We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Fined for missing Gatwick Drop Off payment and initial fines sent to old address
Options
Comments
-
I was about to start a new thread but thought this one was relevant - I have a PCN from NCP regarding Gatwick drop off (£100 'charge'). Is the reply by @Coupon-mad still the best way to respond here?0
-
Don't think it's on this thread. Look for an appeal about it being non-POFA.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I have a similar case to this, except that the 2 PCN were never received by me.
Is there any update on whether we should still write to Sara Roberts.
I have complained to NCP through customer services email. Is that right?
What is the best way to write to the legal sharks?
I think I have the right address for Gatwick airport.
Many thanks for any help you can give.0 -
Why did you not receive the original PCNs? Is your V5C up-to-date? That is the usual reason for not receiving them.1
-
We should probably have a dedicated thread for Heathrow and Gatwick drop off PCNs because people keep starting new threads (or piggybacking onto existing ones) to ask the same questions which have been answered over and over again).
A Where the appeal time limit has not expired
On receipt of a Heathrow or Gatwick drop off PCN, always appeal as follows:I appeal as keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.1. You are unable to transfer liability to the keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 to the the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') because airport drop off zones are not ‘relevant land’ as defined in POFA.2. Even if (which is not the case) the land in question is relevant land your notice does not conform to the requirements set out in POFA paragraphs 9(2)(e) and (f).Furthermore, as keeper I am entitled to all the defences available to the driver including (without limitation) the following:3. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into and under the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, does not form part of the contract between the driver and APCOA;4. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice;[5. The car was present in the drop off zone for not more than 5 minutes and the driver is entitled to the 5 minute consideration period mandated by the BPA Code of Practice]Any one of the above reasons is alone sufficient to require cancellation of the PCNTherefore I require you to cancel the PCN and expunge my personal data from your records.Delete item 5 if the car was in the zone for more than 5 minutes.If appealing online, do not click any boxes that indicate who the driver is. This appeal is normally accepted by APCOA (Heathrow) and NCP (Gatwick) without the need for a further appeal to POPLA.
If the keeper has already lodged an appeal in which they identified themselves as driver, the appeal will normally be rejected and a POPLA code issued. In that event, a POPLA appeal should still succeed, focusing on arguments 3, 4 and (if applicable) 5 above. To my knowledge POPLA has upheld appeals on ground 4 at Heathrow simply based on the information on the signs about the parking charge being too small. In POPLA decision 0490392173 assessor Andy Prescott wrote:It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly.In this case the appellant has stated the PCN of £80 is not consistent with the details of Parking Eye v Beavis[2015], and is disproportionate to any loss incurred by the operator. I reviewed the signs in this case and mustnote the reference to a: “£80” PCN is written in a much smaller font than the conditions that precede it,particularly the requirement to pay £5 per visit which is significantly more prominent. This matter wasconsidered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC 67. In this case, theCourt recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless wereenforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimateinterests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while thepenalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye wasnot liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging themwhich extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest ininfluencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damagesfor breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must beproportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could notcharge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it isproviding the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate,and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on thesignage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist hadoverstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principlesinto account, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. Onthis, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore itdoes not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebuttedthe appellant’s grounds in relation to any loss, and the proportionality of this PCN. Therefore, I must allowthis appeal.
B. Where the appeal time limit has expired
Write to APCOA/NCP saying exactly the same thing as in the standard keeper appeal APCOA will normally back off but NCP will go into full "debt recovery" mode including instructing the buffoons at BW Legal to threaten, and in some cases launch, doomed legal proceedings that are easily defeated, especially if the refusal to identify the driver is maintained.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards