Gatwick Charges - Times

https://ibb.co/1YZL7xKX
https://ibb.co/C3jfx3Yj
https://ibb.co/RR2Dgbb
https://ibb.co/MDjMfWJ2
https://ibb.co/Q7btSZKW
https://ibb.co/q3j0QFWm


I have received three Times24 Parking Charge Notices for Gatwick Airport North Terminal Drop Off, all as registered keeper.

The three PCNs are:

LG9972794 — incident 01/07/2026, notice sent 16/07/2026
LG9975677 — incident 02/07/2026, notice sent 17/07/2026
LG10048192 — incident 17/07/2026, notice sent 31/07/2026

I appealed all three as keeper using the following:

“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 section 9(4) of the Act. 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 at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.”

Times24 have now rejected all three appeals.

Importantly, in each rejection they state:

“As this charge is not being pursued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we are not relying on the statutory keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4, so its specific conditions do not need to be met.”

They then say:

“In the absence of driver details, we rely on the principles considered in Elliott v Loake (1982) when assessing, on the balance of probabilities, who was driving.”

So as I understand it, they are expressly accepting that they are not relying on POFA keeper liability, and are instead trying to establish that the keeper was the driver using Elliott v Loake. I have not identified the driver or admitted to being the driver.

For the first two PCNs, the notices were not even sent until after the 14-day period. The third was sent on day 14, so could not have been delivered within the 14-day period either. I appreciate that Times24’s response is that this is irrelevant because they say they are not relying on Schedule 4 anyway.

They have offered IAS appeals within 28 days.

Before doing anything further, I would appreciate views on:

Whether the Gatwick byelaws / non-relevant land point is correctly framed.
Whether Times24 can realistically rely on Elliott v Loake simply because the keeper has not identified the driver.
Whether there is any benefit in appealing to IAS, or whether the better course is simply to retain all correspondence and wait to see whether they pursue the matter.
Whether there is anything else I should be raising at this stage.

I have attached the original PCNs and the rejection letters.

If you search the forum you will find comprehensive rebuttals of the “Elliott v Loake” argument these people use, which has been laughed out of court when it came up in a hearing.

You should appeal to the IAS both because it will cost the parking company something like £23 and because in the unlikely event this ever made it to court you have shown that you have exhausted all avenues prior to courts being involved.

Whether the Gatwick byelaws / non-relevant land point is correctly framed.

Yes, your point is sound. Back when it was NCP running Gatwick they routinely accepted appeals that presented this point, probably because, as a BPA member, they knew that POPLA would uphold any they rejected, if appealed there. Times have clearly decided there's far more money to be made from rejecting appeals, especially when the second stage is the woefully inadequate IAS.

Whether Times24 can realistically rely on Elliott v Loake simply because the keeper has not identified the driver.

As jfollows notes. It's (at best) a stretch to try and apply it to cases like this, at worst a deliberate distortion, have a search here and on MSE and it's been discussed ad nauseum. A more relevant case that they conveniently ignore would be VCS v Edward (2023)

Whether there is any benefit in appealing to IAS, or whether the better course is simply to retain all correspondence and wait to see whether they pursue the matter.

Nothing to lose by appealing, other than your time (and it shouldn't take much time, as you already understand the arguments to make). As far as I see it, it's another opportunity to get the charge cancelled, with no risk and no cost to you.

“I note in their rejection they mention the case of "Elliott vs Loake (1982)". This case is irrelevant as it is a criminal case and provides no civil presumption that a registered keeper was the driver. In that case, the registered keeper lied when claiming he had not been driving and the accident damage on his vehicle was from another accident. However there was forensic evidence to prove otherwise. Unless Times24 UK Ltd have forensic evidence or can plead and prove an identified driver, this case has no bearings and is irrelevant.

Therefore the driver remains unknown and this charge should have been cancelled.”


This was my rebuttal for the elliot v loake during the ias stage and as expected times24 withdrew.

I also had one without mentioning this case and just about byelaws. Ias dismissed the appeal even though they couldn’t prove anything 🫠

Thanks for the replies. Based on the comments here and some further reading on MSE, I’ve drafted the following approach for the IAS appeals. Before I submit anything, I’d appreciate any corrections, especially on VCS v Edward (2023) and whether I’m giving too much weight to the byelaws point.

My proposed IAS argument is:
1. Times24 expressly says it is not relying on Schedule 4 POFA
Their rejection states:
“As this charge is not being pursued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we are not relying on the statutory keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4…”
So my understanding is that they are not attempting to transfer the alleged driver’s liability to the keeper under POFA.
Any alleged contract would therefore be with the driver, and Times24 would need to establish that I, as registered keeper, was in fact the driver.

2. They have not identified the driver
I appealed only as keeper and have not identified or admitted the identity of the driver.
Times24 instead says:
“In the absence of driver details, we rely on the principles considered in Elliott v Loake (1982) when assessing, on the balance of probabilities, who was driving.”
My proposed rebuttal is that Elliott v Loake does not establish a general presumption that the registered keeper was the driver.
My understanding is that it was a fact-specific criminal case where there was evidence linking the keeper to the incident. So simply knowing the registered keeper’s identity, combined with the keeper declining to name the driver, is not evidence that the keeper was driving.

