Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 4th Jul 17, 10:14 AM
    • 6,854Posts
    • 5,879Thanks
    The Deep
    I want revenge
    • #1
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:14 AM
    I want revenge 4th Jul 17 at 10:14 AM
    Last year my son in law, (well me really), parked in a Railway station car park. He bought a ticket and caused no obstruction. The PCN therefore appears to be a penalty


    He appealed in time and it was ignored. Seven DCA letters were received, threatening all sorts of mean stuff. I also wrote several letters to Apcoa, BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards and GWR. I might as well have not bothered. .


    Finally, last week we received a PoPLA code, and I will send off the appeal idc. As they do not have a leg to stand on, they will no doubt withdraw from the appeal process, and I will have spent about several hours of my time dealing with it.


    Now, I do not like people wasting my time, especially firms asking for money to which they have no entitlement, so I am looking for revenge. I have previously warned them of the consequences of persisting in this matter.


    My plan is to send them an invoice for £150, which, if ignored, will be repeated, if that is ignored a fully compliant LBA will be sent, seeking costs for unreasonable behaviour, unlawful use of his personal data, and perhaps a few quid for emotional stress. The final amount will be somewhat in excess of £400. Whether this will do the trick or not, I do not know. If they want to play hard ball, and he is up for it, we will issue a claim.


    The point is, they know that the RK has no liabiltiy under POFA, they admit that they are not using POFA, but they have launched a sustained campaign of threats and cajolements in an attempt to obtain monies from me by deception.


    If push comes to shove, should I try to pursuade s-in-l to go to court. I am prepared to do all the work, cover all the costs, and appear with him in court, if we win the money goes into granddaughters trust fund,


    Am I being a vindictive old !!!!!!, or is there a real chance of doing APCOA some damage? What do others think?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Jul 17, 10:18 AM
    • 5,677 Posts
    • 7,334 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:18 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:18 AM
    Last year my son in law, (well me really), parked in a Railway station car park. He bought a ticket and caused no obstruction. The PCN therefore appears to be a penalty


    He appealed in time and it was ignored. Seven DCA letters were received, threatening all sorts of mean stuff. I also wrote several letters to Apcoa, BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards and GWR. I might as well have not bothered. .


    Finally, last week we received a PoPLA code, and I will send off the appeal idc. As they do not have a leg to stand on, they will no doubt withdraw from the appeal process, and I will have spent about several hours of my time dealing with it.


    Now, I do not like people wasting my time, especially firms asking for money to which they have no entitlement, so I am looking for revenge. I have previously warned them of the consequences of persisting in this matter.


    My plan is to send them an invoice for £150, which, if ignored, will be repeated, if that is ignored a fully compliant LBA will be sent, seeking costs for unreasonable behaviour, unlawful use of his personal data, and perhaps a few quid for emotional stress. The final amount will be somewhat in excess of £400. Whether this will do the trick or not, I do not know. If they want to play hard ball, and he is up for it, we will issue a claim.


    The point is, they know that the RK has no liabiltiy under POFA, they admit that they are not using POFA, but they have launched a sustained campaign of threats and cajolements in an attempt to obtain monies from me by deception.


    If push comes to shove, should I try to pursuade s-in-l to go to court. I am prepared to do all the work, cover all the costs, and appear with him in court, if we win the money goes into granddaughters trust fund,


    Am I being a vindictive old !!!!!!, or is there a real chance of doing APCOA some damage? What do others think?
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Go for it Deep, I would, anything that gets these cowboys on the run
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Jul 17, 10:32 AM
    • 14,087 Posts
    • 22,118 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:32 AM
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:32 AM
    is there a real chance of doing APCOA some damage?
    With the following 'credentials', I don't expect £400 is going to give them sleepless nights:

    12 countries
    8.442 locations
    1,4 million parking spaces
    > 150 mio. transactions
    1 billion € turnover (2014)

    http://www.apcoa.com/company/facts-figures/key-figures.html
    But no doubt you'll give a local manager a headache to defend any case you bring.

