Times24 Gatwick AIS Appeal

pda

So I got a PCN for Gatwick North drop-off. I stopped outside the Sofitel for about 5 minutes to get some information, then went into the Sofitel car park where the parking was validated. I have the parking entrance ticket.

Times24’s ANPR shows entry at 18:42:59 and exit at 20:14:53, but the Sofitel car park ticket shows entry at 18:48, so the car was clearly in the hotel car park during that period.

I appealed as the registered keeper. Times24 rejected it and said they are not relying on POFA keeper liability, but are relying on Elliott v Loake to argue who was driving.

I then did the AIS appeal and Times24 have submitted their evidence pack, still claiming the car was in the drop-off zone for 1 hour 31 minutes. I got a 60 page pack.. They are still ignoring the Sofitel part.

Can I go back with this?

I have reviewed the operator’s evidence and still dispute the charge.The main point remains unanswered. Their ANPR shows the car entering at 18:42:59 and leaving at 20:14:53, but the Sofitel parking ticket shows the car entered the hotel car park at 18:48.So the car clearly wasn’t in the drop-off zone for the full 1 hour 31 minutes they are claiming.

Their payment report just repeats the same ANPR times and says “Awaiting Payment”. It doesn’t prove where the car was during that time.I also note they have told IAS that the appellant was the driver, but in their own evidence they say they do not know who the driver was and are relying on Elliott v Loake.

I have never admitted to being the driver, and Times24 have already confirmed they are not relying on POFA keeper liability.For those reasons I ask that the appeal is allowed.

Thanks

James_Poisson

They are talking out of their rear ends if they don't know who the driver is they don't know who the driver is so they cannot assume the keeper was the driver.

Elliott v Loake (1982) is a criminal case where the court concluded the registered keeper of a car was also the driver because physical and forensic evidence proved it, not because a keeper is automatically presumed to be the driver.

Coupon-mad

Is the hotel accessible from the drop off zone? Or is it that one on the right, next to the drop off lane begins, before you actually drive into the zone?

Laughable - in fact, absurd - that they are accusing the driver of being in the drop off zone for an hour and a half!

You'll never pay this anyway, so enjoy the ride with the IAS kangaroo court. I wonder if you'll be one of the 4% of consumers whose appeals are upheld?

This is an ANPR error case for @Nellymoser

😀

pda

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82138034#Comment_82138034

This is the setup

ChirpyChicken

FYI....…...

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82138763#Comment_82138763

Yes I thought so, beenthere liads of times. Separate lane for the hotel on the right.

Is it possible the driver missed it first time & drive right through the zone, then doubled back round to then take the right lane?