Updated October 2026 · Free to Appeal

Beat Your Airport
Drop-Off Charge

Free appeal templates for UK airports. Strong legal grounds. Copy and send in minutes.

Select your airport

I appeal as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

1. APCOA Parking is unable to transfer the driver's liability (if any) to the keeper under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because the drop-off zones at Heathrow Airport are not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA. Airport land subject to statutory control falls outside the scope of Schedule 4, and APCOA therefore has no basis on which to pursue the registered keeper.

Furthermore, as keeper I am entitled to all the defences available to the driver, including (without limitation) the following:

2. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into. Under the principles established by the Court of Appeal in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a term introduced after a contract has been formed does not become part of that contract. The charge therefore forms no part of any contract between the driver and APCOA.

3. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The charging terms were not displayed clearly, prominently, or legibly at a point where the driver could have made an informed decision to avoid the zone before entering it. No valid contract was formed.

4. The vehicle was present in the drop-off zone for no more than 5 minutes. The driver is entitled to the 5-minute consideration period expressly mandated by the BPA Code of Practice, during which no charge may be levied.

5. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty at common law. APCOA has suffered no identifiable loss as a result of the vehicle's presence in the drop-off zone.

Any one of the above grounds is sufficient on its own to require cancellation of the PCN. I require this charge to be cancelled and invite APCOA to confirm cancellation in writing.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

1. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). NCP is well aware that the POFA keeper liability provisions do not apply here, and has no lawful basis on which to pursue the registered keeper.

2. NCP's 'parking charge' is not and never purports to be a byelaws penalty, it is a charge created for NCP's own commercial profit. If Gatwick Airport wished to enforce against vehicle owners or keepers under Airport Byelaws, that would be a matter for the landowner alone. NCP is not the airport owner and has no standing to invoke byelaws. Its claim rests solely on alleged breach of contract against the driver, not the keeper.

3. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into. Under the Court of Appeal's decision in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a charge introduced after a contract has been formed does not become part of that contract.

4. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Charging terms were not displayed clearly or prominently before the driver committed to entering the zone, meaning no valid contractual offer was made.

5. The vehicle was present in the drop-off zone for no more than 5 minutes, within the consideration period mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under any interpretation of agency law. NCP's Notice to Keeper can only hold the driver liable, and that claim also fails for the reasons above. I require this PCN to be cancelled and invite confirmation of cancellation in writing.

I appeal as the keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

1. The parking operator is unable to transfer the driver's liability (if any) to the keeper under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because the drop-off zone at Stansted Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA. Airport land subject to statutory control falls outside the scope of Schedule 4. The operator therefore has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

As keeper I am in any event entitled to all the defences available to the driver, including (without limitation):

2. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into. Under the Court of Appeal's decision in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a charge not communicated prior to contract formation does not become part of that contract.

3. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, paragraph 18. The approach road to Stansted's terminal commits drivers to the zone before adequate charging information is visible. No clear, prominent offer of terms was made at a point where the driver could realistically have chosen to avoid the zone, and no valid contract was therefore formed.

4. The vehicle was present in the drop-off zone for no more than 5 minutes. The driver is entitled to the 5-minute consideration period mandated by the BPA Code of Practice, during which no charge may be applied.

5. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is an unenforceable penalty at common law. No identifiable loss was caused to the operator by the vehicle's brief presence in the drop-off zone.

Any one of the above grounds is sufficient to require cancellation of this PCN. I require the charge to be cancelled and invite written confirmation of cancellation.

I appeal as the keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

1. The parking operator is unable to transfer the driver's liability (if any) to the keeper under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because the drop-off zone at Luton Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA. Airport land under statutory control is excluded from Schedule 4, and the operator therefore has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

As keeper I am in any event entitled to all the defences available to the driver, including (without limitation):

2. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into. Under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a charge not communicated before contract formation does not become part of that contract.

3. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Luton Airport's road layout directs all arriving vehicles toward the terminal before adequate charging information is visible. Drivers have no realistic opportunity to avoid the zone after first encountering the signs, meaning no valid contractual offer was made and no enforceable contract was formed.

4. The vehicle was present in the drop-off zone for no more than 5 minutes, within the consideration period mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.

5. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty at common law.

Any one of the above grounds is sufficient to require cancellation. I require this PCN to be cancelled and invite written confirmation.

I appeal as the keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

1. The parking operator is unable to transfer the driver's liability (if any) to the keeper under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because the drop-off zone at Manchester Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA. Airport land under statutory control is excluded from Schedule 4, and the operator therefore has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

As keeper I am in any event entitled to all the defences available to the driver, including (without limitation):

2. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into. Under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a charge not communicated before contract formation does not become part of that contract.

3. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The charging terms were not displayed clearly or prominently before the driver committed to entering the zone, meaning no valid contractual offer was made.

4. The vehicle was present in the drop-off zone for no more than 5 minutes, within the consideration period mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.

5. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty at common law.

Any one of the above grounds is sufficient to require cancellation. I require this PCN to be cancelled and invite written confirmation.

I appeal as the keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

1. The parking operator is unable to transfer the driver's liability (if any) to the keeper under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because the drop-off zone at Birmingham Airport is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA. Airport land under statutory control is excluded from Schedule 4, and the operator therefore has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

As keeper I am in any event entitled to all the defences available to the driver, including (without limitation):

2. The parking charge is not notified until after the contract is entered into. Under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a charge not communicated before contract formation does not become part of that contract.

3. The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The charging terms were not displayed clearly or prominently before the driver committed to entering the zone, meaning no valid contractual offer was made.

4. The vehicle was present in the drop-off zone for no more than 5 minutes, within the consideration period mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.

5. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty at common law.

Any one of the above grounds is sufficient to require cancellation. I require this PCN to be cancelled and invite written confirmation.

Want to know what to expect? See real examples of operator responses, including cancellations, rejections, and how unlikely it is they'll reject your appeal.

How the appeal process works

1

Select your airport

Choose your airport from the tabs above. The correct legal arguments are pre-loaded for you.

2

Copy to clipboard

Hit the button and the full appeal text is copied. Paste it directly into your appeal form or email.

3

Wait for a decision

The operator must respond within 35 days. Most cancel at this stage without further argument.

4

Escalate to POPLA if needed

If rejected, request your free POPLA code. Operators lose the vast majority of POPLA cases on these grounds.

Full appeal guides by airport

Terminals 2–5

Heathrow Drop-Off Charge Appeal

APCOA cannot establish keeper liability at Heathrow, the drop-off zone is not 'relevant land' under POFA. Full guide and legal grounds.

North & South Terminal

Gatwick Drop-Off Charge Appeal

NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable at Gatwick Airport. The land is under statutory control. Full guide and legal grounds.

Single Terminal

Stansted Drop-Off Charge Appeal

One of the most contested drop-off zones in the UK. Strong signage and POFA arguments apply. Full guide and legal grounds.

Single Terminal

Luton Drop-Off Charge Appeal

Luton's road layout makes it impossible to avoid the charge zone, a well-established and frequently upheld appeal argument.

Single Terminal

Manchester Drop-Off Charge Appeal

One of the UK's busiest regional airports. Strong POFA and signage arguments apply. Full guide and legal grounds.

Single Terminal

Birmingham Drop-Off Charge Appeal

West Midlands' major airport hub. POFA keeper liability rules apply. Full guide and legal grounds.

See why it works

Disclaimer: AppealAirportPCN.co.uk is a free information resource for UK drivers. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice. For complex cases, consider consulting a solicitor or Citizens Advice.