Fined for missing Gatwick Drop Off payment and initial fines sent to old address

nuoretrapparit

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?

Coupon-mad

Don't think it's on this thread.  Look for an appeal about it being non-POFA.

Elmsey

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.

Le_Kirk

Why did you not receive the original PCNs?  Is your V5C up-to-date?  That is the usual reason for not receiving them.

troublemaker22

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 PCN

Therefore 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 must

note 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 was

considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC 67. In this case, the

Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were

enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate

interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the

penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was

not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them

which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in

influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages

for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be

proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not

charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is

providing 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 the

signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had

overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles

into account, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On

this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it

does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebutted

the appellant’s grounds in relation to any loss, and the proportionality of this PCN. Therefore, I must allow

this 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.