DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107544--------------------------------------------------
NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: Fazzy
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
In my rush we made a mistake and appealed through the website
before reading the forum template which would've resulted in a
quick cancellation. Instead we decided to be truthful and tell
them there was an autopay error. The driver was not named as
appeal was strictly done as registered keeper. They issued
rejection email with POPLA code. I tried sending the template as
response to the rejection but sadly they have said its the end
of internal and I should proceed with POPLA.
I would rather send an appeal through POPLA and get it over with
because I know they will continue badgering with useless debt
letter. Would rather not drag it out but fully ready to get to
court stage.
Is there a template for POPLA for airport "not relevant land"
point that anyone can direct me to please.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 107548--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up the original PCN and the appeal outcome -
redacting only personal details - leave dates visible.
#Post#: 107553--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: Fazzy
Date: January 27, 2026, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Please post up the original PCN and the appeal outcome -
redacting only personal details - leave dates visible.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks. Heres all the pics:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/uubli7qy28agyjg41tefr/NCP.pdf?rlkey=we4w9ck3a7ra15a43cbstdfbg&st=bxl68eif&dl=0
Chatgpt has created the following appeal so please let me know
if this is good enough to send.
1. The appellant is the registered keeper and the driver has not
been identified
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has not identified the driver and I have not
admitted to being the driver.
No evidence has been provided that I was the driver on the date
of the alleged event.
There is no legal requirement for a registered keeper to
identify the driver to a private parking operator, and no
adverse inference can be drawn from a keeper exercising that
right.
2. The location is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The alleged parking event occurred at Gatwick Airport Drop Off,
which is land subject to statutory control and airport byelaws.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only allows a
parking operator to transfer liability from the driver to the
registered keeper if the land is “relevant land”.
Land subject to statutory control is explicitly excluded from
the definition of relevant land.
As Gatwick Airport is governed by airport byelaws, PoFA cannot
apply at this location.
This is a well-established position and has been repeatedly
accepted by POPLA in airport cases.
3. Because PoFA does not apply, only the driver can be liable
Since PoFA does not apply at this location:
Keeper liability cannot be created
The registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge
Only the unknown driver could potentially be liable
The operator is therefore pursuing the wrong party.
4. The operator has failed to prove that the appellant was the
driver
In cases where PoFA does not apply, the burden of proof rests
entirely with the operator to demonstrate that the person they
are pursuing was the driver.
NCP has provided no evidence whatsoever that I was the driver.
There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was
also the driver, and POPLA and the courts have repeatedly
confirmed that no such assumption can be made.
This position is supported by persuasive case law, including
(but not limited to):
Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (Manchester County Court)
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Quayle
These cases confirm that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the
driver and that the burden of proof remains with the operator.
5. The PCN has therefore been issued incorrectly and must be
cancelled
Because:
The location is not relevant land
PoFA does not apply
Keeper liability cannot be established
The driver has not been identified
The operator has failed to prove driver identity
The charge has been issued incorrectly and is unenforceable
against the registered keeper.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA
allows this appeal and instructs the operator to cancel the
Parking Charge Notice in full.
#Post#: 107880--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: Fazzy
Date: January 29, 2026, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does it seem fine for me to send through? Should I add anything
about their confusing autopay system as they seem to have 2.
#Post#: 107881--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 29, 2026, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For an AI written appeal it's not bad and covers the main point
of keeper liability.
I'm not sure the charge is 'incorrectly issued' per se - NCP are
entitled to write to the keeper and ask him to pay the charge or
tell them who was driving. What they can't do is rely on PoFA to
hold the keeper liable if he does neither of the previous
things.
#Post#: 107891--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: Fazzy
Date: January 29, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Changing the last point to this:
5. As keeper liability cannot be established, the appeal must be
allowed
Although NCP was entitled to contact the registered keeper, it
is not entitled to hold the keeper liable for this charge.
As:
The land is not relevant land
PoFA does not apply
The driver has not been identified
The operator has failed to prove that the appellant was the
driver
The charge is unenforceable against the registered keeper.
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that POPLA
allows this appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to
establish liability against the appellant as registered keeper.
#Post#: 108478--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: Gary Bloke
Date: February 2, 2026, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The whole of POFA 2012 applies *except* for Schedule 4.
#Post#: 108484--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP - Gatwick Airport- Popla
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 2, 2026, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Gary Bloke link ---
>
> The whole of POFA 2012 applies *except* for Schedule 4.
>
--- End Quote ---
Quite, but I'd say Fazzy's proposed appeal makes clear that in
this context, references to "PoFA" are explicitly references to
Schedule 4:
--- Quote from: Fazzy link ---
>
> 2. The location is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1