DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 132304--------------------------------------------------
Times24 Gatwick Airport PCN – lease vehicle / late NTK /
“Parking Charge to Driver”
DIR By: NBSCMN
Date: October 6, 2026, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
HTML https://ibb.co/20V8TzZD
HTML https://ibb.co/0jhXGvnH
HTML https://ibb.co/GfMQY5SW
HTML https://ibb.co/6cQQV9w3
HTML https://ibb.co/5hqzvPFk
HTML https://ibb.co/4n677hXn
HTML https://ibb.co/8gvYZwTX
I’d appreciate some advice on a Times24 PCN for Gatwick Airport
North Terminal Drop Off.
The vehicle is on a long-term lease from Novuna Vehicle
Solutions / Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC.\
The timeline is:
- Alleged event: 26/06/2026
- Original Times24 Parking Charge to Keeper sent to Mitsubishi
HC Capital: 14/07/2026
- Novuna wrote to the hirer on 18/07/2026, confirming they had
passed his details to Times24
- Novuna’s authorisation letter describes him as
“Driver/Customer Name”, but also confirms the vehicle is on a
long-term lease and that he has full use of it
- Times24 then sent a new notice directly to him on 04/09/2026
- That notice is headed “Parking Charge to Driver”, not Notice
to Hirer
- It states: “We have been advised that you were the driver of
the vehicle at the time that the parking charge was incurred”
The hirer has never admitted being the driver.
The initial appeal to Times24 was:
The land in question is subject to byelaws and as such it is not
relevant land for the purpose of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore there can be no keeper liability.
Even if it were relevant land you have failed to comply with the
requirements of the same Act namely, but not limited to, failing
to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as
prescribed by paragraph 9(4). You cannot, therefore, transfer
liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to
me, the keeper.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver and I will not
be doing so.
Times24 rejected the appeal and have now offered an IAS appeal.
My questions are:
1. As the original PCN to the registered keeper was not even
sent until 18 days after the event, does that prevent Times24
relying on Schedule 4 POFA for keeper/hirer liability?
2. As this is a leased vehicle, should Times24 have issued a
proper Notice to Hirer under paragraphs 13/14 of Schedule 4,
together with the required hire documents?
3. Instead, they issued a “Parking Charge to Driver” and simply
asserted that they had been told the hirer was the driver. Is
the Novuna wording “Driver/Customer Name” enough for them to
establish driver liability, or should they have to prove who was
actually driving?
4. Is the Gatwick byelaws / “relevant land” point still worth
running as well?
5. What would be the main appeal to the IAS?
#Post#: 132329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Times24 Gatwick Airport PCN – lease vehicle / late NTK /
“Parking Charge to Driver”
DIR By: RichardW
Date: October 7, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 How can the hire co know that who the driver was? They might
argue I suppose that only the hirer was permitted to drive - if
that was the case?
4 Yes
5 Somewhat academic as IAS will almost certainly side with the
parking co! I would go on the 3 points that original was served
out of time(*), there is no keeper liability at the airport, and
that notwithstanding that, NTH was not served correctly.
* I understand this is one of the few points that IAS has upheld
appeals for.
#Post#: 132330--------------------------------------------------
Re: Times24 Gatwick Airport PCN – lease vehicle / late NTK /
“Parking Charge to Driver”
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 7, 2026, 4:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would make a single point appeal to IAS, that being;
That I am the vehicle hirer and I have not been served with a
Notice to Hirer - there is no evidence which shows that I was
driving at the material time and there is no legal requirement
to provide the drivers details.
#Post#: 132353--------------------------------------------------
Re: Times24 Gatwick Airport PCN – lease vehicle / late NTK /
“Parking Charge to Driver”
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 7, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> They might argue I suppose that only the hirer was permitted
to drive - if that was the case?
>
--- End Quote ---
Even then, the hire company still can't say they know who was
driving. They can say who they hired the car to, and who their
agreement permitted to use the car, but can't confidently say
more than that.
#Post#: 132405--------------------------------------------------
Re: Times24 Gatwick Airport PCN – lease vehicle / late NTK /
“Parking Charge to Driver”
DIR By: NBSCMN
Date: October 7, 2026, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all — that makes sense.
Would you therefore keep the IAS appeal very narrow and make the
main point:
I am the hirer, not the registered keeper. Times24 have not
served me with a Notice to Hirer under POFA. Instead, they sent
a “Parking Charge to Driver” simply asserting that they had been
told I was the driver, despite there being no evidence showing
who was actually driving at the material time.
Would you also include the fact that the original Notice to
Keeper was served out of time, or keep that as a secondary point
only?
In other words, would you run:
1. No compliant Notice to Hirer;
2. No evidence that the hirer was the driver;
3. Original NTK served outside the POFA time limit;
and leave the Gatwick byelaws/relevant land point out to keep
the IAS appeal focused?\
Just want to make sure I don’t weaken a good point by throwing
too much into the appeal.
#Post#: 132423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Times24 Gatwick Airport PCN – lease vehicle / late NTK /
“Parking Charge to Driver”
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 8, 2026, 1:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The letter from the lease company does not specifically identify
the driver - it uses an 'and / or' logic.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1