Gatwick Drop off

Galloglass

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82146445#Comment_82146445

I suppose you could argue ex turpi causa in the supposition that asking for a penalty is illegal in the first place.

That then puts the court in the position of discussing the use of the law of contract at that site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_turpi_causa_non_oritur_actio

rak8180

Hi so as you guys predicted IAS have rejected the appeals for 4 of the 5 fines I received still waiting on the last one. Here is their response:

The adjudicator made their decision on 21/10/2026 13:26:33.

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

I have today determined the Appellant's appeal against PCN no. lg10011558, lg9991099 and lg9961684. Whilst each appeal is determined on the basis of its own merits, the Appellant appeals this PCN on the same basis as the aforementioned PCNs. Therefore my considerations are largely the same.

Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location, which is a pick up/drop off area, are such that drivers using must make a valid payment for their stay, by midnight on the day after the date of their visit. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant entered the site at 15:12 and exited at 15:14. In the data provided I can see that no payment was made for the Appellant's VRN. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they make a valid payment for their stay and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant appeals the Parking Charge on a number of grounds which I address as follows:-

1. The Appellant's analysis of the Notice to Keeper is incorrect. The first line of the Notice states "the driver of the vehicle ... is liable..." . The Operator has confirmed it is pursuing the Appellant as the driver; not under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").

2. The Appellant raises as an issue PoFA and purports that the Operator cannot do so because the site is not "relevant land" within the meaning of the Act. I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not. Instead, the Operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time. On the present facts, the compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue. See also point 1 above.

3. This somewhat repeats the point the Appellant makes in 2 above albeit with a greater focus on the existence of bylaws. The contract held by the Operator to carry out enforcement on this site was drawn up taking into account the existing bylaws. The bylaws do not prevent enforcement being carried out, even if the relevant breach is also covered by a bylaw. The bylaws themselves also do not have to be breached. The relevant breach is that of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage and this is the basis upon which the Operator is entitled to issue a PCN, as they have done on this occasion.

4. See point 2 above. As the Operator is not pursuing keeper liability under PoFA they are not required to comply with the 14 day timescale the Appellant refers to.

5. This is not accepted for the reasons set out. The Appellant has not established a breach of the code of practice.

6. The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore contrary to the Appellant's assertion, the Operator is entitled to rely upon Elliott v Loake. The Appellant has not provided evidence that the cases he refers to overrule Elliott v Loake.

The Appellant's appeal does not address the key issue in this case which is that payment was not made. As a result of this and for the reasons set out above, on the basis of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

Although you guys said this would happen I am surprised because @cation posted in the airport drop off thread that their appeal was accepted by IAS so I am wondering what they appealed and how it was different to mine.

yarpsnehpets

It's luck of the draw.

You could write back to IAS pointing out that paragraph 8.1.3 of the proposed new code of practice states the following;

Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a notice of parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing or pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge.