Group thread for Heathrow and Gatwick drop off PCNs

debtout

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

LDast

Why is everyone overthinking this. When the NtK arrives, the keeper appeals with the following wording (verbatim), nothing else:

I am the registered keeper. APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Heathrow Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Heathrow Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for APCOA's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. APCOA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

No need to remove or embellish it with useless drivel or circumstances. Just appeal with the above by the RK and that will be the end of it!

Coupon-mad

debtout said:

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. 

In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

Of course you can't put that! Think about it...

Anyway your daughter appeals, not you.

debtout

Coupon-mad said:

debtout said:

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. 

In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

Of course you can't put that! Think about it...

Anyway your daughter appeals, not you.

Many thanks indeed. I'll send the appeal ASAP. 

Umkomaas

debtout said:

Coupon-mad said:

debtout said:

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. 

In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

Of course you can't put that! Think about it...

Anyway your daughter appeals, not you.

Many thanks indeed. I'll send the appeal ASAP. 

Why are you disregarded the absolutely essential advice given below please?

Coupon-mad said:

debtout said:

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. 

In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

Of course you can't put that! Think about it...

Anyway your daughter appeals, not you.

debtout

Umkomaas said:

debtout said:

Coupon-mad said:

debtout said:

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. 

In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

Of course you can't put that! Think about it...

Anyway your daughter appeals, not you.

Many thanks indeed. I'll send the appeal ASAP. 

Why are you disregarded the absolutely essential advice given below please?

Coupon-mad said:

debtout said:

Hello all. Just recieved one for Heathrow. Here is the thing, I didn't actually stop, I belive I just drove through as I was looking for someone whose phone was off, so I do not think I stopped. I then went into the short stay parking and paid for the duration of my stay, as I ended up going to actually look for ghs relative in the airport and paid for the duration I stayed, and I have it on my credit card. 

In this case, do I use the same guidance above, as the car belongs to my daughter, but I'm a named driver and should I also include the fact that I just went past the drop off and ended up going into the short stay where I paid? 

Of course you can't put that! Think about it...

Anyway your daughter appeals, not you.

Hello yes my daughter will appeal, but I pretty much manage all these in the house 😂. So yes appeal will be in her name if that's what you are pointing out? 

Coupon-mad

Yes that's right.  I know it seems obvious but you'd be amazed what some people sadly manage to do wrong after we've given clear advice.  We need to be sure.

Kriffli

Hi all, 

Back again for the 3rd time.. (sigh) 

Quick recap, I have sent the appeal at the bottom of this thread to NCP on the 18th September. As of today, I have not received a response to the original appeal. 

On the 21st of October, I contacted their appeals department via their online chat who... (wait for this)... told me that the appeals email address I sent my appeal to does not deal with Gatwick appeals and that I must resend my appeal to "ncp.managedservices" email address..  I did this on the 21st of October.  

On the 22nd of October, I forwarded both my original appeal sent to their appeals department and the 2nd email sent to the managed services email address and lodged a complaint stating that as I have not received a response to either of my emails, I will assume the invoice has been cancelled and that any further correspondence from either NCP or Trave recovery will incur a £100 admin fee. 

Once again, I have not received a response.

Trace are still relentlessly chasing me with poj bless threats of court action via "NCP's chosen solicitors" 

My question is... should I contact Trace to tell them the matter has been resolved with NCP and also tell them any further letters from them will incur £100 admin fee? 

I was advised against contacting Trace but I'm not sure if Trace is even aware that I have appealed the original invoice from NCP and I'm conscious they may actually take this to Small Claims.. which I don't have the energy to deal with and would rather have something on file with Trace that I advised them about the situation 

Sorry about the long post... any advice would be appreciated 

Oh forgot to say... I also said I will report NCP to the BPA for ignoring my appeals. 

Thanks!! 

Coupon-mad

My question is... should I contact Trace to tell them the matter has been resolved with NCP and also tell them any further letters from them will incur £100 admin fee?

No. That's just a silly tactic that shows a victim doesn't understand contract law.

And Trace are not solicitors so cannot take this to small claims.

ak_83

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.   

Point 5 regarding the grace period, may no longer be valid: 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

Section 5.2 "The grace period does not apply to short stay areas – controlled land where the parking of a vehicle is permissible for a limited period not greater than 30 minutes, for example at airport and railway station drop off and pick up zones."