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
    • 6,849Posts
    • 5,868Thanks
    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 2
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Jul 17, 2:42 PM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    @TD. Just a few proofreading suggestions for you.

    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.
    Change to 'relevant'.

    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.
    Plural or singular?

    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.
    Need to rework the wording here.

    Apcoa
    APCOA - capitalise. (Airport Parking Company Of America).

    HTH
    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.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Jul 17, 5:50 AM
    • 6,849 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    The Deep
    Many thanks, I have decided to shorten it, here is the revised version

    POPLA APPEAL - Bye-Laws Land – No Keeper Liability

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

    The operator does not know who the driver was, or the owner, and it would appear that they have made an assumption that was that person. If so, I put them to strict proof of this.

    If they are relying on Elliot v Loake, this was a criminal conviction obtained from forensic evidence and has been rejected by many judges as not relevent.

    If they 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 limited to two hours where there was no opportunity to purchase extra time, and overstayed by almost an hour. The PPC were paying £52,000 a year to manage this car park and PCNs were their only source of income. It was deemed that the charge of £85 was reasonable as there was a necessity to ensure a high turnover of traffic and to discourage abuse from railway commuters.

    In the present case, the parking fee was paid, there was no obstruction, and this therefore amounts to an unlawful penalty.

    Only the land owner, in this case the Train Operating Company, 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.

    Spaces were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put APCOA strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.

    The signs are difficult to read, being up to three metres off the ground with letters as small as 5mm.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 to the wrong person.. 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 is only now, some seven months later have I been issued with a PoPLA code. In the meantime I have been subjected to a barrage of threats, begging letters, lies and inducements by debt collection agencies, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice...

    Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone. be it driver, keeper, or owner, 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. Do they not know how much they want?

    Son in Law
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jul 17, 9:43 AM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Still this one to sort TD. One photo, or multiple photos?

    Spaces were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put APCOA strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.
    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.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 14th Jul 17, 10:24 AM
    • 3,034 Posts
    • 3,082 Thanks
    DoaM
    The operator does not know who the driver was, or the owner, and it would appear that they have made an assumption that I was that person. If so, I put them to strict proof of this.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Missing word as above?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 14th Jul 17, 1:35 PM
    • 143 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    I think the best cause of action would be for distress caused by misuse of the keeper's personal information.

    APCOA is entitled to request registered keeper details from DVLA for the reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Data protection principles require that personal information is:
    1. used fairly and lawfully
    2. used for limited, specifically stated purposes
    3. used in a way that is adequate, relevant and not excessive
    4. accurate
    5. kept for no longer than is absolutely necessary
    6. etc.

    If your son-in-law informed APCOA that he was not the driver and that he would not reveal who the driver was then APCOA would be in breach of principle 5 if it then kept his personal information. APCOA would also be in breach of principles 1 and 3 if it further processed his personal information. Ideally, your son-in-law should have instructed APCOA to cease and desist from processing his personal information (in a Section 10 Data Subject Notice or otherwise) to make this clear.

    Failing the above, the strongest data protection claim against APCOA would be for sharing your son-in-law's personal information with debt collectors before the appeal process was completed. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and thus a breach of data protection principles 1 and 3.

    Halliday -v- Creation Consumer Finance Limited [2013] supports a quantum of £750 for a single data protection breach resulting in some (unquantified) distress to the data subject. Why not put in a claim for at least that, using APCOA's correspondence and the debt collection letters as evidence of its clear aim to cause distress, which was successful?

    Having checked the court fees, a claim for £500 would less risky but, personally, I would go for £1,500. I can't see APCOA wanting to have its dodgy business practices tested in court.
    Last edited by Timothea; 14-07-2017 at 5:20 PM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Jul 17, 8:46 PM
    • 6,849 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    The Deep
    Unfortunately, (or fortunately) no distress caused, we are a hardy tribe. However, sending DCA letters while an appeal is pending is a naughty and that will probably be my first line of attack..

    I think I may ask for £1500, it will make them sit up a bit, especially if I send them a watertight LBA. Thanks for the idea, but lets get a Popla decision first..
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jul 17, 9:15 PM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Unfortunately, (or fortunately) no distress caused, we are a hardy tribe. However, sending DCA letters while an appeal is pending is a naughty and that will probably be my first line of attack..

