Hilton Gatwick Drop off Charges

RazBurley

Hi All, need your thoughts on this. Please see attached signs at Hikton Gatwick. They have started £6 drop off charges for upto15 minutes unless you are dropping someone who is a guest at the hotel, then you can give reg no at reception for free drop off.  Its controled by ANPR.

My question is does the  same rules apply as drop off area.?

Also do they have to give grace period as BPA rules?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Interesting.

These PCNs would be non-POFA, as it's within the Airport byelaws curtilage (I assume) so dead easy to appeal & win.

What strikes me is the offer of free drop offs requires a VRM exemption at the hotel reception. Now, if the hotel made a typo with the VRM there's no penalty possible, because the ECP sign doesn't mention hotel guest drop off rules, nor does it create any obligation to enter a correct/full VRM.

RazBurley

Coupon-mad said:

Interesting.

These PCNs would be non-POFA, as it's within the Airport byelaws curtilage (I assume) so dead easy to appeal & win.

What strikes me is the offer of free drop offs requires a VRM exemption at the hotel reception. Now, if the hotel made a typo with the VRM there's no penalty possible, because the ECP sign doesn't mention hotel guest drop off rules, nor does it create any obligation to enter a correct/full VRM.

Thank you. 

LDast

Is the drop off location for the hotel barrier controlled? The location is under statutory control so PoFA does not apply. Only the unknown driver can be liable and the known keeper is under no legal obligation to reveal the identity of the unknown driver.

If an NtK is received, the known keeper should not, under any circumstances, reveal the identity of the unknown driver, inadvertently or otherwise.

CaptainYellow

Having recently received a PCN for this location, I can confirm that there is not a barrier controlling access.

I appealed to ECP on the basis that the site is not relevant land under POFA, but the appeal was rejected. This isn't my first rodeo and the driver was not identified in any way. I am now going to take the appeal to POPLA on the same point, that the site is not relevant land.

Is there anything else which should be included, or is it best to keep it as simple as that?

Thanks in advance.

fisherjim

I have stayed here in the past it was simple (I won't in future), off the plane at about 10:30PM, check in, get car in the morning from long stay car park, pick up wife at hotel drop off with cases, drive home.

There was no problem, there was a 15 min time limit signed, it worked!

If you are dropping off a guest, and it's busy, what do you do jump the queue and demand they white list you VRN in front of a coach load of tourists so you don't go over the 15mins?

Now going to Gatwick you need to take an entrance exam to understand all the parking rules which are a jumbled up complicated mess different for every area, they are taking the P!

Coupon-mad

CaptainYellow said:

Having recently received a PCN for this location, I can confirm that there is not a barrier controlling access.

I appealed to ECP on the basis that the site is not relevant land under POFA, but the appeal was rejected. This isn't my first rodeo and the driver was not identified in any way. I am now going to take the appeal to POPLA on the same point, that the site is not relevant land.

Is there anything else which should be included, or is it best to keep it as simple as that?

Thanks in advance.

I would add that you've seen no evidence that the VRM wasn't whitelisted inside the hotel - the operator's burden to prove - and if a typo was made by the hotel staff then that isn't a breach of any term on the sign.

Show POPLA a pic of the sign and say it is impossible to uphold the PCN because there's no breach of a 'relevant obligation' (because there's nothing about keying in exact VRMs on the sign).  Therefore no breach.

CaptainYellow

So, I have received the determination from POPLA and my appeal was unsuccessful. Despite my providing a copy of a map showing the airport boundary and, therefore, the area covered by byelaws, this is their determination:

The appellant has explained that PoFA does not apply on this land as this is located and run by Gatwick Airport London and is governed by the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996. I acknowledge the appellant’s claim here and the evidence they have provided however, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to show that the land is governed by byelaws. There is nothing on the signage to indicate that the Byelaws are in operation here and the PCN is a Parking Charge Notice rather than a Penalty Notice, which would have bene issued if Byelaws were in operation. Therefore, I am satisfied that the parking operator is able to issue PCNs here under PoFA and seek keeper liability in this case.

So, because ECP hasn't mentioned byelaws on their signs and issued a PCN, then the byelaws clearly don't apply? Sorry, what?!

The assessor also dismissed my point that ECP do not have landowner authority. The contract they have is with the hotel management, but the landowner is the airport, and there is no evidence of them allowing the hotel to act as their agent.

I guess I'll be seeing ECP in court then...

D_P_Dance

I very much doubt that they would be daft enough to take this to court

Coupon-mad

Complain to POPLA by adapting this complaint:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6563742/mcdonalds-southgate-park-unsuccessful-popla

And please update your POPLA outcome in POPLA DECISIONS which gets more views.