    However, what would be more difficult for them would be for you to join their Principal in the action (vicarious liability), that would be more of a brick thrown into the pond than the pea gravel stone you are currently taking aim with.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 10:33 AM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:33 AM
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:33 AM
    You have to have a cause of action to sue someone - we always complain that PPCs make out no cause of action in their LBCs and PoC, and the same complaint obviously applies to you as a prospective Claimant.


    Causes of action: eg negligence by someone who owes you a duty of care; trespass; breach of contract; conversion (interference with your goods) - you will realise Deep that there are all sorts of causes of action, too numerous to list.


    Your LBC will need to say what the cause of action is. This is the part I am struggling with. Perhaps Jonersh might interject at this stage and add his thoughts?


    So first things first, what cause of action have you got here? Otherwise they will ask for your claim to be struck out, or they will ultimately win their defence of it and could get R27.14(2)(g) costs from you which would be a bit rich.


    I wouldn't send them an invoice - this implies that there is a contract, and there can't on any interpretation be a contract for which you could invoice them and then sue them if they fail to pay it. I understand why you think this would be lovely and symmetrical, to submit and then threaten sue them on an "invoice" when they do the same all the time, but if it's not a valid claim then don't do it.


    ATM I'm struggling to see a cause of action, and throw these things out into the ether for consideration:


    1. Is there a DPA breach or a trespass (to goods, namely the vehicle - if they had no right to ticket then they had no right to touch the car) here that it might be better to sue for?


    2. What about negligence (I'd be interested to see what others think about this)? It might be possible to say that as a person they were threatening to sue, they owed you a duty of care to ensure that they actually had a valid claim, and a duty to then withdraw that threatened claim once you had shown that you had a proper defence to it - if so then they breached that duty and have caused you loss and you are entitled to damages. They of course will argue that they did have a claim and that they think POPLA was wrong, so in essence you may have to argue the entire thing ab initio.
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 4th Jul 17, 10:45 AM
    • 2,294 Posts
    • 3,439 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #5
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:45 AM
    • #5
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:45 AM
    I'm sorry I can't help TD, but I love it when you get angry!
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 4th Jul 17, 10:49 AM
    • 3,714 Posts
    • 5,259 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #6
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:49 AM
    • #6
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:49 AM
    It may be worth looking at the consumer credit act thread, hopefully one day there will be enough to knock the teflon of the ppc industry and bring the whole rotten charade down, with serious consequences for major landowners ala the ppi scandal
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 4th Jul 17, 10:59 AM
    • 6,854 Posts
    • 5,879 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:59 AM
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 17, 10:59 AM
    You have to have a cause of action to sue someone


    How about seeking to obtain monies by misrepresentation? Unreasonable behaviour? Knbowingly submitting a false invoice, misuse of personal data? They passed my details to DCA whilst a valid appeal was being considered, (or not). .
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 4th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    • 560 Posts
    • 1,459 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    They of course will argue that they did have a claim and that they think POPLA was wrong.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    With APCOA, when a well-presented appeal has been submitted, POPLA are never troubled into having to make a decision - APCOA always tell POPLA that they do not wish to contest the appeal.

    Can this be inferred as being an admission from APCOA that they were wrong?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 11:33 AM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 17, 11:33 AM
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 17, 11:33 AM
    Can this be inferred as being an admission from APCOA that they were wrong?
    Originally posted by Edna Basher

    You could certainly argue that. Surely if they don't contest an appeal they are accepting it has "teeth"?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 11:37 AM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    You have to have a cause of action to sue someone


    How about seeking to obtain monies by misrepresentation? Unreasonable behaviour? Knbowingly submitting a false invoice, misuse of personal data? They passed my details to DCA whilst a valid appeal was being considered, (or not). .
    Originally posted by The Deep


    Not sure if obtaining monies by misrep/submitting false invoices are civil causes of action or criminal. What about bribery, another criminal offence (obtaining money by making menaces - probably stretching it a bit)?


    Yes their behaviour has been entirely unreasonable but you have to find a cause of action to hang a claim on.


    Passing details/misuse of data - there you have it, a DPA breach. I think there's also a trespass to goods claim. These are far better than an invoice which you just wouldn't succeed in suing on.


