operator’s Misleading Response
Following a formal complaint, Initial Parking’s written response (dated 30 September 2025) stated:

“No Byelaws have yet been made further to the Airport Byelaws (Designation) Order 2009… Accordingly, the PCN remains valid.”

This is factually incorrect. Cornwall Airport Limited has published Airport Byelaws dated January 2017, available publicly at:

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

These byelaws include sections on parking and vehicle control, confirming that the airport is under statutory control. Initial Parking’s false claim that “no byelaws have been made” demonstrates both incompetence and reckless disregard for their statutory obligations.

3. Breach of KADOE Contract
By misrepresenting PoFA liability on non-relevant land and issuing NtKs implying lawful transfer of liability, Initial Parking have breached their KADOE contract, which requires:

• Full compliance with the applicable Code of Practice (now the PPSCoP);
• Use of keeper data only for lawful purposes consistent with the Code and PoFA.

Initial Parking’s misuse of DVLA data to issue an invalid PoFA-based NtK constitutes unlawful processing of personal data obtained from the DVLA.

4. Requested Action
I request that both the BPA and DVLA:

1. Conduct a compliance investigation into Initial Parking’s use of PoFA wording on all NtKs issued at Cornwall Airport Newquay and any other sites under statutory control.
2. Require Initial Parking to amend all NtK templates and correspondence to remove unlawful PoFA references for non-relevant land.
3. Confirm what sanctions will be applied for these serious breaches of the PPSCoP and KADOE contract.
4. Require Initial Parking to contact all affected data subjects to correct their previous misstatements of legal liability.

Attached/available on request:

• Copy of Initial Parking’s NtK
• Complaint correspondence and their written reply
• Link to Cornwall Airport Byelaws (2017)

This is a serious matter of systemic legal misrepresentation and unlawful data use. I expect acknowledgment and confirmation of investigation.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Address]
Registered Keeper of vehicle [VRM]

If you want to FUBAR this appeal, feel free to ignore the advice.

You must copy and paste the text I have provided above. It is too late to introduce new evidence at this stage. You are rebutting the operators evidence.

The ONLY addendum to the above is the following which you can add on at the end:

The following clauses taken from the “Cornwall Airport Newquay, Airport Byelaws 2017, demonstrate clear statutory regulation of parking under the Airports Act 1986 and confirm that parking at Cornwall Airport Newquay is “subject to statutory control”.

- 5(12) No Waiting or Parking
Except in an emergency or to allow passengers to board or alight, no person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait, stop or park:
(a) on any road, area, or place where waiting, stopping or parking is prohibited by notices;
(b) otherwise than in a parking area designated by the Airport Company;
(c) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by the Airport Company or displayed on notices.

- 5(13) Parking Charges
No person shall leave a vehicle in a parking place without paying the appropriate charges for the period of parking.

-5(14) Parking and Airside Driving
No person shall park, drive, or operate any vehicle in any part of the Airport otherwise than in accordance with directions given by an authorised person or the Airport Company.

That alone is sufficient to prove the land is not relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore no keeper liability can arise.

sections merged - I think the order  is correct ?

"POPLA 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 MUST 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.

The following clauses taken from the “Cornwall Airport Newquay, Airport Byelaws 2017, demonstrate clear statutory regulation of parking under the Airports Act 1986 and confirm that parking at Cornwall Airport Newquay is “subject to statutory control”.

- 5(12) No Waiting or Parking
Except in an emergency or to allow passengers to board or alight, no person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait, stop or park:
(a) on any road, area, or place where waiting, stopping or parking is prohibited by notices;
(b) otherwise than in a parking area designated by the Airport Company;
(c) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by the Airport Company or displayed on notices.

- 5(13) Parking Charges
No person shall leave a vehicle in a parking place without paying the appropriate charges for the period of parking.

-5(14) Parking and Airside Driving
No person shall park, drive, or operate any vehicle in any part of the Airport otherwise than in accordance with directions given by an authorised person or the Airport Company.

That alone is sufficient to prove the land is not relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore no keeper liability can arise.

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  clearly 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.

Thank you for the revision and hard hitting  email.    I was also confused when the said no Byelaws exist, its right there on the site!   

Will be submitting it in the morning. 

Dear all,

A local newspaper site has picked up the story..

Although some wording could be better it gets the basics across.


https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/question-mark-over-legality-cornwall-10675108


This evening g I also received an email from POPLA :



The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team




THANK YOU to b789, without his extensive help I wouldn't have been able to deal with this myself.


Thank you again..

And I will stay a regular  visitor and will direct other newquay airport victims this way.