DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101719--------------------------------------------------
Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: Hawkwind1969
Date: December 9, 2025, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, hoping for some advice.
Pre paid for Parking at Gatwick North and parked in carpark 6
level 4 and went away for a short break.
Received a ticket in the post yesterday stating that we had a
ticket for parking in the express drop off bay. Never saw this
and the signage is pretty naff.
[img]
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/KA9oOYs#pTSoxxp[/img]
Hope the image above works [url is
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/KA9oOYs#pTSoxxp]
- this shows where my
wifes car was parked and the notice that was behind the bay and
to the left (ETA - bugger, it did not work and I get people may
not want to follow the link, will try and fix it but I used the
image button)
Any thoughts on do I pay this or appeal?
#Post#: 101722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 9, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post up the PCN.
Almost certain that there will be no keeper liability on airport
land.
#Post#: 101724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 9, 2025, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean this image?
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pTSoxxp_xl.jpg
I'm going to assume that this is an NCP Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) issued as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK). Whilst you
should show ua the NtK (both sides), I am going to give you the
following advice which should work whether the PCN is from NCP
or APCOA:
Easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity
is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known
keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal
the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or
assumptions can be made.
As long as the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it except to edit the name of the operator in the
6 placeholders from "[operator]" to either "NCP" or "APCOA" as
applicable:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. [operator] cannot hold a
registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land
that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law,
[operator] 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 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 [operator] is
not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never
attempts to be a penalty. It is created for [operator]’s own
profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public
purse) and [operator] has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper 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.
[operator] have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us
both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Posting Images
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images
#Post#: 101790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: Hawkwind1969
Date: December 10, 2025, 3:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately an appeal was logged (and rejected within 24h) so
they are aware of the drivers name, I think it will have to be
paid. Thanks for the advice though.
#Post#: 101872--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hawkwind1969 link ---
>
> Unfortunately an appeal was logged (and rejected within 24h)
so they are aware of the drivers name, I think it will have to
be paid. Thanks for the advice though.
>
--- End Quote ---
Don't be silly! Nobody pays these scammers unless they are
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can be easily
intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear!
Which parking operator has issued this PCN? NCP or APCOA?
#Post#: 101914--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: Hawkwind1969
Date: December 10, 2025, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Times24 appeal dept but on NPC letterhead with POPLA referenced
:)
Dear Mr xxxx,
Re: Parking Charge Number LGxxxxx (Vehicle: xxxx)
POPLA verification code: xxxx
Site: Gatwick Airport MSCP North
Issue date: 03/12/2025
Thank you for your appeal received on 08/12/2025 regarding the
above detailed Parking Charge, we have reviewed your case
and considered the comments you have made. Your appeal has also
been considered in conjunction with the evidence
gathered at the time of the contravention. Our records show the
notice was correctly issued for misuse of the parking area and
is not related to non payment, your vehicle was in breach of the
Terms and Conditions: Express Pick Up Bay - Express pick up
only, No unattended vehicles at any time.
We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge as it was
issued correctly. We have now extended the discounted
payment period by a further 14 days to allow you time to pay the
discounted settlement amount. Please now make payment of
£60 to reach us by 23/12/2025 or £100 to reach us by 06/01/2026.
We must advise you that once the discounted settlement
rate passes it will not be offered again.
Payment can also be made using a debit or credit card on our
website;
HTML https://gatwick.zatappeal.com
OR you can also pay
using our Automated Payment Line: 03330230907
You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
Times24 UK Limited will not assess further appeals in relation
to
this matter.
However, in line with our Accredited Trade Association (ATA)
membership we are required to provide you with an Independent
Appeals Service. If you wish to appeal your case further you can
now only do so to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA)
provided by Ombudsman Services on instruction of the British
Parking Association.
All information on how to appeal to POPLA is provided on their
website; www.popla.co.uk you will need the following 10-digit
verification code to submit your appeal; xxxx
Please note that should you wish to appeal to POPLA you must do
so within 28 days from the date of this letter. Please be
advised that once an appeal is submitted to POPLA, you lose the
right to pay at the reduced amount. If POPLA reject your
appeal you will be liable for the full amount of this PCN. You
must therefore chose to appeal OR pay and the discounted
amount will not be reinstated under any circumstances. POPLA
will also not asses a case that has been paid prior to the
appeal being received by them.
By law we are also required to inform you, Ombudsman Services
(www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service (ADR) that would be competent to deal
with your appeal. However, Times24 UK Limited have chosen
not to participate in their ADR service and as such should you
wish to appeal further you must do so to POPLA as detailed
above.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Times24 UK Limite
#Post#: 101918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have not reached the “it has to be paid” stage at all,
despite what you are thinking.
First, do not worry about the Times24 versus NCP naming. Times24
UK Limited is essentially NCP by a former/alternative corporate
name. The fact the rejection is on NCP letterhead but signed off
as Times24 just shows how slapdash they are with their
stationery, it is not a magic “wrong company” get-out. Legally
it is the same outfit behind the charge.
