DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 127989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> I am about to respond
>
> To whom? Nothing to do with the creditor, if you want to
'appeal' to IAS then log on to their site and register.
>
> Pl stop playing the creditor's silly game with your driving
licence, for goodness sake, a RK might not even have one!!
>
> While you're doing this, pl post the Notice to Keeper, you
seem to have started with your challenge to the creditor.
>
> Don't submit anything until you've cleared with the forum pl.
>
--- End Quote ---
Eh!!! I’m totally confused by this?
#Post#: 127990--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> I believe this is simply the IAS appeal, which we know won’t
be upheld, but is done to show engagement with the process.
>
--- End Quote ---
Correct it’s just an appeal to the IAS which I was told is just
following the process as they seem to reject everything thrown
their way
So just to clear things up i should just proceed with my
original argument?
#Post#: 127992--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this ok? Please advise if anything need a to be added or
omitted ( be gentle with me as it’s the first time I’ve ever got
to this stage in these things )
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and decline to do so.
1. NCP/Times24 cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any
alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control.
Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4
to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
Specifically section 3(1)(c) covers airport land under statutory
control.
NCP/Times24 is well aware that the POFA keeper liability
provisions do not apply here, and has no lawful basis on which
to pursue the registered keeper.
2. NCP/Times24’s 'parking charge' is not and never purports to
be a byelaws penalty, it is a charge created for NCP's own
commercial profit. If Gatwick Airport wished to enforce against
vehicle owners or keepers under Airport Byelaws, that would be a
matter for the landowner alone. NCP is not the airport owner and
has no standing to invoke byelaws. Its claim rests solely on
alleged breach of contract against the driver, not the keeper.
#Post#: 127993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggested you explicitly quote the appropriate part of the
legislation rather than just refer to PoFA 2012 in generic
terms. 3(1)(c) covers airport land under statutory control.
#Post#: 127994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes iremembered after posting …. I was actually adding it while
you were responding I think.👍
Is that enough of a reference to it or should I rephrase
somehow?
Thanks
#Post#: 127996--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 17, 2026, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's your appeal, but for the third time my suggestion is that
you quote the actual legislation rather than just refer to it. I
won't suggest another time, I'll leave it up to you.
#Post#: 127999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 17, 2026, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> I would add a quote to the relevant legislation as well, eg
Paragraph 3(1).
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh sorry I took your original post to mean a quote “to” not “of”
the legislation. Thanks for confirming 👍😊
I have adjusted below. I would appreciate you looking over and
confirming if this is adequate.
Thanks again 🙏
“I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and decline to do so.
1. NCP/Times24 cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any
alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control.
Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4
to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
Specifically POFA 2012 section 3 states:
(1)In this Schedule “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.
NCP/Times24 is well aware that the POFA keeper liability
provisions do not apply here, and has no lawful basis on which
to pursue the registered keeper.
2. NCP/Times24’s 'parking charge' is not and never purports to
be a byelaws penalty, it is a charge created for NCP's own
commercial profit. If Gatwick Airport wished to enforce against
vehicle owners or keepers under Airport Byelaws, that would be a
matter for the landowner alone. NCP is not the airport owner and
has no standing to invoke byelaws. Its claim rests solely on
alleged breach of contract against the driver, not the keeper.
I ask that you cancel the notice and find in my favour, taking
into account all the above “
#Post#: 128000--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 17, 2026, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are dim and going to reject your appeal anyway, but I’d
personally add back a point about 3(1)(c) being the relevant one
as well, just to be clear. Otherwise fine.
#Post#: 128004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 17, 2026, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much 👍
I will update on here with progress
#Post#: 128009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 17, 2026, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if my post confused, but you referred to 'respond' in the
context of the creditor's rejection.
Where is the Notice to Keeper which kick-started this claim? It
is THE fundamental notice in these proceedings, so in answer to
your question 'what do you expect to see on it'(pl note, its
correct title under PoFA is Notice to Keeper(NTK)) the answer is
everything that's required by law and the Code of Practice.
And I would not submit your draft, IMO it goes into unnecessary
detail and starts in the wrong place. When you want to make the
point about statutory control, don't include irrelevant
sub-paras about local authority land , highway maintainable etc.
For me, the key question is: does Gatwick Airport change its
legal status dependent upon which tribunal or assessor is
considering an appeal or which creditor is involved?
Clearly not, what a preposterous idea.
Therefore:
The status of Gatwick Airport is that it is subject to bylaws
and therefore statutory control. No creditor is permitted by law
to bring a claim against a registered keeper under PoFA: it
simply cannot happen as a matter of law. The fact that it does
in practice lies against the oversight and control exercised by
the airport's owners vis a vis car park operators which it
licences. But this is not an issue for this tribunal.
The tribunal is fully aware of the legal status of Gatwick
Airport and that by virtue of para. 3(1)(c) it falls outside the
scope of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is not a
matter which needs to be re-argued and re-heard with every
parking charge claim: it is its legal status and a well-known
fact of which this tribunal is fully aware.
The identity of the driver in this case is unknown and therefore
the creditor is pursuing me as the registered keeper. For the
reasons given above, I ask the tribunal to dismiss this claim.
It is not necessary for me to discuss whether the creditor has a
claim against the driver because this is a matter between those
parties and is not before this tribunal.
Is my approach.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page