Group thread for Heathrow and Gatwick drop off PCNs

Coupon-mad

Thanks to @troublemaker22 for this which we can use as a resource & hopefully avoid new threads.

DO NOT PAY ANY OF THE FOUR OR FIVE COMPANIES ISSUING DROP OFF OR AIRPORT 'STOPPING' PCNs.

Advice will change as & when the Government introduce the new statutory Code of Practice and new Appeals Service.  And when the companies concerned finally learn (after statutory regulation forces them) how to treat consumers fairly and put up clear signs.  

Current 2024 Advice re Gatwick & Heathrow PCNs:

troublemaker22 said:

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.   

Coupon-mad

NSL at Stansted is similar but worse because they currently (and throughout 2023) have been misleading registered keepers that they are liable under the POFA 2012, which they can't be.

I will update here when I finally get answers from the DVLA and BPA about NSL.  Complaint has been in since July 2023.

---------------------    

VCS at other Airports (Bristol, East Midlands, etc.) are in the IPC AOS so ignore them unless they try a court claim.

Only contact an IPC firm to do one initial appeal to look reasonable (same wording as troublemaker22 provides above) and of course - common sense, if you want to be safe from a CCJ - update your address if you move house.

No POPLA, so no appeal worth escalating IMHO.  IAS is widely considered as  much use as a chocolate teapot (consumers and MPs). You might get a court claim from VCS = defendable. 


UKPPO at Newcastle Airport - same advice as VCS because in our experience, IPC AOS firms aren't afforded a fair or competent appeal option whatsoever.


DO NOT PAY ANY OF THE FOUR OR FIVE COMPANIES ISSUING DROP OFF OR AIRPORT 'STOPPING' PCNs.

troublemaker22

I’ve just seen a Luton Airport PCN. It was issued by APCOA, so appeal exactly as per Heathrow. 

Fruitcake

For airports where VCS operate, watch out for them replying to an initial appeal where byelaws have been cited that the airport owner/managing company considers byelaws to be obsolete. It is not true as has been established by John Penrose MP.
Such a response from VCS should result in an immediate complaint to the landowner/landholder, and the motorist's MP.

Coupon-mad

troublemaker22 said:

I’ve just seen a Luton Airport PCN. It was issued by APCOA, so appeal exactly as per Heathrow. 

Same for Birmingham Airport.  

Easy to win, as this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6497331/birmingham-airport-pcn

stop_this_nonsense

This is my new favourite thread! 

 

*NEVER TELL THEM WHO WAS DRIVING*

Etccarmageddon

Absolutely and it by default be considered none of anyone's business who has been driving your car unless they have committed a genuine crime.

Coupon-mad

Just to show how easy it is:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6503117/apcoa-heathrow-drop-off-80-pcn-cancelled-thank-you#latest

deauvillelover

Hi everyone

Ref: Heathrow Terminal 5 Drop Off area PCN

Here's an example of an appeal I have just won. Thank you to the forum members for all of their time and advice!

My appeal said:

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 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) (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 - 1971, 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

Page 1/2

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.

My response from Apcoa was:

In your appeal you have explained that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and declined the invitation to provide us with the full name and address of the driver. On this occasion we are prepared to exercise our discretion and have now cancelled this Parking Charge Notice, but must inform you that the terms and conditions in this location advise the driver that they must pay for each visit to the site. Signage is displayed at the approach to this drop off area, along the location and upon exit, advising all motorists that a payment to use the drop off area is required to be made online or by phone. As stated above, the terms and conditions of using the drop-off zones are displayed by way of clear signage. It is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the signage on site.

Stanley_St

I can report another success using troublemaker22's template above.  The email received from APCOA cancelling the Parking Charge Notice for £40/£80 is pasted below:

In your appeal you have explained that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and declined the invitation to provide us with the full name and address of the driver.

On this occasion we are prepared to exercise our discretion and have now cancelled this Parking Charge Notice, but must inform you that the terms and conditions in this location advise the driver that they must pay for each visit to the site. Signage is displayed at the approach to this drop off area, along the location and upon exit, advising all motorists that a payment to use the drop off area is required to be made online or by phone. As stated above, the terms and conditions of using the drop-off zones are displayed by way of clear signage. It is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the signage on site.

Yours sincerely,

APCOA Customer Support Centre, APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd acting on behalf of Heathrow Airport Limited

I have paid the £5 drop off charge in the past, but got the PCN when I forgot to do so within the short timescale they specify.  I generally aim to pay what I owe, but if paying to use the Drop Off Zone is not a legitimate operation, should we simply ignore it in future? If they are unable to enforce payment, should we think of the £5 charge as no more than an optional donation to Heathrow Airport?