Gatwick Airport Drop off PCN- Times Parking

Gr1pr

Times are currently using Moorside Legal to pursue cases, so until we see results i wouldn't say the threats are hollow or empty , but the advice tends to be ignore until the LoC response stage, followed by a Money Claim

So in general its the usual IGNORE them until any litigation stage

But

If the keeper was not the driver, then a denial plus a redacted picture of the driving licence, including the picture, where appropriate may get them to back off

Colanago

What does LoC stand for?

HoneydewLemon

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82133498#Comment_82133498

Letter of Claim.

And there is a list of common acronyms in post 5 of the pinned Newbies thread.

Colanago

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82133390#Comment_82133390

Thank you, do you happen to know if NCP, who used to manage Gatwick drop off, also used Moorside Legal?

I ask, because they (NCP) used to reply with a letter stating any PCN would be cancelled as soon as there was any mention of Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and the drop off not being relevant land, etc.

Now since Times 24 have taken over, they seem to be more persistent and are taking things further, by asking for driving license details from registered keepers who refuse to name the driver?

Johnersh

• There remain plenty of arguments.

1. The full parking terms are not visible before coming onto the land (at which point the driver becomes liable for the charge) cf Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
2. All routes in are red route clearways. There would be a charge to stop and read the sign or to drop off passengers outside the zone.
3. There is no means of paying on site, despite drivers being permitted to stay for 10 or more mins. Why not? The system could easily have a contactless payment. It is intended that drivers forget to pay
4. The charge amounts to a penalty since the system (last time I used it) actively prevents any payment more than 24hrs after a visit. They're not so much interested in the payment but the levy of the penalty. The sum charged is disproportionate to the secondary obligation to pay within 24 hrs. This means that Beavis may well be authority for why the PPC cannot charge....

Unless the PPC are willing to disclose their contract with LGW details of where the full terms may be viewed on site before the perimeter of the parking zone, I'd suggest it's premature for them to require a driver's license.