NCP Gatwick red route NTK

RandomName55

Hi guys,

As the keeper of the vehicle I received this NTK in the post.

After reading the newbies thread as well as some Gatwick specific posts and the Gatwick/Heathrow group thread I am unsure of which template to use in my appeal, and would greatly appreciate one of you fine experts to nudge me in the right direction.

1. There is the standard newbies blue text.

2. There is this:

"Dear NCP,

I am the registered keeper. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable. 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 the Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, 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 byelaws 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, 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."

3. And finally, there is the group thread template which I am unsure about using as it seems more geared toward the drop-off zone than the red route:

"
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."

I am leaning toward 2 as it is specific and seems to have worked for other users in my scenario. 

Thanks for any of your time and help!

Coupon-mad

Either will do.

RandomName55

Just to let all future readers of this thread know: I sent option 2 and they have responded and cancelled the penalty. Thanks everybody!

Coupon-mad

Perfect.  

Phd323

I’ve had the same letter come through near enough. I’m guessing the same response should work? 

Dear NCP,

I am the registered keeper. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable. 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 the Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, 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 byelaws 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, 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."

ChirpyChicken

yes thats fine