Hi all, an update - the appeal was successful! Thanks so much for all your help. The assessor reasoning:
"I find in favour of the appellant. I will explain my reasoning below. By issuing a PCN, the parking operator has implied that the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of what the terms and conditions are at the site and that the motorist did not comply with these terms. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. In this case, the parking operator has indicated in its case file that there is no applicable airport byelaws relating to parking in effect at the site question and provided a weblink relating to the byelaws in questions however, the appellant has raised that the parking operator cannot rely on PoFA as the location is subject to statutory controls, and is not a relevant land for the purpose of PoFA. I have considered the Stanstead Airport Byelaws, which separate out the land within the airport boundary into areas subject to traffic enactments, and areas not subject to traffic enactments. In either case, the land described would be subject to statutory control and not relevant land as defined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Airport Byelaws do not include a clear map or boundary, simply defining the relevant area as the aerodrome known as Stanstead Airport – London. The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of the airport, and the area within which the vehicle was parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst I note the appellant has provided a weblink that refers to the statutory byelaws rules, POPLA cannot access third-party weblinks for security reasons. As such, I am unable to consider this evidence as part of my assessment. Having considered the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the parking operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The parking operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the appellant is incorrect. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence before me. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal."
