0 Members and 110 Guests are viewing this topic.
I am writing to appeal the above-referenced parking charge notice.The land in question, Gatwick Airport, 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.As there is no keeper liability, I am not required to name the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and I will not be doing so.I expect to hear from you with a confirmation that this charge has been cancelled and that my details have been removed from your records. If you believe this charge is enforceable, please provide the specific legal basis for doing so, citing the relevant legislation and demonstrating how it applies to this specific location.I do not expect to hear from your debt collectors, or any further action on this matter.
I see, so I need to get the hirer to contact the leasing company and tell them to tell NCP to reissue the PCN in my name? As its in the lease company name?
The purpose of this letter is to give you advance notice that we have made a representation to the Parking Operator thus allowing you time to review the details. The Parking Operator should now re-issue the parking charge notice to you for payment or appeal.
I am the Hirer of the vehicle. NCP cannot hold a 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 Hirers 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 '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 NtH 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.
