Can I appeal PCN (gatwick drop off)

Paco_2019

Hi there,

I've recieved a Parking Charge notice to Keeper concerning an unpaid drop off charge at gatwick south terminal.
Details-
Date of incident - 22/09/2024
Date of sending this notice - 10/10/2024
(PCN arrived in the post 15/10/2024)

After reading through The Protection of freedom act 2012 schedule 4, I believe I may have grounds to appeal based on paragraph 9 (5) 
- The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.


Any advise appreciated!
Many thanks

Paco_2019

Sorry I should have finished with asking if I'm correct in thinking I have grounds to appeal this?!

LDast

Appeal only as the Keeper with the following, verbatim:

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

If Gatwick 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 NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

DE_612183

LDast said:

Appeal only as the Keeper with the following, verbatim:

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

If Gatwick 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 NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Is that a typo on the last paragraph?

KeithP

DE_612183 said:

LDast said:

Appeal only as the Keeper with the following, verbatim:

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

If Gatwick 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 NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Is that a typo on the last paragraph?

I think that's ok.
The first two paragraphs make the point that on land that is under statutory control, there is no way that any driver's liability can be transferred to the keeper.
From that it follows that if the parking company do not know who was driving then this matter is going nowhere.

LDast

DE_612183 said:

LDast said:

Appeal only as the Keeper with the following, verbatim:

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

If Gatwick 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 NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Is that a typo on the last paragraph?

No. However, if grammatical sensitivities have been bruised, you could replace "twisted" with "misconstrued" if you feel a more professional tone is deserved to these bottom-dwelling scumbags. Also you could change "NCP have" to "NCP has" to match singular subject-verb agreement.

Paco_2019

Thank you very much!
I have sent the appeal with both it not being 'relevent land' and not having been notified within 14 days. 
Worth a try!
Will update when I hear back

DE_612183

LDast said:

DE_612183 said:

LDast said:

Appeal only as the Keeper with the following, verbatim:

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

If Gatwick 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 NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Is that a typo on the last paragraph?

No. However, if grammatical sensitivities have been bruised, you could replace "twisted" with "misconstrued" if you feel a more professional tone is deserved to these bottom-dwelling scumbags. Also you could change "NCP have" to "NCP has" to match singular subject-verb agreement.

Hi it was this sentence that I found read wrong - Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. 

I thought it should be "your NTK cannot hold the driver liable" - of course I'm not English so perhaps my grasp of the language is not right!

LDast

DE_612183 said:

LDast said:

DE_612183 said:

LDast said:

Appeal only as the Keeper with the following, verbatim:

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

If Gatwick 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 NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Is that a typo on the last paragraph?

No. However, if grammatical sensitivities have been bruised, you could replace "twisted" with "misconstrued" if you feel a more professional tone is deserved to these bottom-dwelling scumbags. Also you could change "NCP have" to "NCP has" to match singular subject-verb agreement.

Hi it was this sentence that I found read wrong - Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. 

I thought it should be "your NTK cannot hold the driver liable" - of course I'm not English so perhaps my grasp of the language is not right!

The driver is always liable. If the NtK is not PoFA compliant, then the keeper cannot be liable and only the driver is liable, which is why we always advise to never identify the driver.

Your English appears to better than some native speakers. 

Coupon-mad

Worth a try?!

It is 100% nailed on guaranteed to work.