Gatwick Drop off

rak8180

Hi, just needed advice on this. Basically I am an uber driver and I have been using the airport template appeal thread to avoid paying the drop off charges for Heathrow and Gatwick. I know the advice is not to use it to avoid paying but honestly money has been tight and it worked so I have been using it successfully for months.

Now Gatwick have sent me 5 fines in total and have rejected the standard appeal that I have been using from the airport drop off thread. I have stopped taking jobs to Gatwick now because honestly without the extra drop off charge it is not worth doing.

What should I do about these 5 fines ? I can appeal to IAS but based on what people have said the IAS usually reject them anyway. I am the only person insured on my car so it would not be difficult to prove I am driving plus from the images they have they have blurred out my face but you can probably tell it is me because on all the other fines I have had cancelled I could see my face in some of them. Should I just pay the fines? Thanks for your help

Woodstok2000

My insurance allows me to drive other cars so it could have been me (or anyone with a similar policy) driving the car.

Galloglass

Uber's TOC seems to include drop-off fees in the payment. Is there an issue with how the Uber account is set up?

Airport pick-up/drop-off and parking fees are automatically included in the trip payment to cover the minimum expenses that you incur. Recirculation fines are not covered by Uber.

https://help.uber.com/en-GB/driving-and-delivering/article/uk-tolls-surcharges-and-fees?nodeId=b65ae1e2-550d-4ddc-9874-5494312bf709

Coupon-mad

"Should I just pay the fines"

No, and they aren't fines. You can appeal as registered keeper to the IAS pointing out these are non-POFA.

Have Times24 unreasonably asked for your driving licence?

rak8180

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82128267#Comment_82128267

Yes they have asked for a copy of the photo ID section of my driving license.

OK I'll do that and then if that is rejected will they try to take me to court? Because I have 5 fines and I don't think it will be difficult to prove I was driving does that make a difference?

Coupon-mad

It doesn't help that some images show you but if Times24 try a claim, it will be exaggerated with unlawful costs which no judge will allow, so:

• the sum at stake isn't much different than the total now, and
• most parking claims are discontinued before hearings so it's a game of poker really.

See it out. Don't ignore a claim form. Don't go moving house without telling them, obviously.

Galloglass

So what happened then?

Uber added the drop-off charge to the ride, and it wasn't paid by Uber?

Or the passenger?

Or you decided not to pay it and keep the cash as 'it's not worth it otherwise?'

rak8180

Ok I am submitting an appeal to the IAS using this from @cooldude255220 as a template

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/dcsk8l8dyr84uvwmx4ymb/ALIxbywm_qlPqS4bD762o3c?rlkey=seuxmqme1zqpfmnby6i7o7r1m&st=dbl7dy91&dl=0

On the IAS portal it is saying to write the basis of my appeal and then upload any supporting documents. Should I just write something about it being non-pofa compliant and upload the word document as evidence because it does not fit the character limit ?

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136188#Comment_82136188

Does the main appeal not fit within the character limits - looking at on Dropbox, it doesn’t look that large. If it won’t fit, try trimming out a few bits (without undermining the main thrust) and put that in. I think putting more than ‘not PoFA compliant’ would be much better.

Obviously all the Appendices/Exhibits will need to go as attachments. They’d never fit in the actual appeal portal window.

rak8180

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82136242#Comment_82136242

They have an 8000 character limit and it is coming to 9327. I am trying to cut it down but its fair bit to cut

rak8180

Ok I put it in to chatgpt to reduce it while keeping the main points and this is what I have got.

