NON RELEVANT LAND

In the context of UK parking law, non-relevant land (often simply called "not relevant land") refers to areas where the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) does not apply.

The significance of land being "non-relevant" is that a private parking operator cannot hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge; they can only pursue the actual driver.

Types of Non-Relevant Land

Land is typically considered "non-relevant" if it is already subject to separate statutory control or bylaws. This includes:

Airports: Most airport land is governed by local airport bylaws.
Ports: Harbours and ports often have their own specific statutory regulations.
Public Highways: Any road maintainable at public expense.
Council-Run Car Parks: Parking places provided or controlled by a traffic authority.
Railway Stations (Historically): Previously, all railway car parks were non-relevant land due to Railway Byelaws. However, legislation was updated on 26 December 2025, and most railway stations are now classed as "relevant land".

Why It Matters for Appeal

If you receive a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a vehicle you were not driving on non-relevant land:

Keeper Liability Fails: The parking company has no legal right under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to demand payment from the keeper.
No Obligation to Identify Driver: There is generally no legal requirement for the keeper to name who was driving at the time.
Appeal Ground: You can appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service on the basis that the land is "non-relevant," making the charge unenforceable against you as the keeper.

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), land is "non-relevant" if it is subject to statutory control, such as airport bylaws. Gatwick is governed by the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996, which include specific provisions for vehicle parking or dropping someone off - drop off charge. (tested on North and South terminal, both time it worked, it works for other UK airports.)

There is no map to show where is non relevant land, but the whole of Scotland is non relevant land!

Why This Status Matters

The "non-relevant land" status creates a significant legal hurdle for private parking operators like NCP or APCOA who manage these sites:

No Keeper Liability: Because the land is non-relevant, the parking operator cannot transfer liability for a parking charge from the driver to the registered keeper.
Driver-Only Liability: Liability for any alleged breach of contract attaches only to the driver.
No Requirement to Name Driver: As the registered keeper, you are under no legal obligation to identify who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.

Key Grounds for Appeal

If you receive a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for Gatwick, successful appeals are frequently based on the following:

Statutory Control: The land is subject to airport bylaws and is therefore not "relevant land" under POFA 2012.
Proof of Driver: The operator must prove who the driver was to enforce the charge; they cannot simply assume the keeper was driving.
POPLA Outcomes: The independent appeals service, POPLA, routinely upholds appeals for airport PCNs when the "non-relevant land" argument is correctly used.

Important Considerations for 2026

Updated Laws for Other Areas: While legislation changed on 26 December 2025 to make most railway stations "relevant land," this change did not apply to airports. As of early 2026, Gatwick remains non-relevant land.
Check the Boundary: The non-relevant status only applies to land within the airport's official boundary. Off-site private car parks near the airport may still be "relevant land".

In the UK, a registered keeper can legally refuse to identify a driver in private parking disputes because private parking charges are civil contracts, not criminal matters.

The legal basis for this refusal, and why it is effective on "non-relevant land" like Gatwick, is rooted in the following legislation:

Absence of Statutory Duty (Road Traffic Act 1988)

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988: This is the only law that creates a mandatory legal obligation to identify a driver.
Crucial Distinction: Section 172 applies only to "alleged motoring offences" (e.g., speeding, red lights) where the request is made by or on behalf of a Chief Officer of Police.
Private Land Application: Private parking operators are not the police, and a "Parking Charge Notice" is not a criminal offence. Therefore, they have no power under the Road Traffic Act to compel you to name the driver.

2. Failure of Keeper Liability (POFA 2012)

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA): This act allows private operators to hold the keeper liable for a driver's debt only if the land is "relevant land" and specific strict conditions are met.
Non-Relevant Land Loophole: Because Gatwick is subject to bylaws, it is "non-relevant land". On such land, POFA Schedule 4 does not apply.
The Result: Since POFA cannot be used, the operator has no legal mechanism to transfer liability to the keeper. They can only sue the driver, but they have no legal way to force you to tell them who that was.

3. No "Reasonable Presumption"

Legal Precedent: In civil law, there is no "reasonable presumption" that the registered keeper was also the driver.
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof rests entirely on the parking company to prove the identity of the driver to enforce their contract. If you refuse to name them, the company often has no evidence to proceed with a claim against you.

4. Right to Silence (Civil Matters)

In a civil dispute, you have a general right not to assist the opposing party in building their case.
Regulation 9(2)(e) of POFA Schedule 4: Even on "relevant land", the law only says a notice must "invite" the keeper to name the driver; it does not "command" it.

To appeal a private parking charge at Gatwick Airport, you must rely on the fact that the land is subject to statutory control (airport bylaws), which makes it "non-relevant land" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

Rebuttal Letter Template

Use this wording for your initial appeal to the parking operator (e.g., NCP or APCOA). Do not add details about the "event" or why you were there.

Subject: Formal Appeal - PCN Reference [Insert Number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle [Insert Registration]. I deny any liability for this parking charge and decline your invitation to identify the driver.

My appeal is based on the following grounds:

No Keeper Liability (Non-Relevant Land): This alleged contravention occurred at Gatwick Airport, which is land subject to statutory control under the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996. Consequently, it is not "relevant land" as defined in Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
POFA 2012 Non-Compliance: As the land is not relevant land, you have no legal right to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. You may only pursue the driver, and I am under no legal obligation to identify them.
No Presumption of Driver: There is no legal presumption in civil law that the registered keeper was the driver. The burden of proof rests entirely on you to prove the driver’s identity.

I require you to cancel this charge immediately. If you reject this appeal, you must provide a unique POPLA verification code so that I may escalate this to the independent ombudsman at your expense.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Tip: sign in blue ink

Advice on Section 172 Threats

Parking companies sometimes use "legalese" to trick keepers into thinking they must name the driver. It is critical to understand the limits of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

Police Only: Section 172 only grants power to the police (or a chief officer) to demand driver details for suspected criminal offences.
Civil Debt vs. Criminal Offence: A private parking charge is a civil contract dispute, not a criminal offence. A private company (like NCP) has no authority to use or threaten you with Section 172.
Hollow Threats: If a parking company mentions Section 172, it is often a scare tactic. You can respond by stating: "Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not apply to private parking invoices, and any further suggestion that I have a statutory duty to name the driver will be reported as harassment".