The important bits are these:
Gatwick is airport land subject to byelaws, so it is not
“relevant land” for the Protection of Freedoms Act. That is why,
in general, my stock advice is for the keeper never to say who
was driving. If the driver is not identified, there is no lawful
route to transfer liability from an unknown driver to the
keeper. In your case, you have already appealed in a way that
tells them who was driving, so the PoFA keeper-liability angle
has largely gone for this particular ticket. That does not make
the charge inevitable; it just means we now argue on different
ground.
NCP/Times24 are not saying you failed to pay. Their letter is
very clear that this is being treated as “misuse of the parking
area” and that the alleged breach is “Express Pick Up Bay –
express pick up only, no unattended vehicles at any time.” In
other words, they are trying to say that even though you were a
legitimate pre-paid customer of the multi-storey, you happened
to stop in a bay that they regard as a special “no parking, no
leaving the car” area and they want to punish that with a £100
contractual charge.
For that to stick, they need to show that there was a clear,
prominent contractual warning at the point you drove in and at
or around that bay which:
[indent]1. Made it obvious that this particular bay or area was
under different rules from the rest of the car park.
2. Spelled out that leaving the car unattended, even briefly,
was not allowed.
3. Stated in large, prominent text that the price of ignoring
that term was a three-figure parking charge.[/indent]
Your description is that the signage is “naff” and that you did
not realise this was some sort of “express drop-off” bay; you
thought you were simply parking in the car park you had
pre-booked and paid for. That is exactly the kind of factual
background that casts doubt on whether any clear contract to pay
£100 for leaving the car unattended was ever formed.
The photos and layout will matter. If this bay is physically
within the body of the normal multi-storey, and the general
impression from the pre-booking is “you have paid, park in car
park 6, level 4”, then NCP/Times24 have to overcome a lot of
confusion that they themselves have created. Vague or cluttered
signs, small print, wording that reads more like a prohibition
(“no unattended vehicles”) than a clear offer (“you may leave
your vehicle here subject to a £100 charge if you breach these
terms”) all help you. It makes it easier to argue that a
reasonable motorist in your position could not and did not agree
to a penalty for parking there.
The airport context is also worth mentioning. Gatwick has its
own byelaws system; if the airport genuinely wanted to prosecute
people for breaching those, that would be a matter for a
magistrates’ court and any fines would go to the public purse,
not to NCP/Times24. Instead, NCP/Times24 have chosen to run this
as a private contractual scheme for their own profit. That
underlines that this is not a “fine” in any legal sense, just a
disputed invoice dressed up in official-sounding language and
sent out in bulk.
Where does that leave you now?
You still have a live POPLA code. Using POPLA will mean you lose
the mugs discount if you lose, but you gain a completely free
extra stage where the operator has to put their cards on the
table and you can test their evidence without paying a penny.
POPLA is not perfect, but plenty of Gatwick airport cases have
been won on signage and contractual issues, particularly where
pre-booked parkers have been caught out by confusing bay
layouts.
Even if not successful at POPLA, you are not bound by their
decision and you do not pay. Where this would eventually be won
is if/when they issue a county court claim. In the vast majority
of cases, they never progress all the way to a hearing and most
cases are either struck out or discontinued. Of the very few
that ever get as far as a hearing in front of a judge, most are
won.
So, if you are up for a fight rather than just paying to make it
go away, the sensible route is:
Treat the driver-identity point as water under the bridge for
this case. It was a mistake to reveal the driver, but it is
done. Learn from that.
Base your POPLA appeal on the real weaknesses: unclear and
inadequate signage, the confusing layout of the “express pick
up” bay inside a pre-booked multi-storey, the lack of any clear,
prominent warning about a £100 charge, and the airport/byelaws
background to show that this is a commercial scheme, not any
form of official fine. You should also put the operator to
strict proof that have a contemporaneous and valid contract
flowing from the landowner to operate and issue PCNs in their
own name at the location. You'd be surprised at how many firms
continue to operate on expired or invalid contract and therefore
have no standing to even operate, never mind issue PCNs and to
try and sue.
Do not be spooked by their wording about “you must choose to pay
or appeal”. They always say that. You are perfectly entitled to
take it to POPLA. If you are successful, the charge is gone. If
not, you are in no worse position than if you had given up now,
other than losing the time-limited mugs discount, which is what
they use as leverage to make people cave in.
In short, you have by no means reached a point where this “has”
to be paid. The keeper-liability route that I gave as a template
would have been an easy win if the driver had stayed unnamed,
but even with that mistake made, you still have decent
contractual and signage arguments to run, and Times24/NCP are
far from infallible when pushed to prove their case.
#Post#: 101961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: Hawkwind1969
Date: December 11, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect, thanks for this - will investigate the POPLA appeal.
Will update.... :)
#Post#: 101965--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty of POPLA appeals you can search for on the
forum to glean how to argue the points. Do not send anything
without first showing us what you intend to send so that we can
stop you making any more mistakes over this.
#Post#: 104281--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gatwick North Short Term Parking Ticket
DIR By: Hawkwind1969
Date: January 2, 2026, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Just to let you all know I was sucessful in my appeal and did
not have to pay anything - thanks for the advice.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page