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
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 8th Aug 17, 2:44 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Leesh93
    Parking fine Victoria Train Station Manchester
    • #1
    • 8th Aug 17, 2:44 AM
    Parking fine Victoria Train Station Manchester 8th Aug 17 at 2:44 AM
    Hi Guys,

    Any help would be appreciated with the following:

    1. The driver did not park within a bay, however the signage was very small - there was no one being blocked
    2. NTK was received after 40 days - ticket was placed on the car
    3. There was no records available to ever pay the parking fine or view the images online. There is still no online information avaible
    4. Driver has an image of another car parked in the exact same position who was there before me and left after however no ticket was issued
    Last edited by Leesh93; 08-08-2017 at 6:48 AM.
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Aug 17, 3:45 AM
    • 451 Posts
    • 540 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 8th Aug 17, 3:45 AM
    • #2
    • 8th Aug 17, 3:45 AM
    Well first off you havent read other threads.
    DO NOT ID THE DRIVER

    EDIT your post. Call the driver "the driver" and NOTHING more.

    Was a ticket placed on the car? If so then 40 days is fine. If not, it is way to late
    Theyre not obliged to provide you with anything at all apart from teh Notice to Keeper. So 3 is irrelevant.

    4) is irrelevant as well. No legitimate expectation that i know of on private land. You also dont know that a ticket wasnt issued - someone could have taken it off the windscreen.
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 9th Aug 17, 1:21 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    • #3
    • 9th Aug 17, 1:21 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Aug 17, 1:21 PM
    Thankyou for your response. I just want to ensure the following is an appropriate response as I have made a slight adjustment:


    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No.

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car
    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers in the surrounding are as presented on the images provided by yourself.
    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge. I would also like to add that since there are relevant bylaws that apply at this location, it is non relevant land as defined by the POFA 2012, therefore there is no liability towards the keeper.
    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    (My name and address)
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Aug 17, 1:38 PM
    • 32,726 Posts
    • 16,745 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #4
    • 9th Aug 17, 1:38 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Aug 17, 1:38 PM
    That template appeal has been designed to ensure you get a POPLA code.


    You adjust it at your own risk!
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 6th Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    • #5
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    Hi,

    As the keeper of the car I used the required appeal template without the changes. As expected it was rejected.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Sep 17, 11:05 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:05 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:05 PM
    draft a popla appeal then , based on similar railway station appeals from this year only

    try INDIGO threads
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 6th Sep 17, 11:23 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    • #7
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:23 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:23 PM
    Hi,

    As the keeper of the car I used the required appeal template without the changes. As expected it was rejected and POPLA code was received

    Images were taken of the signage within the car park in question which were insufficient at the time have since been replaced. Will this have any effect on the appeal?

    Also the time in question on the NTK does not match the original PCN will this have any effect?

    I just wanted to run these questions by you guys before drafting the appeal
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 1:59 AM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:59 AM
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:59 AM
    Images were taken of the signage within the car park in question which were insufficient at the time have since been replaced. Will this have any effect on the appeal?
    No, not really.

    Also the time in question on the NTK does not match the original PCN will this have any effect?
    Yes, that's worth including!
    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.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Sep 17, 9:07 AM
    • 6,997 Posts
    • 6,066 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 7th Sep 17, 9:07 AM
    • #9
    • 7th Sep 17, 9:07 AM
    Never mind Beavis, signs etc., it's APCOA, it's bye laws, it's a slam dunk win at PoPLA, the PPC will not contest the appeal. Here is one I made earlier.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=133

    post 2659

    If they involve debt collectors they may have used your DVLA data inappropriately and, could be open to a claim under the DPA. Awards of up to £750 are being handed down by the courts. Read this

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/
    Last edited by The Deep; 07-09-2017 at 9:34 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 7th Sep 17, 7:37 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    Popla appeal
    Thank you,

    I have constructed the following POPLA appeal using the template. I have added the additional points regarding signage, however, if you think it will not help the case then I shall remove it. Any help would be appreciated.

    *with reference to the signs shall I use the entire template given?

    I will add the necessary imagery and save this as a PDF when all feedback has been received. Thank you all.