    I'm thinking the negligence may have teeth too and am interested to see what Jonersh may have to add about that.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 12:56 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think there is a general consensus that hitting PPCs with DPA claims is the way to go so that they do not just treat these cases as loss leaders - they need to stand to lose a lot more than they are losing now.


    Trouble is all you have is a POPLA withdrawal rather than a DJ dismissing the claim.


    However, there does still appear to be a claim and as a PP said, you could argue that the POPLA withdrawal (or POPLA finding in your favour) shows that there is a DPA breach because if they had a case they'd have defended it/won. My thinking is if you threaten/make a DPA claim you might as well shove in a trespass claim.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 4th Jul 17, 1:01 PM
    • 3,714 Posts
    • 5,259 Thanks
    Half_way
    Whilst a fair amount of anger should be directed at the PPCs the big corporations such as the supermarkets rail company's, gyms etc should also be in the firing line.
    The only exception to the landowner guilty as well would be the small one man band type operation, where the owner will have been equally conned by the ppcs tactics.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 4th Jul 17, 1:07 PM
    • 3,032 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    DoaM
    What about harassment as another cause of action? Surely all the DCA letters (particularly when an appeal is ongoing) amount to that?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 2:34 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    DOAM, I was toying with suggesting that too - I think on its own it's a bit weak, but like a trespass claim I'd bung it in if I was making a DPA claim.
    • discat11
    • By discat11 12th Jul 17, 11:05 PM
    • 253 Posts
    • 285 Thanks
    discat11
    Was the 'PCN' a genuine PCN or issue under railway bylaws?

    An aside but I wouldn't necessarily infer anything from a PPC not pursuing a case or by them automatically accepting a serious appeal and not perusing it further -this may well be their standard business practice.
    i.e. They know what profitability they have in the normal punters who pay up, they know how much it costs them to take 'appealers' to court and how many might win and their own costs in sending staff /legal fees/day out of the office etc.
    Perhaps it's just they're happy to take the easy money & cut their potential losses when they have to -I know I would if running parking like this.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 12th Jul 17, 11:36 PM
    • 7,241 Posts
    • 7,392 Thanks
    pappa golf
    Was the 'PCN' a genuine PCN or issue under railway bylaws?

    An aside but I wouldn't necessarily infer anything from a PPC not pursuing a case or by them automatically accepting a serious appeal and not perusing it further -this may well be their standard business practice.
    i.e. They know what profitability they have in the normal punters who pay up, they know how much it costs them to take 'appealers' to court and how many might win and their own costs in sending staff /legal fees/day out of the office etc.
    Perhaps it's just they're happy to take the easy money & cut their potential losses when they have to -I know I would if running parking like this.
    Originally posted by discat11
    if it was bylaws , the chances where that the "offence" was failing to display a ticket , that is NOT a bylaw offence , so therefore trying to obtain monies by ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Jul 17, 3:44 AM
    • 6,854 Posts
    • 5,879 Thanks
    The Deep
    The original NTK/O made no mention of Bye-Laws or POFA. The rejection of the initial appeal states that the land is under the statutory control of Railway Byelaws and not issued under POFA. No mention is made on any sign of Railway Bye-Laws

    It seems to me that they are wanting to have their cake and eat it, giving the initial impression that this is a breach of a contract, and now trying to say that the offence falls under criminal law.

    They are too late to have GWR bring charges, and I expect them to not to want to content PoPLA appeal.

    I attach the draft appeal which goes off next week.


    POPLA APPEAL - Bye-Laws Land – No Keeper Liability

    This is an appeal concerning a Parking Charge Notice issued by the operator for an alleged breach of the the company's terms and conditions of parking in in a railway station car park. The operator confirms that this land is covered by Railway Bye- laws and therefore it is not scheduled land for the purposes of the registered keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act., which it says the charge has not been issued under.

    The operator does not know who the driver was, or the owner, and it would appear that they have made an assumption that I, the registered keeper was the driver. If so, they must prove, on the balance of probabilities that that is the case. The car insurance names two drivers and others drive it from time to time.