CaptainYellow

Complaint to be sent to POPLA today, assuming it fits into their online form... for some reason they seem reluctant to publish actual contact details!

Dear POPLA Complaints Team,

Re POPLA CODE XXXXXXXXXX

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the way this appeal has been handled. You have misapplied the law regarding lack of keeper liability at Airports again. When will POPLA Assessors finally understand that Airport Land is never 'relevant land', so the POFA Sch 4 cannot apply?

In his judgement, your Assessor says this:

"The appellant has explained that PoFA does not apply on this land as this is located and run by Gatwick Airport London and is governed by the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996. I acknowledge the appellant’s claim here and the evidence they have provided however, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to show that the land is governed by byelaws. There is nothing on the signage to indicate that the Byelaws are in operation here and the PCN is a Parking Charge Notice rather than a Penalty Notice, which would have bene issued if Byelaws were in operation.”

Suggesting that the parking company’s failure to mention the byelaws and that they haven’t issued a Penalty Notice in some way trumps the unarguable fact that the location is within the boundary of the airport and, therefore, covered by the byelaws is simply perverse.

POPLA must apply the law - determining whether Schedule 4 applies - when a person raises this issue. The issue of Airport land being 'under statutory control' was expressly mentioned in the appeal, and the assessor had a map in front of him, provided by myself, showing the extent of the airport boundary. This really should not have been difficult to understand.

The Assessor must consider the POFA fully and the first test is whether this was 'relevant land'. Airport land is never relevant land and Assessors were retrained on this after another complaint a year ago (re NSL and Stansted Airport). 

 

Here is that complaint outcome and apology from your team (my bold):

"From: POPLA Complaints<complaints@popla.co.uk>
Date: Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:18 PM
RE: 4822223007: Website Enquiry Form - Complaint about POPLA

Dear xxxx xxxxxx,

Your complaint about POPLA

Thank you for your email. This has been passed to me as I am responsible for handling complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against NSL Limited.

As a part of your complaint, you have referred me to a previous case where a POPLA Coach apologised for our mis-assessment concerning Stansted Airport and keeper liability in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Your complaint concerns similar circumstances, whereby the assessor determined that the parking operator could pursue you, the registered keeper, for the PCN in accordance with PoFA.

I have completed a full review of your case and will address my findings below:

In the assessor’s rationale, they confirm they were not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had been identified and subsequently concluded that the PCN complied with the provisions of PoFA. The assessor explained that they were not considering the appeal under byelaws, and I can see the appeal was assessed under contract law.

I fully accept that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the relevant land where PoFA is applicable includes any land which is subject to statutory control. You are correct that relevant land under PoFA excludes land subject to statutory control and the parking operator can only pursue the driver of the vehicle for the charge.

As per the complaint response you raised, the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. Whilst the assessor has not disputed this, it is evident they have incorrectly classified this as relevant land. This means that there has been a mis-assessment of your appeal.

I do apologise for this error and any resulting inconvenience that has been caused. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Whilst we always strive to issue accurate and robust decisions, (we consider over 60,000 cases a year) there is always the potential for human errors to be made. I note this is a second instance where this has occurred and therefore, I have escalated this internally. We will ensure that all assessors complete a further extensive training course on the applications of PoFA, specifically in respect of relevant land, to address this issue going forwards.

To conclude, I am sorry that you have not had a positive experience when using our service. As you are aware, we are a one-stage process and there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. I understand you intend to contact the British Parking Association (BPA) regarding the charge. You are also free to contact Citizens Advice for independent legal advice.

POPLA’s involvement with your case has now ended, and my response closes our complaints process. I must advise there will be no further review of your complaint and any further correspondence on the matter will not be responded to.

Yours sincerely,

 xxxxxx xxxxx

POPLA Complaints Team"

So it would seem that my case is at least the third instance of an assessor failing to appreciate the relevance of airport byelaws.

The Assessor was wrong in my case not to apply POFA correctly and part of his normal determination should include: 'given this land is an Airport, the entire site is 'under statutory control' unless the operator proves it is not'.  Despite the issue of byelaws being raised both in the original appeal to the parking company and the subsequent appeal to POPLA, the parking company failed to address the point and produced no evidence to demonstrate why the airport byelaws would not apply. That the assessor has then sided with the parking company, despite the evidence in front of him, does nothing to dispel the perception that POPLA is not sufficiently independent.

 

Kindly review this complaint properly and consistently with the last time your complaints team promised to retrain your assessors. What went wrong? Is he new or did he miss the retraining day?  This is a formal complaint.

Yours faithfully,