    I think I may ask for £1500, it will make them sit up a bit, especially if I send them a watertight LBA. Thanks for the idea, but lets get a Popla decision first..
    Originally posted by The Deep
    £70 court fee for a claim £1,000.01 to £1,500.00. Just so you know, in case you need to start salting a few coppers away, TD!

    https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees
    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.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Jul 17, 10:17 PM
    • 32,402 Posts
    • 16,499 Thanks
    Quentin
    £70 court fee for a claim £1,000.01 to £1,500.00. Just so you know, in case you need to start salting a few coppers away, TD! ...]
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    That is just to get the claim sent to them.

    Minimum court fees to include a hearing (in the unlikely event they not pay up on getting the claim) is £185.

    A bit more than a bagatelle!
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 15th Jul 17, 6:40 AM
    • 143 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    Unfortunately, (or fortunately) no distress caused, we are a hardy tribe. However, sending DCA letters while an appeal is pending is a naughty and that will probably be my first line of attack..

    I think I may ask for £1500, it will make them sit up a bit, especially if I send them a watertight LBA. Thanks for the idea, but lets get a Popla decision first..
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Yes, first get a POPLA decision. The LBA can demand any amount you like, as long as it's at least as much as the amount for which you eventually issue a money claim. For example, demand £1,500 in the LBA but issue a money claim for £500.

    Apart from a DPA breach, I can't see any other cause of action that would hold up in court. In most cases, you would have to prove a quantifiable loss. Trespass is a non-starter because, at that time, APCOA had a reasonable belief that the vehicle was parked in a way that breached the terms of parking. Harassment sets a much higher bar than distress. Negligence is an interesting idea but where's the loss or harm?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Jul 17, 6:56 AM
    • 6,849 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    The Deep
    I agree entirely. However the most likely outcome imo is that APCOA will withdraw from the PoPLA process, argueing, if pressed, that they had not maintained the bay markings.

    We shall see, but whatever happens, I shall be a thorn in their side for ages. They chose the wrong marine.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 25th Jul 17, 4:27 PM
    • 6,849 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    The Deep
    I won, see PoPLA appeals.

    The fightback begins, my opening volley

    I note that you have withdrawn from the appeal process. This leads me to conclude that the charge was wrongly issued and that, by passing my details to debt collecting agencies, you breached my rights to privacy under the Data Protection Act..

    I am prepared to overlook this for the sum of £250 and an apology. I will not agree to a confidentiality clause.

    If you are not amenable to this, please let me know and I will pursue the matter through the Courts, where I shall be claiming a minimum of £500.

    Your are well aware that there is no keeper liability on railway land, yet you persist in pursuing these cases, no doubt in the hope that people will pay. I am not that easily gulled and would refer you to yesterday's case at Barnsley (D2QZ229J) where Parking Awareness Services had to pay £400 for a similar offence.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Jul 17, 4:45 PM
    • 14,041 Posts
    • 22,060 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done TD. :

    As I've commented on your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky:
    It's DPA time for DPD!
    £250? You're waaaay too cheap fella!

    I'll be watching the blood drip down the wall with interest.
    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.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 25th Jul 17, 6:25 PM
    • 6,849 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    The Deep
    That is only if they apologise, it they want to play hardball it will be considerably more.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 25th Jul 17, 7:06 PM
    • 101 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    Good luck The Deep, it's good to see someone fighting back instead of on the defensive especially someone who is clearly a smart and tenacious person!! This PPF will rue the day they issued that fake invoice.

    'the word on the street' (ok it's Facebook again I know it's not popular here but give it a chance !) that there is a huge Data protection case being heard either today or tomorrow for DPA breaches against an English parking firm that if sucessful may open the floodgates for a mass sequestration of the scumbags. So perhaps before sending it wait for the results so you can quote this on your claim form? Sorry I don't know further details but I'm sure the results will be posted once heard and known.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Jul 17, 8:56 PM
    • 48,965 Posts
    • 62,454 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ryan, you are a card, and very transparent. Saw through you when you posted about Barry Beavis a while back, matey.

    The more important series of DPA claims are the ones going on and being prepared quietly behind the scenes for people caused significant distress by this aggressive money-grabbing, shameful and utterly pointless industry.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-07-2017 at 8:59 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 2nd Aug 17, 4:00 PM
    • 101 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    Ryan, you are a card, and very transparent. Saw through you when you posted about Barry Beavis a while back, matey.

    The more important series of DPA claims are the ones going on and being prepared quietly behind the scenes for people caused significant distress by this aggressive money-grabbing, shameful and utterly pointless industry.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Excuse me but who do you think you are to throw disgusting accusations like that around? All you have done since I joined this website is try to bully me, presumably because you don't like that I know a lot more about Scottish parking matters than you do which goes against your "fountain of all knowledge" front. I respect your advice on England but you have a lot to learn about Scotland and you know it! I am not the type to be bullied especially when we are on the same side!

