Can we pl get away from signage, this just gives an assessor the opportunity to waffle on about minutiae when you need to focus their attention on the key issues:
Comments on the snippets of evidence posted which are central to this case:
1. Landowner authority
The only reference made to this in the creditor's evidence appears to be found on page ** of *** where NCP state they are operating under a 'Management Agreement between London Gatwick Airport and National Car Parks Limited for the enforcement of the Drop Off Zones and Red Routes within the boundary of Gatwick Airport.'
For correctness, the company licensed to operate Gatwick Airport is Gatwick Airport Limited and even this company's accounts list it as a group of companies with 3 specified subsidiary legal entities. Therefore the question must be put and answered regarding with whom is NCP actually contracted: GAL's Group structure suggests it would not be as claimed by NCP.
The creditor could put this issue to bed by disclosing what is required by the CoP.
As it stands, I dispute that this statement of landowner authority meets or in any way approaches the standard set out in the BPA CoP (and to which the creditor should be held in this appeal) which at para. 7 states - set out paras. 7.1-7.4.
Unless, as should not apply, the assessor is prepared simply to take the creditor's word for these matters, then my 'appeal' should be allowed because the creditor hasn't established or even tried to establish any right to make a charge at all.
2. Keeper liability under Schedule 4
I would further add that although the issue of landowner authority applies in all cases, it takes on a more significant meaning in this appeal because the first grounds of my challenge to the creditor were that the land in question was not relevant land and therefore they were prevented from seeking relief from PoFA to hold the keeper liable in lieu of the driver. As can be seen in their rejection, this assertion wasn't addressed in any way, but as can be seen by this case (4822223007) POPLA has expressed a view and one which accords with my assertion.
It is axiomatic that land cannot flip-flop from relevant land to not relevant land then back to relevant land as if changing with the phases of the moon: the drop-off area in question either is or is not relevant land.
If it isn't then this appeal must be allowed. But if it is, then I refer the assessor to the creditor's failure to comply with PoFA and therefore forfeit their right to relief from Schedule 4 i.e. keeper liability.
Many thanks to everyone for the expert advice. I have now added comments to the appeal case as per advice from Nosy Parker and H C Anderson
Like x 1
View List