    If they are relying on Elliot v Loake they must be aware that several recent court cases have failed on this assumption. Ellott v Loake was a criminal prosecution where the verdict relied on overwhelming forensic evidence.

    If they are relying on CPS v AJH Films that too has been found wanting in the courts as the defendants were employer and employee. Several County Court Judges have recently dismissed these arguments as having no relevance in Contract Law..

    If Apcoa are relying on the outcome of Beavis v Parking Eye in the Supreme Court the circumstances bear no resemblance. Beavis took place in a free car park in a shopping centre where there was no opportunity to purchase extra time, and overstayed by almost an hour. As the PPC were paying £52,000 a year to manage this car park and PCNs of this nature were their only source of income, it was deemed that the charge of £85 was reasonable as they had a commercial interest in this site as there was a necessity to ensure a high turnover of traffic and to discourage abuse from railway commuters. Furthermore, Mr Beavis failed to engage with the parking company up until they embarked on court proceedings.

    In the present instance the full parking fee was paid, there was clearly no obstruction, and this therefore amounts to an unlawful penalty. It appears therefore that the operator is attempting to obtain monies from the Registered Keeper to which it has no entitlement.

    Only the land owner, in this case the Train Operating company, Great Western Railway, can take action, and only against the driver or owner, in a Magistrates Court, within six months of the date of the alleged offence, that date has now passed.

    Nevertheless, Popla should also be aware that several spaces had been requisitioned by Network Rail for engineering works and the storage of materiel for the electrification of the line. Parking spaces for members of the public at this busy railway station have been severely curtailed. Common sense dictates that GWR should have instructed the operator to exercise lenience instead of allowing them to penalise travellers who were forced to park in unmarked bays without causing an obstruction. Provision should have been made to make good this loss, but, instead of managing parking sensibly. Apcoa sought to maximise their profits. .

    Even so, those spaces which exist were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put Apcoa to strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.

    The signs are difficult to read, being up to eight feet in height, in letters of as small as 5mm in height, in white on a pale blue background. It is impossible to see how they are sufficiently prominent to form a contract. I would refer you to Excel v Martin Cutts where the judge disallowed the claim due to poor signs.

    The PCN was incorrectly issued by the wrong company under wrong law. The time has now passed for the alleged offence to be prosecuted in a criminal court, and I request that this charge is therefore cancelled. Furthermore, it was issued eight months ago and appealed in time. It has only now, some seven months later that, making no mention of the appeal last year , the operator has been rejected it, and PoPLA Code issued. In the meantime I have been subjected to a barrage of threats, begging letters, lies and inducements by debt collection agencies..

    Apcoa should be made aware of their blatant misbehaviours of this incompetence. Once this appeal has been dealt with, I will be taking action through the courts concerning their unreasonable behaviour and Data Protection Act breaches. .

    Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone. be it driver, keeper, owner, Uncle Tom Cobley, is confusing. It started at £60/100, went up to £160, was then reduced to £75, and later came back to £60, rising to £100 if not paid. They do not seem to know how much they think they are owed.


    Son in Law

    I know that some of the above may be of no interest to PoPLA, but I am preparing the ground for a claim against Apcoa if son in law is willing.
    Last edited by The Deep; 13-07-2017 at 9:49 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 13th Jul 17, 9:19 AM
    • 3,032 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    DoaM
    5 cm? Is that a typo? Did you mean 5 mm?

    5 cm is quite large and easily readable on a sign 8' up.

    Not a "classic" style PoPLA appeal, but I still like it.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Jul 17, 9:47 AM
    • 6,854 Posts
    • 5,879 Thanks
    The Deep
    Indeed, this new furrin stuff confuses one.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Jul 17, 2:09 PM
    • 40,241 Posts
    • 80,357 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Good effort Mr Deep. I hope you succeed.

    As for the measurements, I was taught many decades ago not to mix units, so 8ft and 5mm should not be used in the same description.

    This new vurrin stuff has been taught in UK schools since 1965.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

224Posts Today

3,208Users online

Martin's Twitter