    I have put you on ignore now, so don't bother to harass me any further.

    The Deep, I hope you are making progress with your case.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 2nd Aug 17, 4:27 PM
    • 5,652 Posts
    • 7,305 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Excuse me but who do you think you are to throw disgusting accusations like that around? All you have done since I joined this website is try to bully me, presumably because you don't like that I know a lot more about Scottish parking matters than you do which goes against your "fountain of all knowledge" front. I respect your advice on England but you have a lot to learn about Scotland and you know it! I am not the type to be bullied especially when we are on the same side!

    I have put you on ignore now, so don't bother to harass me any further.

    The Deep, I hope you are making progress with your case.
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959
    It is a shame that with your so called knowledge, you did nothing
    to save Carli ????

    When you can show how you helped those in Scotland, come back here ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Aug 17, 6:00 PM
    • 6,849 Posts
    • 5,868 Thanks
    The Deep
    The Deep, I hope you are making progress with your case.

    It' coming along, here are a couple of drafts which I will post later this week

    LBA to APCOA

    This Letter Before Action is a claim for compensation for breaching my right to privacy by processing my data in breach of the Data Protection Act by pursuing me as a registered keeper on land covered by bye laws, contrary to the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

    As it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action may be necessary, I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

    APCOA has attempted to obtain monies from me as registered keeper to which it has no entitlement and has passed my private data to Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith Collections contrary to their Kadoe contract with the DVLA, and, despite being aware that any actions against me for alleged breaches of Railway Bye-laws should have been directed at either the owner or the driver of the vehicle by the land owner in a criminal court of law.

    I am claiming £500.00 compensation for the distress caused and the waste of my time, and unless this sum is received within fourteen days of the date of this letter, I will commence legal proceeding without further notice. Should you decide to pay, I shall not accerpt any confidentiality clause. .


    Listed below are the documents I intend to rely on in court.

    (deleted)

    I can confirm that I am willing to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts and would invite you to put forward any proposals in this regard. I look forward to hearing from you within the next 28 days.

    Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim.


    and to Trading Standards

    I wish to bring to your attention several attempts by APCOA Ltd, Wellington House 4-10, Uxbridge, UB 8 2XW, and their debt collectors. Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith to obtain from me monies to which they had no entitlement, using threat, lies, and misrepresenting the Law.

    This stems from a Parking Charge Notice issued by them to me last year for an alleged breach of their Terms and Conditions of parking at Tilehurst Station car park. I attach a copy of their Notice to Keeper, final acknowledgement of my appeal, and five debt collectors' letters

    The PCN was issued under Contract Law, but, as the land is covered by Railway Bye-Laws, Criminal Law applies, and a case can only be brought by the Train Operating Company in a Magistrates Court within six months. against the owner of driver. Registered Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4 does not apply.

    APCOA will know this, but they continue to issue thousands of these tickets to motorists at railway stations and ports and airports and many people are bullied into paying up. In fact, the whole industry is unregulated and this deceit is practised thousands of times a day throughout England and Wales by private parking companies

    It occurs to me that this may be a criminal offence aud and you might like to consider bringing a prosecution, in which case, I shall be delighted to help you in any way I can .


    Any comments gratefully received.
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-08-2017 at 6:11 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 9th Aug 17, 6:40 PM
    • 101 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    Do you have anything definitive that a parking firm cannot use contract law when bylaws are in place? That will be what trading standards will want to know. Without something from the powers that be backing up your claim I suggest you will get a fob off. You need specifics to pin them down.

    Also you should make it clear who actually issued the NTK and who the creditor is.

    Why are you only claiming £500 when £750 appears to be the going rate?

    Other than that i think you should fire it off and see what they do!
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 9th Aug 17, 6:46 PM
    • 101 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    It is a shame that with your so called knowledge, you did nothing
    to save Carli ????

    When you can show how you helped those in Scotland, come back here ???
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    What more could we do to help Carly after she received her legal aid granting her access to a very good defence team (who were complimented by the Sheriff in the final written Decree published on the official website?)

    I suspect if the nurses had the same legal aid they would have won their court case! Sadly Carly was up against it from the start and clearly the landowner had too much sway...
    Last edited by Ryandavis1959; 09-08-2017 at 6:51 PM.
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

98Posts Today

1,795Users online

Martin's Twitter