DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80947--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: kragnar
Date: July 14, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Your first post still identifies the driver!
>
--- End Quote ---
Where ?. From re-reading it, the only thing i can see that could
identify me as the driver would be the auto-pay system i
mentioned but Having AutoPay set up in your name with Gatwick
does not confirm you were the driver in a legal sense, unless
you directly state it or respond in a way that implies it.
Especially for the day in question.
I have also been in contact with the owners of the car and they
haven't found a PCN that was sent to them so far. It currently
seems like i am the only one who has received a PCN. I intend to
wait for a week to see if anything extra turns up and i will
keep the forum up-to dated on further developments
#Post#: 80957--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 14, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I intend to wait for a week to see if anything extra turns up
--- End Quote ---
Why? If you send the appeal template that has already been
provided, appealing as the hirer, the charge is likely to simply
be cancelled. I can't see that anything would be gained by
waiting for "anything extra" to turn up, nothing they could send
will change the legal position.
--- Quote ---
> I have also been in contact with the owners of the car and
they haven't found a PCN that was sent to them
--- End Quote ---
To have received a Notice to Hirer, it stands to reason that NCP
first issued a notice to whoever the registered keeper is. That
may not directly be the company you liase with regarding your
lease. But this is largely immaterial.
#Post#: 80965--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 14, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: kragnar link ---
>
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=7254.msg80945#msg80945
date=1752509804]
> Your first post still identifies the driver!
>
--- End Quote ---
Where ?.
[/quote]
Your use of the word “I” gives it away, but if you don’t want to
listen to advice, that’s your choice.
Remember, “I” is the hirer but not necessarily the driver.
#Post#: 80986--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: kragnar
Date: July 14, 2025, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> [quote author=kragnar link=topic=7254.msg80947#msg80947
date=1752510776]
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=7254.msg80945#msg80945
date=1752509804]
> Your first post still identifies the driver!
>
--- End Quote ---
Where ?.
[/quote]
Your use of the word “I” gives it away, but if you don’t want to
listen to advice, that’s your choice.
Remember, “I” is the hirer but not necessarily the driver.
[/quote]
I’m genuinely here to ask for help, not to argue. I’m just
asking questions because I don’t fully understand — that’s the
nature of asking. I haven’t written the appeal yet for that
exact reason, and the point being used against me seems to come
from how I worded things while trying to get help with the PCN.
I don’t yet know what arguments apply or what wording is right,
which is why I ask and fill things in based on what I think I
understand.
Even after some incredibly helpful people pointed me in the
right direction and explained which arguments to use, I still
don’t fully understand why those arguments work or what they
really mean — which is why I’m taking the time to look into it
and learn.
I’m not here to just copy and paste something blindly. I want to
actually understand the proper way to handle these things.
To those replying to my post, I really ask for a bit of patience
— this is all completely new to me. I’ve always relied on myself
and basic reasoning when appealing PCNs, and even reaching out
for help on this forum has been a bit overwhelming, as I’m not
used to doing this.
To those genuinely trying to help, I’m truly grateful — whether
the PCN gets cancelled or not. I just ask that it's not held
against me when I’m confused or asking about something I don’t
yet fully grasp.
#Post#: 80992--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 14, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, in terms of why you can't be liable as the hirer... Private
parking charges are based on contract law. The driver
(allegedly) enters into a contract with the parking company
whereby he agrees to abide with the conditions of the parking
contract, as detailed on the relevant signage on the site,
'agreeing' to pay a parking charge of £100 if he does not. That
contract exists between the driver and the parking company.
The parking company have no idea who the driver is, unless you
tell them, which makes it rather hard for them to enforce
against the driver.
There is a piece of legislation, Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"), which provides a mechanism for
parking companies to hold the registered keeper, or the hirer of
the vehicle, liable for a parking charge, in cases where they do
not know who the driver is. However, there are a number of
conditions set out in PoFA, and only if these conditions are met
can a parking company hold the keeper/hirer liable. One of those
conditions is that the place where the car was parked/stopped is
"relevant land". PoFA defines relevant land as:
[indent]"(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.[/indent]
The bit I have highlighted in bold is relevant here. Gatwick
Airport is subject to byelaws, which govern all sorts of conduct
within the airport land, including parking. This means the
airport is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA, meaning
they cannot hold the keeper/hirer liable for any parking
charges. They can only hold the driver liable, and unless you
tell them, they don't know who the driver is!
It's a complicated sounding argument, but it's a well-trodden
one, and the appeal suggested further up sets it out to NCP, who
are well aware of it, and are likely to cancel.
