Group thread for Heathrow and Gatwick drop off PCNs

saginata

I've been testing how short I can make the appeal. Gatwick Drop-Off PCN Appealed with just "No keeper liability" at 18:10. Cancelled at 5:37AM. 

Umkomaas

saginata said:

I've been testing how short I can make the appeal. Gatwick Drop-Off PCN Appealed with just "No keeper liability" at 18:10. Cancelled at 5:37AM. 

A bit wordy that! 😉

Haha, well done, great stuff. 👏

ChirpyChicken

saginata said:

I've been testing how short I can make the appeal. Gatwick Drop-Off PCN Appealed with just "No keeper liability" at 18:10. Cancelled at 5:37AM. 

love it  

ar2r

ar2r said:

Umkomaas said:

APCOA Parking Charge - use the template, cancellation by return (or thereabouts).

I've sent it. Thank you 

Now wait and see. wouldn't mind if that was £15-20 charge but 60 or 100 that's a bit over the top (

Hi all 

Still waiting for a reply , over 3 weeks now

Any way of checking the progress or just wait ?? 

thanks and fingers crossed for all

Umkomaas

ar2r said:

ar2r said:

Umkomaas said:

APCOA Parking Charge - use the template, cancellation by return (or thereabouts).

I've sent it. Thank you 

Now wait and see. wouldn't mind if that was £15-20 charge but 60 or 100 that's a bit over the top (

Hi all 

Still waiting for a reply , over 3 weeks now

Any way of checking the progress or just wait ?? 

thanks and fingers crossed for all

If they're following requirements, they have 35 days to respond to an initial appeal. 

ar2r

Umkomaas said:

ar2r said:

ar2r said:

Umkomaas said:

APCOA Parking Charge - use the template, cancellation by return (or thereabouts).

I've sent it. Thank you 

Now wait and see. wouldn't mind if that was £15-20 charge but 60 or 100 that's a bit over the top (

Hi all 

Still waiting for a reply , over 3 weeks now

Any way of checking the progress or just wait ?? 

thanks and fingers crossed for all

If they're following requirements, they have 35 days to respond to an initial appeal. 

oh, thanks for the reply 

We shall wait then 😁😁

James_Poisson

saginata said:

I've been testing how short I can make the appeal. Gatwick Drop-Off PCN Appealed with just "No keeper liability" at 18:10. Cancelled at 5:37AM. 

Do they get up that early do you think or are they over seas?

ar2r

Umkomaas said:

ar2r said:

ar2r said:

Umkomaas said:

APCOA Parking Charge - use the template, cancellation by return (or thereabouts).

I've sent it. Thank you 

Now wait and see. wouldn't mind if that was £15-20 charge but 60 or 100 that's a bit over the top (

Hi all 

Still waiting for a reply , over 3 weeks now

Any way of checking the progress or just wait ?? 

thanks and fingers crossed for all

If they're following requirements, they have 35 days to respond to an initial appeal. 

Just received confirmation that it has been cancelled  

Considering I've paid £7 a pop for that parking about gazillion times i take a freebie 

Thank you Forumites for all the help 

Kofi_Cat

Coupon-mad said:

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.   

Hi - new here, and am trying to navigate a NCP Gatwick charge incurred in March. We've now missed the point of appeal and it's gone to Trace for £170. 

A lot of the other threads i've read on this say to first contact the landowner - so in this case Gatwick Airport. Is this still relevant?

We had pre-booked parking with Gatwick's onsite carpark, but initially went to the wrong car park entry barrier, before having to go through the drop off area and then get to the right one.

Should we take this up with Gatwick airport - or directly with NCP now?

Additional info - this has come through to my spouse as the registered keeper, who was not driving the car and was in fact out of the country at the time.

Advice gratefully received - i'm totally in awe of the advice and results produced by this forum, and want to make sure we tackle this in the right way to get a similar result for ourselves!

K_C

doubledotcom

Your husband as the RK should just make a formal complaint to NCP advising them that he was not the driver and cannot be liable because the location is not relevant land. Inform NCP that he is not legally obliged to identify the driver and declines to do so.

If he has evidence that he cannot have been the driver at the time, even better. He can sign off referring them to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).