DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15075--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Gatwick airport drop off zone
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 5, 2024, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can we pl get away from signage, this just gives an assessor the
opportunity to waffle on about minutiae when you need to focus
their attention on the key issues:
Comments on the snippets of evidence posted which are central to
this case:
1. Landowner authority
The only reference made to this in the creditor's evidence
appears to be found on page ** of *** where NCP state they are
operating under a 'Management Agreement between London Gatwick
Airport and National Car Parks Limited for the enforcement of
the Drop Off Zones and Red Routes within the boundary of Gatwick
Airport.'
For correctness, the company licensed to operate Gatwick Airport
is Gatwick Airport Limited and even this company's accounts list
it as a group of companies with 3 specified subsidiary legal
entities. Therefore the question must be put and answered
regarding with whom is NCP actually contracted: GAL's Group
structure suggests it would not be as claimed by NCP.
The creditor could put this issue to bed by disclosing what is
required by the CoP.
As it stands, I dispute that this statement of landowner
authority meets or in any way approaches the standard set out in
the BPA CoP (and to which the creditor should be held in this
appeal) which at para. 7 states - set out paras. 7.1-7.4.
Unless, as should not apply, the assessor is prepared simply to
take the creditor's word for these matters, then my 'appeal'
should be allowed because the creditor hasn't established or
even tried to establish any right to make a charge at all.
2. Keeper liability under Schedule 4
I would further add that although the issue of landowner
authority applies in all cases, it takes on a more significant
meaning in this appeal because the first grounds of my challenge
to the creditor were that the land in question was not relevant
land and therefore they were prevented from seeking relief from
PoFA to hold the keeper liable in lieu of the driver. As can be
seen in their rejection, this assertion wasn't addressed in any
way, but as can be seen by this case (4822223007) POPLA has
expressed a view and one which accords with my assertion.
It is axiomatic that land cannot flip-flop from relevant land to
not relevant land then back to relevant land as if changing with
the phases of the moon: the drop-off area in question either is
or is not relevant land.
If it isn't then this appeal must be allowed. But if it is, then
I refer the assessor to the creditor's failure to comply with
PoFA and therefore forfeit their right to relief from Schedule 4
i.e. keeper liability.
#Post#: 15090--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for Gatwick airport drop off zone
DIR By: dk007
Date: February 5, 2024, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks to everyone for the expert advice. I have now added
comments to the appeal case as per advice from Nosy Parker and H
C Anderson
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page