    I believe the PCN was issued wrongly and unlawfully for the following reasons:
    1. No Breach of Byelaws
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    3. Insufficient signs

    1. No Breach of Byelaws
    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 2012 (PoFA), under which it states the charge has not been issued.
    Under Schedule 4 of PoFA it states that:
    “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)…(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    The DVLAs KADOE contract is the enabling mechanism for the DVLA to release data to private parking companies. It states that they can only use the data released to seek recovery from the driver, or the keeper if the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is used, which as previously stated by APCOA in their correspondence it is not.
    As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this PoFA Act does not apply under Byelaws. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details, as they cannot infer the keeper has any liability.
    3. Insufficient Signs
    The car park in question has a lack of clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. (Please see attached images)

    Additionally the timings at which the car was seen conflict on the NTK and PCN as stated by APCOA. Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone, be it driver, keeper, or owner is confusing. It started at £50/85, and later came back to £50, rising to £85 if not paid. Do they not know how much they want? There is no consistency within their documentation.

    Yours Sincerely,
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Sep 17, 8:13 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    seems too short and not enough "meat" to me

    try basing it on this winning one

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644410

    remove anything irrelevant , like hire car etc (if not applicable)

    add any additional points that you wish to make that arent in it

    ie:- adapt it
    Last edited by Redx; 08-09-2017 at 6:27 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 8th Sep 17, 4:10 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    Popla appeal revised
    Please see the revised POPLA appeal below. Any additional help would be fantastic:

    A Notice To Keeper/ Owner was issued on the 02/08/2017 by myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question for the alleged contravention that occurred on 23/06/2017. I am submitting this appeal as the registered keepers and would be grateful if you would please take my appeal into consideration for the following reasons:
    I believe the PCN was issued wrongly and unlawfully for the following reasons:
    1. No Breach of Railway Byelaws
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
    4. Misleading/ Unclear Signage


    1. No Breach of Byelaws
    From their rejection of my initial appeal, 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 2012 (PoFA), under which it states the charge has not been issued.
    Under Schedule 4 of PoFA it states that:
    “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)…(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”. (4) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).
    As I am the registered keeper, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be legally liable, as APCOA is not using or complying with Schedule 4, PoFA. The burden of proof therefore rests with the operator I ask whom to provide strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details, as they cannot infer the keeper has any liability.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    The DVLAs Kadoe contract is the enabling mechanism for the DVLA to release data to private parking companies. It states that they can only use the data released to seek recovery from the driver, or the keeper if the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is used, which as previously stated by APCOA in their correspondence it is not. POPOLA must therefore first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
    Furthermore, should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows: popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2
    I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
    (4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point above.
    3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
    I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, I therefore require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    I contend that APCOA is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.
    I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
    4. Misleading/ Unclear Signage
    APCOA states in their correspondence: “The given instructions and conditions of entry displayed upon all entry and exit routes.” However this is not the case as seen from the imagery attached, the car park in question has a lack of clear signage, which is too high to be seen to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. (Please see attached images).
    The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of BPA Code of Practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required. The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, that entrance signage: “must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”
    Thereofre, there was no valid contract formed between APCOA and the driver. There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

    For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home “so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it” and agreed terms. I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the ‘fine’ that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The sign upon entering Manchester Victoria railway station car park does not even mention the amount of the parking charge at all, which is in breach of 2(3) of schedule 4 of the POFA and contrary to the BPA code of practice. Upon inspection of another sign elsewhere in the car park, the terms of the ‘fine’ are in very small typeface which therefore means that this sign is not clear or prominent enough to form any contract with a driver before parking. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.

    Additionally under section 36 (a)(5) of the BPAs code of practice “the details of the unauthorised parking event, including the place, date and time” the timings at which the car was seen conflict on the NTK and PCN as stated by APCOA.
    Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone, be it driver, keeper, or owner is confusing. It started at £50/85, and later came back to £50, rising to £85 if not paid. Do they not know how much they want? There is no consistency within their documentation.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Sep 17, 6:33 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    needs proof reading as there are several mistakes in it (by myself should be TO myself)

    in point 2) a point 4) is also used

    and some of the above is duplicated about not identifying the driver

    plus spelling mistakes like the word THEREFORE and POPLA not popola

    so a good start but needs some work yet, even if it isnt given any extra appeal points
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 13th Sep 17, 4:55 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    Success!
    Hi All,

    Thankyou so much for your help. My appeal has been successful. Please see below for the final appeal sent for anyone else's future reference.

