01-19-2026, 03:13 PM
Have you received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged contravention at an airport? Perhaps you were caught out by a barrierless pick-up or drop-off zone, forgot to pay an excessive fee, or later received a Notice to Keeper (NtK), or if the vehicle is leased or hired, a Notice to Hirer (NtH).
You are far from alone. Thousands of motorists are being caught by these schemes. What many do not realise is that airport PCNs issued by private parking companies are, in practice, unenforceable against the registered keeper, provided the driver is not identified.
There is no legal obligation to identify the driver. None.
In most cases, the NtK is sent to the registered keeper. If the vehicle is leased or hired, the hire company will usually transfer liability to the hirer, after which a fresh NtH is issued. At that point, the operator still does not know who the driver was. The only way they ever find out is if the recipient tells them.
Unfortunately, many people do exactly that, often unintentionally, by using “I” instead of referring to “the driver”. Once the driver is identified, the parking company finally has someone they can pursue.
This is a critical point: the only potentially liable party under contract law is the driver. There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper or hirer was the driver. That position has been clearly supported by persuasive authority. In VCS Ltd v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], HHJ Gargan stated:
“…it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell.”
So how do private parking companies usually attempt to bypass this problem? Through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Under PoFA, and only if strict statutory conditions are met, liability for an alleged contractual breach may be transferred from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
However, PoFA does not apply to land that is subject to statutory control. Airports fall squarely into that category, as they are governed by airport byelaws. As a result, airport land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA.
The consequence is straightforward: where an alleged contravention occurs at an airport, a private parking company has no lawful mechanism to pursue the registered keeper if the driver is not identified. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity they do not know.
Most motorists are unaware of this and either pay out of fear or inadvertently identify the driver, handing the operator exactly what it needs. If the driver is not identified, the operator is stuck.
I have a 100% success rate in appeals against airport PCNs on this basis alone. A simple appeal along the following lines is sufficient:
In short: do not identify the driver. There is no obligation to do so, and doing so only assists the parking company.
If you want to understand this in more detail, ask.
You are far from alone. Thousands of motorists are being caught by these schemes. What many do not realise is that airport PCNs issued by private parking companies are, in practice, unenforceable against the registered keeper, provided the driver is not identified.
There is no legal obligation to identify the driver. None.
In most cases, the NtK is sent to the registered keeper. If the vehicle is leased or hired, the hire company will usually transfer liability to the hirer, after which a fresh NtH is issued. At that point, the operator still does not know who the driver was. The only way they ever find out is if the recipient tells them.
Unfortunately, many people do exactly that, often unintentionally, by using “I” instead of referring to “the driver”. Once the driver is identified, the parking company finally has someone they can pursue.
This is a critical point: the only potentially liable party under contract law is the driver. There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper or hirer was the driver. That position has been clearly supported by persuasive authority. In VCS Ltd v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], HHJ Gargan stated:
“…it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell.”
So how do private parking companies usually attempt to bypass this problem? Through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Under PoFA, and only if strict statutory conditions are met, liability for an alleged contractual breach may be transferred from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
However, PoFA does not apply to land that is subject to statutory control. Airports fall squarely into that category, as they are governed by airport byelaws. As a result, airport land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA.
The consequence is straightforward: where an alleged contravention occurs at an airport, a private parking company has no lawful mechanism to pursue the registered keeper if the driver is not identified. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity they do not know.
Most motorists are unaware of this and either pay out of fear or inadvertently identify the driver, handing the operator exactly what it needs. If the driver is not identified, the operator is stuck.
I have a 100% success rate in appeals against airport PCNs on this basis alone. A simple appeal along the following lines is sufficient:
Quote:“I am the registered keeper. [Operator] cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land subject to statutory control. [Airport name] is not relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
If the airport wished to pursue liability under its byelaws, that would be a matter for the airport authority and would involve a statutory penalty payable to the public purse. That is not what is alleged here. Your charge is a private contractual claim pursued for your own commercial benefit, and can only ever attach to the driver.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under any theory of agency. Your Notice to Keeper / Notice to Hirer is therefore incapable of establishing keeper liability. You have no realistic prospect of success at appeal and are invited to cancel the charge.”
In short: do not identify the driver. There is no obligation to do so, and doing so only assists the parking company.
If you want to understand this in more detail, ask.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