1. Basis on which the PCN is issued
   Times 24 UK Ltd (“the Operator”) has issued the Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) to me as the keeper of the vehicle and seeks to recover the charge from me by relying on the keeper-liability provisions in Section 56 and Schedule 4 ( Appendix 1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).
   This is clear because:
   • the PCN is titled “Parking Charge to Keeper”;
   • it does not allege that I was the driver;
   • the Operator has provided no evidence that I was driving;
   • the form and substance of the Notice are intended to invoke keeper liability; and
   • the Operator concedes that it does not know the name and current address of the driver.
   The adjudicator should therefore consider this appeal on the basis on which the PCN was issued: keeper liability. If, contrary to the evidence, the Operator asserts that I am being pursued as the driver, the Operator must establish that allegation with evidence. There is no evidence that I was driving.
   Whether the Operator might subsequently attempt to pursue me as the driver is irrelevant to this appeal. The issue is whether this particular PCN is enforceable against me on the basis on which it was issued.
2. POFA and “relevant land”
   POFA provides the statutory mechanism by which an operator can recover unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper. If Schedule 4 is not complied with, keeper liability does not arise.
   Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 applies only where the driver is required to pay parking charges for parking on “relevant land”.
   Paragraph 3(1)(c) expressly excludes from “relevant land” any land “on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.
   Paragraph 3(3) provides that parking is subject to statutory control where a statutory provision imposes liability, whether criminal or civil and whether by fee, charge or penalty, in respect of parking on that land.
   Paragraph 3(4) confirms that “statutory provision” includes subordinate legislation, including byelaws.
3. Gatwick Airport is subject to statutory control
   The location stated on the PCN is Gatwick Airport South Terminal Drop Off zone.
   Gatwick Airport is subject to the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996 [Appendix 6]. Appendix 7, obtained directly from Gatwick Airport, shows the airport boundary and confirms that the location stated on the PCN is within the area to which the Byelaws apply.
   Byelaw 6(3), read with Byelaw 2, imposes statutory control in relation to parking and makes a person liable to a fine for breach.
   The Byelaws therefore impose a statutory penalty in respect of parking on this land. The land identified on the PCN is consequently not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 POFA.
   Accordingly, paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 gives the Operator no right to recover the parking charge from me as keeper.
4. The Notice to Keeper was also delivered too late
   In any event, the Operator has failed to comply with the timing requirements of Schedule 4.
   Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires compliance with paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12, as applicable. Paragraph 6(1)(b) requires a Notice to Keeper to be given in accordance with paragraph 9.
   Under paragraph 9(4), where the Notice is sent by post, it must be delivered within the relevant period. Paragraph 9(5) defines that relevant period as 14 days beginning with the day after the parking event.
   The alleged parking event occurred on 09/07/2026. The 14-day period therefore began on 10/07/2026, making 23/07/2026 the final day on which the Notice could be delivered within the statutory period.
   The Notice is deemed to have been delivered on the second working day after posting. The first working day was 24/07/2026 and the second was 27/07/2026.
   It was therefore deemed delivered on 27/07/2026, after the 14-day deadline of 23/07/2026.
   The Notice to Keeper was consequently not delivered in accordance with paragraph 9(4). The Operator therefore cannot rely on paragraph 4(1) to recover the charge from me as keeper.
5. Code of Practice
   The PCN also breaches Clause 8.1.1 of the Single Sector Code of Practice [Appendix 3], because its design and/or wording states or implies that the keeper is liable when, in these circumstances, the keeper cannot lawfully be held liable. The land is not relevant land and the statutory conditions for keeper liability have not been satisfied.
6. No presumption that the keeper was the driver
   There is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver.
   On 25 April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan gave judgment in Vehicle Control Services v Ian Mark Edward [Appendix 4]. The case concerned an operator attempting to recover a parking charge from a keeper.
   At paragraph 34, His Honour Judge Gargan held that establishing that a defendant was the relevant keeper “does not produce any inference, rebuttable or otherwise” that the defendant was driving on the occasion in question. He further held that there was no proper basis for drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to rebut something that did not arise in the first place.
   At paragraph 35, the judgment gave further reasons, including that this approach is consistent with the purpose of Schedule 4 POFA, respects the general freedom from being required to provide information absent a legal duty, and recognises that being the registered keeper does not mean, on the balance of probabilities, that the keeper was driving on that occasion.
   VCS v Edward therefore confirms that there is no legal presumption that a vehicle’s keeper was its driver.
   Nor can Elliott v Loake [Appendix 5] establish such a presumption. That case turned on its own particular facts. It involved forensic evidence, evidence that the defendant had lied to police, and evidence that he had stated that he had given nobody else permission to drive the vehicle. Griffiths LJ specifically relied upon the combination of the defendant’s ownership and the untruth identified by the Magistrates in concluding that he was the driver.
   Those facts are materially different from the present case. Elliott v Loake is therefore not authority for a general legal presumption that a vehicle’s keeper was its driver.
7. Conclusion
   The Operator is pursuing me as keeper, yet:
8. the land is subject to statutory control and is therefore not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 POFA;
9. the Operator cannot therefore rely on POFA to impose keeper liability;
10. in any event, the Notice to Keeper was deemed delivered outside the 14-day period required by paragraph 9(4)–(5);
11. the PCN is therefore not recoverable from me as keeper;
12. there is no legal presumption that I was the driver; and
13. the Operator has provided no evidence that I was driving.
    For these reasons, the Operator has failed to establish any lawful basis for holding me liable for this charge. The appeal should therefore be allowed and the PCN cancelled.

Is this ok to send off ?