    Thankyou again.


    Dear Sir/ Madam,

    I refer to the PCN issued by the operator APCOA on 23/06/2017
    POPLA Ref:
    APOCA PCN Ref:

    A Notice to Keeper/ Owner was issued on the 02/08/2017 to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question for the alleged contravention that occurred on 23/06/2017. I am submitting this appeal as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please take my appeal into consideration for the following reasons:
    I believe the PCN was issued wrongly and unlawfully for the following reasons:
    1. No Breach of Railway Byelaws
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
    4. Misleading/ Unclear

    1. No Breach of Byelaws
    From their rejection of my initial appeal, 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 2012 (PoFA), under which it states the charge has not been issued.
    Under Schedule 4 of PoFA it states that:
    “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)…(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”. (4) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).
    As I am the registered keeper, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be legally liable, as APCOA is not using or complying with Schedule 4, PoFA. The burden of proof therefore rests with the operator I ask whom to provide strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details, as they cannot infer the keeper has any liability.
    2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
    I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltds’ lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA. I contend
    2/4
    that APCOA is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.
    I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.
    3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
    The DVLAs Kadoe contract is the enabling mechanism for the DVLA to release data to private parking companies. It states that they can only use the data released to seek recovery from the driver, or the keeper if the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is used, which as previously stated by APCOA in their correspondence it is not. POPLA must therefore first consider whether they are confident that the assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
    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 relevant.
    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.
    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (Ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point above.
    Furthermore, should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLAs’ attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLAs’ 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keepers’ right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA’s assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows: popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2
    3/4
    I draw POPLAs’ particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    4. Misleading/ Unclear
    (A) Signage
    APCOA states in their correspondence: “The given instructions and conditions of entry displayed upon all entry and exit routes.” However this is not the case as seen from the imagery attached, the car park in question has a lack of clear signage, which is too high to be seen to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. (See Images Below).




    The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of BPA Code of Practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required. The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, that entrance signage: “must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.” Therefore, there was no valid contract formed between APCOA and the driver. There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

    For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home “so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it” and agreed terms. I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the ‘fine’ that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The sign upon entering Manchester Victoria railway station car park does not even mention the amount of the
    4/4
    parking charge at all, which is in breach of 2(3) of schedule 4 of the POFA and contrary to the BPA code of practice. Upon inspection of another sign elsewhere in the car park, the terms of the ‘fine’ are in very small typeface which therefore means that this sign is not clear or prominent enough to form any contract with a driver before parking. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.
    I would refer you to Excel v Martin Cutts where the judge disallowed the claim due to poor signs.

    (B) Misleading Bay Marking
    Upon further visits to the car park in question it is clear that the spaces are poorly marked. The pictures below, taken in the last few weeks, show vehicles parked in unmarked bays. APCOA is well aware that drivers are using these areas yet fail to show adequate signage which would prevent any misinterpretation (See Images Below).





    It is impossible to see how either are sufficiently prominent enough to form a contract.
    Additionally under section 36 (a) (5) of the BPAs code of practice “the details of the unauthorised parking event, including the place, date and time” the timings at which the car was seen conflict on the NTK and PCN as stated by APCOA.
    Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone, be it driver, keeper, or owner is confusing. It started at £50/85, and later came back to £50, rising to £85 if not paid. Do they not know how much they want? There is no consistency within their documentation.
    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

    Yours Faithfully,
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Sep 17, 5:24 PM
    • 451 Posts
    • 540 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Did APCOA fail to contest?
    Congrats
    • Leesh93
    • By Leesh93 13th Sep 17, 7:27 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Leesh93
    Success
    Hi,

    Yes they chose not to contest which is great news.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Sep 17, 7:34 PM
    • 15,486 Posts
    • 19,571 Thanks
    Redx
    always the same, they dont like well constructed popla appeals or trying to justify their actions and then lose at popla costing almost £28 etc

    well done
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
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

347Posts Today

3,565Users online

Martin's Twitter