Parking Charge Notice ( PCN ) for Heathrow Hilton Garden Inn terminal 2 (t2) from EURO CAR PARKS

5EUK

"it matters not if it doesnt"

How though ?
I don't want to get caught out here and then made to pay even more through a small claims court.

Jame4ters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81974450#Comment_81974450

You won’t pay.

Have a read of the “Newbies” thread and any other thread to see what happens

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81974450#Comment_81974450

But that doesn't happen. Nobody pays a parking court claim as they pretty much always discontinue defended cases. Nothing to worry about.

StrawberryHeathrow

Hello again guys, as I expected ECPs declined my appeal to them and provided me with POPLA code. Here is their response to my email.

Note: That sign of theirs is placed on a column of the hotel which is not clearly visible as you drive past it as its on the bend of the column as the street separates and you need to make a right turn towards the hotel dropoff area and then it reveals clearly thats why they've cutted it like that I suspect also its a 1 way street and camera gets you the moment you decide to go through it no matter if you make a turn to the hotel dropoff area or proceed straight towards the exit.

James_Poisson

That photo isn't evidence of anything it is neither dated or shown in perspective I suspect it was taken when it was installed I, as someone looking at that who has never been to that site cannot know or imagine where it is, when it was taken, if it is illuminated, or if any driver can see it let alone read the small print.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81982393#Comment_81982393

But not relevant to the appeal @ POPLA

Please do the POPLA appeal based ONLY on no keeper liability due to byelaws, nothing else

Euro car Parks will withdraw and the pcn will be cancelled

StrawberryHeathrow

Okay guys based on little research and time spend editing I came up with this appeal text… Have a quick look and let me know if it looks good to go to POPLA as I want to make sure if I got everything right…

Appeal Submission for Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN Number]

As the registered keeper, we wish to formally challenge this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and request its cancellation on the following grounds:

1. Not Relevant Land – Statutory Control and Airport Byelaws

The land where the alleged contravention took place is not "relevant land" under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As such, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the parking charge under POFA. We put the operator to strict proof of this, as the land in question is subject to statutory control, specifically the Airport Byelaws, which render it exempt from POFA’s provisions.

As we are the registered keeper of the vehicle, we are aware that POFA Schedule 4 specifically defines relevant land as land that is not subject to statutory control. Airport land, including the land where this alleged incident took place (which we believe is at Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2), is governed by airport-specific byelaws. This places it outside the scope of POFA, as land subject to statutory control is explicitly excluded from POFA’s definition of relevant land.

Statutory Control and Airport Byelaws

The Airports Act 1986 is clear in its assertion that airports are statutory authorities, subject to their own byelaws. These byelaws govern various aspects of the airport’s operations, including the regulation of parking on their grounds. In this case, the land at Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2 is under statutory control, meaning it is not subject to private contractual arrangements that would normally fall under POFA.

POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1) defines "relevant land" as land which is not subject to statutory control. Specifically, it states:

“Relevant land means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

In this case, airport byelaws are in place, and as per the Airports Act 1986, the airport has authority over the land and parking control under those byelaws. This makes the land statutory and outside the jurisdiction of POFA.

POFA Does Not Apply on Statutory Land

Since the land is subject to statutory control, it cannot be classified as relevant land under POFA, meaning that the parking operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for the charge. According to POFA, only on "relevant land" (i.e., land not subject to statutory control) can the operator pursue the registered keeper for payment if they do not know the identity of the driver. The operator, therefore, does not have the legal grounds to transfer liability for the alleged contravention from the driver to the keeper.

We urge the operator to provide evidence that this land is not under statutory control and is actually "relevant land" under POFA. If they are unable to provide such evidence, the NTK is invalid, and the PCN must be cancelled.

Misclassification of the Land by the Operator

The operator appears to be under the misapprehension that they are operating on "relevant land," but this is not the case. Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2 and other airports across the country are subject to specific byelaws that exclude them from POFA’s jurisdiction. POPLA has previously issued corrections and apologies for misclassifying airport land as "relevant land," as seen in a recent complaint regarding Stansted Airport.

In POPLA’s response to this complaint (Case Reference 4822223007, dated December 7, 2023), they acknowledged the error made by assessors in incorrectly assuming that airport land was relevant land under POFA. The complaint response confirmed 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.”

This recent correction by POPLA shows that there is no legal basis for the operator to assume the land at Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2 (or any other airport) is "relevant land." We believe the operator is relying on outdated or incorrect assumptions regarding the applicability of POFA on airport land.

We also refer to the BPA Code of Practice, which states that parking operators must clearly demonstrate that POFA applies before attempting to pursue the keeper for any unpaid charge. Since this land is under statutory control, the operator’s reliance on POFA is misplaced.

Request for Proof from the Operator

As part of our challenge, we demand that the operator provide documentary proof from the airport authority (such as Heathrow Airport Ltd) confirming that this land is not governed by byelaws and falls under the scope of POFA. This would include:

• A copy of the lease or agreement between the operator and the airport authority that confirms the operator’s authority to issue parking charges.
• Evidence that the land in question is not subject to statutory control under the Airports Act 1986 and airport byelaws.
• A statement from the airport authority that the land is not governed by any statutory parking regulations.

Without this evidence, it is clear that the NTK and the PCN issued are invalid, as the operator has no grounds to pursue the keeper for liability under POFA.

