Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

Please post up the original PCN and the appeal outcome - redacting only personal details - leave dates visible.

Thanks. Heres all the pics: 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.

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.

The whole of POFA 2012 applies *except* for Schedule 4.