#Post#: 81010--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: kragnar
Date: July 15, 2025, 12:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> So, in terms of why you can't be liable as the hirer...
Private parking charges are based on contract law. The driver
(allegedly) enters into a contract with the parking company
whereby he agrees to abide with the conditions of the parking
contract, as detailed on the relevant signage on the site,
'agreeing' to pay a parking charge of £100 if he does not. That
contract exists between the driver and the parking company.
>
> The parking company have no idea who the driver is, unless you
tell them, which makes it rather hard for them to enforce
against the driver.
>
> There is a piece of legislation, Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"), which provides a mechanism for
parking companies to hold the registered keeper, or the hirer of
the vehicle, liable for a parking charge, in cases where they do
not know who the driver is. However, there are a number of
conditions set out in PoFA, and only if these conditions are met
can a parking company hold the keeper/hirer liable. One of those
conditions is that the place where the car was parked/stopped is
"relevant land". PoFA defines relevant land as:
> [indent]"(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.[/indent]
>
> The bit I have highlighted in bold is relevant here. Gatwick
Airport is subject to byelaws, which govern all sorts of conduct
within the airport land, including parking. This means the
airport is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA, meaning
they cannot hold the keeper/hirer liable for any parking
charges. They can only hold the driver liable, and unless you
tell them, they don't know who the driver is!
>
> It's a complicated sounding argument, but it's a well-trodden
one, and the appeal suggested further up sets it out to NCP, who
are well aware of it, and are likely to cancel.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation — it’s starting
to make a lot more sense now. I’ll admit the legal parts still
go over my head a bit, but I can now see the core of the
argument and why it’s being used.
I also understand now why other users pointed out my original
wording, especially things like using “I” in ways that could
imply I was the driver. That clarification really helped. From
what I’ve gathered, the best thing I can do now is respond using
the legal position around PoFA and relevant land — and not
include any extra info that could unintentionally confirm who
was driving.
I had originally planned to raise other points — like the lack
of full context in the photos, the absence of clear time stamps,
or how NCP may have found my details through AutoPay
registration — but I now realise bringing those up might
undermine the key legal argument by indirectly identifying
myself as the driver.
I’m genuinely grateful for your help and the time you’ve taken
to explain this. Unless anyone has anything further to add or
correct, I’ll start drafting the actual appeal shortly based on
the points and guidance already provided.
#Post#: 81046--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: kragnar
Date: July 15, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please advice. This is the Final appeal letter i crafted based
on what has been discussed so far.
Dear NCP,
I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Parking
Charge Notice.
I am the hirer of the vehicle at the time of the alleged
contravention. Please note that I am not identifying the driver,
and there is no evidence in your correspondence that establishes
who the driver was.
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), a
private parking operator may only hold a vehicle’s registered
keeper or hirer liable for a parking charge if specific
statutory conditions are met. One such condition is that the
land in question must be “relevant land”. Gatwick Airport is
subject to statutory control under airport byelaws, which makes
it not “relevant land” as defined under PoFA.
This means NCP cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability for the
parking charge to either the keeper or the hirer. Only the
driver could be held liable, and since the identity of the
driver has not been provided, there is no lawful basis for
pursuing this charge.
If Gatwick Airport wished to pursue liability under its byelaws,
that would be a matter for the landowner, not NCP. Your charge
is a civil contractual claim issued for your company’s own
commercial interest, and it does not meet the requirements of a
statutory penalty issued under byelaws.
Furthermore, you cannot infer or presume that the hirer was the
driver, nor rely on any “agency” theory to bypass PoFA, which is
the only legal route available for transferring liability under
such circumstances.
Given these points, I respectfully request that you cancel this
PCN. Should you choose not to cancel it, please issue a formal
rejection notice along with a POPLA code so I may refer the
matter for independent adjudication.
#Post#: 81366--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a
red route
DIR By: b789
Date: July 16, 2025, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You are overthinking this and the advice you have been given
works, too% every time. I you want to re-invent the wheel,
please don't come back later with something that didn't get the
100% guarantee that it will be cancelled if you'd used the
wording, with NO CHANGES, as explained.
For ease of understanding, use the following, verbatim, and it
will work. You care not writing a letter. You can use their
online webform and just copy and paste this:
--- Quote ---
> I am the Hirer. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper or Hirer
liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under
statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, NCP will be well
aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Gatwick
Airport is not 'relevant land'.
>
> If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers or Hirer's
liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the
landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only
is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because NCP
is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and
never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own
profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public
purse) and NCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach
against the driver only.
>
> The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the
driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law
of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. NCP have no
hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste
of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page