3. NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a red route
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a red route  (Read 1013 times)

0 Members and 1537 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a red route
« Reply #15 on: »
Quote from: DWMB2 on July 14, 2025, 10:14:46 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:
"(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.

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.

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.
Logged
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a red route
« Reply #16 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a red route
« Reply #17 on: »
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.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. NCP Gatwick Parking Charge – Contravention: Stopping on a red route