3. VCS v Edward (2023)
I was going to rely on Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward, H0KF6C9C, 25 April 2023.
My understanding is that HHJ Gargan rejected the argument that registered keeper status, together with failure to identify another driver, was sufficient to establish that the keeper was driving on the balance of probabilities.
I was therefore going to argue that this is more directly relevant than Elliott v Loake to the issue Times24 are raising.
Would people agree with that interpretation, and is there a preferred transcript/source to attach for IAS?

4. Gatwick is not relevant land
I would also retain the byelaws argument.
Gatwick itself states that its byelaws regulate the airport’s land, buildings and roads, and the byelaws contain provisions concerning vehicles and parking.
Therefore my understanding is that the site is subject to statutory control and is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 POFA.
Times24 are of course already saying they are not relying on Schedule 4, but I thought it was still worth including this to establish why keeper liability is unavailable.

5. Notice timing
I was considering mentioning the dates only as a secondary point:

• LG9972794 — event 01/07/26, notice issued 16/07/26
• LG9975677 — event 02/07/26, notice issued 17/07/26
• LG10048192 — event 17/07/26, notice issued 31/07/26

For the first two, the notices were not even issued within 14 days, and the third was only issued on day 14 so could not have been delivered within the relevant period.
However, because Times24 expressly says it is not relying on POFA, I was not planning to make this the main argument.



6. Proposed conclusion
The conclusion I was thinking of using is essentially:

Times24 expressly confirms that it does not rely on Schedule 4 POFA. The driver has not been identified. Times24 has provided no evidence establishing that the registered keeper was the driver. Elliott v Loake does not create a presumption that the registered keeper was driving and does not reverse the burden of proof. Accordingly, Times24 has not established liability against the appellant.

I would submit the same substantive appeal for all three PCNs, changing only the PCN number and dates.
Before I do so, I’d appreciate views on:

• whether VCS v Edward is being used correctly here;
• whether there are any better authorities to cite against Elliott v Loake;
• whether the byelaws/non-relevant-land section needs expanding or shortening;
• whether I should include the 14-day issue at all now that Times24 expressly disclaims POFA;
• and whether there is anything important I’m missing before submitting to IAS.

I have a template Gatwick North Appeal here which also includes a section at the end addressing Elliott v Loake :
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/1z7tfetqn2hyuj1d18uto/ABncQthc2dMTf9pV1rctTOI?rlkey=9u8ofarltpqq568hr1rbqfuoo&st=1o9ui4d4&dl=0

You would need to change the XXXX highlighted orange to reflect the PCN number, or of course feel free to borrow bits or disregard it entirely.

What I will say though is you're virtually certain to fail at the IAS stage, so I wouldn't stress too much about it anyway!

Thanks, for the pack thats very helpful.

My main aim is to make sure the appeal properly records the keeper-liability / Elliott v Loake points in case Times24 later tries to pursue it further.
One thing I wanted to check. Would you still use this full bundle for IAS, or would you simplify it and save the fuller VCS v Edward / Elliott v Loake arguments for any later court stage?
Also, is there anything in the draft you’d change specifically now that Times24 have expressly said they are not relying on POFA and are instead relying on Elliott v Loake?

Do not over think it at this stage.

Times24 will reject your appeal regardless.

Once you get to IAS stage - if Times aren't arguing PoFA, then drop your PoFA arguments. There's no point wasting space arguing a point that Times aren't contesting, just focus on the fact that they accept they aren't relying on PoFA, and setting out why there shouldn't be a presumption the keeper was driving.

'In the absence of driver details, we rely on the principles considered in Elliott v Loake (1982) when assessing, on the balance of probabilities, who was driving'

Really?

As they've introduced statistics, let's look at some:

Around a third (33%) of households had two or more cars in 2025, 42% had one car and 25% no cars. NTS 2025
The average number of adults per household in England is approximately 1.8 to 1.9,  Office for National Statistics

Adult Definition (18+): Approximately 45.5 to 46.5 million residents are aged 18 and over. Govt Household Survey 2024

Around 34.5 million residents aged 17 and over hold a full driving licence in England, accounting for roughly 74% to 75% of the eligible adult population  Govt. National Travel Survey 2025

To be overlaid with the fact that in law a registered keeper does not need to hold a driving licence.

There is NO statistical balance of probabilities that at any one time a vehicle would be driven by its registered keeper.

The creditor has chosen to not follow the legal route by which a keeper may be held liable for a parking charge (which involves nothing more than issuing a suite of compliant notices within a prescribed time frame) , but instead has substituted its own statistically invalid claims in order to circumvent these provisions, relying upon case law dated 1982 which pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by 30 years. These relative dates seem to have escaped the creditor i.e. if there is a legal presumption that the registered keeper may be considered to be the driver, then Parliament's time was wasted in drafting, considering and passing Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act.

There is no such presumption, and it wasn't.

Any independent body charged with determining liability which believes the contrary should consider its position.

Some thoughts.