2. Failure to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued does not comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, Sub-paragraphs 2e and 2f of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Specifically, the NTK fails to inform us that if the unpaid parking charge is not paid in full within 28 days, and if the creditor does not know the name and current address of the driver, they may attempt to recover the outstanding amount from the keeper. Additionally, the NTK does not state that the operator does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service, which is also a requirement under POFA, making the NTK non-compliant.

3. Passenger Drop-Off is an Exempt Activity, Not a Parking Event

The vehicle was on-site for a very short time (2 minutes 7 seconds), as evidenced by the ANPR footage, which indicates the vehicle entered at 20:41:04 and exited at 20:43:11. This duration is insufficient to constitute a parking event. Given the nature of the vehicle as a private hire vehicle (PHV) and the location outside a hotel, it is highly probable that the vehicle was involved in a passenger drop-off or pick-up, which is an exempt activity under the MHCLG Statutory Code of Practice. The operator has not shown that the vehicle was stationary for a period long enough to constitute a parking event, and the brief stop should be considered as a set-down rather than a parking violation.

4. No Consideration Period Given

According to the BPA Code of Practice, a consideration period must be provided to allow drivers sufficient time to read and understand the terms and conditions of parking, and to decide whether to accept the terms or leave. The operator has failed to provide this, as the entry and exit times indicate that no meaningful time was given to make such a decision. Furthermore, the new BPA Code of Practice (effective from October 1, 2024) requires a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes. We challenge the operator to prove that they provided this required period. Without this, no contract could have been formed, and no breach could have occurred.

5. The Operator Has Not Proven the Identity of the Driver

In the absence of any valid POFA 2012 keeper liability, the burden of proof rests with the operator to show that the registered keeper is indeed liable for the charge. The operator has failed to provide evidence of the driver's identity, nor have we admitted to being the driver. POPLA has consistently ruled that when the operator cannot prove who the driver is, they cannot pursue the registered keeper for the charge. Therefore, we cannot be held liable for this PCN.

6. Illegible Signage

The signage at the site is inadequate, illegible, and does not comply with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024). The signs are small, unlit, and positioned poorly, making them impossible to read while driving. This violates the requirement that signage must be clear, prominent, and legible. We request that the operator provide evidence that the signs were adequately illuminated and visible from the point at which a driver must decide whether to remain on the land. The operator must also show the size of the lettering for the most prominent terms, including the parking charge itself.

7. Failure to Provide Evidence of Landowner Authority

Under the Joint Code of Practice, the operator must show that they have written authority from the landowner to issue parking charges on the land in question. This includes providing documentation that confirms the operator has the right to operate and issue PCNs at Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2.

8. Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice

Finally, we submit that the operator has not fully complied with the BPA Code of Practice, which was effective from October 1, 2024. The Code clearly states that the parking operator must ensure that:

• Sufficient signage is in place to inform the driver of the terms and conditions of parking.
• The operator must allow the driver to enter into a contract and provide a consideration period that gives enough time for a driver to read and understand the terms before parking.
• The operator must provide evidence of landowner authority before issuing any parking charges.

As outlined in this appeal, the operator has failed to meet these requirements.

Request for Cancellation

Given the clear deficiencies outlined in this appeal, we respectfully request the immediate cancellation of this Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The operator has failed to comply with key provisions of both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the BPA Code of Practice, and as such, any attempt to enforce this charge is both unlawful and invalid.

We would also like to highlight the following:

• Statutory Control and Airport Byelaws: The land in question is governed by statutory airport byelaws, making the provisions of POFA inapplicable. As such, the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for liability under POFA, nor can they issue a valid PCN on this land.
• Failure to Meet POFA Requirements: The operator has failed to provide a valid Notice to Keeper (NTK) compliant with the strict conditions of Schedule 4 of POFA, including failure to inform the keeper of the consequences of non-payment or that the operator does not know the identity of the driver. This non-compliance renders any attempt to hold the keeper liable invalid.
• No Parking Event: The vehicle was on-site for a very short time (less than 2 minutes), which cannot be considered a "parking event". The nature of the stop (likely a passenger drop-off) is explicitly exempt from enforcement under the MHCLG Statutory Code of Practice.
• Failure to Allow Consideration Period: The operator has not provided a sufficient consideration period as required under the BPA Code of Practice. Given the circumstances, we assert that no valid contract could have been formed between the driver and the operator.
• Illegible and Inadequate Signage: The signage at the location was illegible, insufficiently illuminated, and positioned in such a way that it would not have been seen by a driver in the manner prescribed by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024).

Given these significant legal failures on the operator’s part, we strongly urge that this PCN is cancelled immediately, as the operator has no grounds to pursue this charge.

ChirpyChicken

No

Pofa only

Remove all the other stuff

pluspad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81983921#Comment_81983921

Agree with @ChirpyChicken - Just do PoFA.

As an aside, I'm collecting examples/data on these airport NtK's to compare wording and enforcement patterns etc… if you've got a spare second, you can submit your NtK info at openparking.uk. It should only take a couple of minutes. Please don't submit any personal data though.

Tab

Coupon-mad

How will the data be used long term?

Who is behind it?

My concern is that this project might be used to lobby the Government to ask them to make Airport land fall within POFA.

After all, they bent over backwards to accede to the industry re railway land, effecting an amendment to Schedule 4 in an astonishing demonstration of tone deaf priorities (there were no many better amendments that could have assisted consumers. But no, despite knowing that courts are drowning in parking cases and people are being rinsed, this Government made it even easier for the rogue industry to go after millions more registered keepers than ever before).