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
    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 7th Sep 17, 6:28 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 7Thanks
    mzed005
    PCN from APCOA Birmingham airport
    • #1
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:28 PM
    PCN from APCOA Birmingham airport 7th Sep 17 at 6:28 PM
    Hi all,

    Apologies in advance as this post might be a bit long.

    I received a PCN from APCOA recently to which I replied with the following by looking in this forum. The car was parked for around 15 seconds just before the layby where I think Ibis hotel is

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Yours faithfully,
    xyz

    I've just received a reply this morning with the following:

    Dear xxxx
    POPLA Verification Number: xxxxx
    Thank you for your appeal received 2017 against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us to you on 2017. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise your appeal has been unsuccessful on this occasion.
    You were issued a notice having received an allegation of contravention at Birmingham International Airport. Having investigated further, we have found that your vehicle was pictured in breach of the terms set by Birmingham International Airport. The vehicle was parked in the hotel drop off lay-by but the passenger being picked up does not appear to have entered the hotel. As you have failed to enter the designated pickup and drop off zone or short term car park we would therefore have to advise that the parking charge notice has been correctly issued to you. The lay-by outside the hotel is clearly designated as “hotel drop off only” as shown in the image below.
    As per the images below your vehicle would have also had to pass a no stopping at any time sign, there are over 20 signs around Birmingham International Airport advising drivers of areas which you are not able to stop in.
    pictures
    Whilst we appreciate the points mentioned in your letter, however they do not justify the cancellation of the notice, as a driver it is your responsibility to make sure you follow the instruction on the signage.
    As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the car park we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practice, and are therefore not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.
    Therefore you now have a number of options:
    1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted price of £50.00 within 14 days.
    Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will increase to £100.00.
    APCOA Parking in the UK comprises the following companies. APCOA Parking Holdings (UK) Limited, Registered No. 05163792, APCOA Parking (UK)
    Limited, Registered No. 02572947, APCOA Parking Services (UK) Limited, Registered No. 02492280, APCOA Facilities Management (UK) Limited, Registered No. 02352447, APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Limited, Registered No. 03481526. All these companies are registered in England and Wales and their registered offices are at Wellington House, 4 – 10 Cowley Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 2XW.

    www apcoa
    You can pay by the following methods;
    By Post Send a cheque or postal order crossed and made payable to APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd to:
    APCOA PARKING, PO BOX 222,
    LOWTON WAY, HELLABY

    SHEFFIELD S98 1NX
    By Phone 0345 301 1151
    2. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure, to make an appeal to POPLA ..........

    I have the POPLA code and i'm currently having a look on the forum on the bits I need for the POPLA appeal. Will post a draft shortly and if you all can let me know how it is I would appreciate it
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Sep 17, 6:31 PM
    • 16,504 Posts
    • 20,667 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:31 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:31 PM
    just find one of the recent BHX APCOA POPLA APPEAL examples on here by others caught out in a similar fashion, then plagiarise it by copying it , pasting it and adapting it to suit

    a quick proof read and it should be ready to upload to popla using OTHER on their site and attaching it


    CR APCOA WILL THROW IN THE TOWEL SHORTLY AFTER !!

    welll done for getting this far by doing your own research

    ps:- I notice that in the above they have assumed that you are the driver, even though the appeal was as keeper, so stay as keeper and no naming the driver , especially as bylaws apply
    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
    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 7th Sep 17, 7:12 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mzed005
    • #3
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:12 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:12 PM
    Thanks for your advice, right here it goes....

    POPLA Ref xxxxx
    APCOA Parking PCN no xxxxx
    A notice to keeper was issued on 2017 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxx) on 2017 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    1) APCOA not using POFA 2012 - Byelaws
    2) Airport Act 1986
    3) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
    5) 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)
    6) Misleading and unclear signage
    7) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
    8 Photo evidence appears doctored
    9) Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and Breakdown of loss of business

    1) From APCOA’s rejection to my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

    2) Airport bylaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.
    Airport Act 1986
    65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.
    Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say thatbyelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

    3) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.
    The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

    4) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered bystatutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
    POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016 that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
    ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

    5) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLAmust 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.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLAon numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    Understanding keeper liability
    “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."
    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 5 above.

    6) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.
    I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."
    The photographic evidence of the signage supplied by APCOA appears to be located within a car park next to a building and is therefore deficient in demonstrating compliance with the above requirements.
    I contend that in order for a motorist to read and understand the content of the signage they would need to stop to study it. Any attempt to read and understand the signage whilst driving at the prevailing speed limit would compromise their ability to drive safely. It is clearly unreasonable for a motorist to have to breach the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure in order to acquaint themselves with those terms and conditions.
    Furthermore, I contend that APCOA’s assertion that no stopping is allowed at any time on a red route is inconsistent with motorists’ obligations under the Highway Code. There are numerous circumstances in which a motorist would be obliged to stop; for example following a road traffic accident, break down, obstructions or pedestrians crossing. The photographic evidence shows that the vehicle in question had stopped but does not offer factual proof of the reason.

    7) 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 Ltd’s 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 that APCOA Parking Ltd 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 scrutinizes 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.

    8) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.
    I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

    9) The amount demanded doesn’t represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    The amount demanded doesn’t represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term nor does it reflect any material damage to Birmingham airport or APCOA. The fact that the charge is none-itemized and given as a round figure to the maximum amount allowed (also with the minimum amount of discount offered for payment within 14 days) under the AOS Code of Practice (Schedule 5) means that this charge can only be interpreted as quite literally no-more than a disguised penalty. Which has been issued in the form of a misleading un-solicited invoice with the aim of maximizing revenue for APCOA.
    If the charge is an attempt at gaining compensation for a loss to the businesses then it is not commercially justified and has no basis in law to be claimed. The first 10 minutes in the Birmingham Airport pick up / drop off car park is £1; the alleged contravention appeared to last seconds and APCOA are demanding payment of £100 for what would have been a charge of £1. Therefore there has been no significant loss to the business.
    Therefore the parking charge is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. I wish to see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note: the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting an IAS defense. Also losses must not include normal overheads costs incurred by APCOA in the running the business or the manning of the airport premises.
    Furthermore APCOA have already previously lost appeals on this point ‘APCOA v Bycroft’ & ‘APCOA v Oughton’. Both cases were at Birmingham airport and both were for stopping momentarily as with this allegation and yet again APCOA have failed to provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore on this point alone there can be no justification for rejection of this appeal.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 7:20 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,107 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:20 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:20 PM
    9) Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and Breakdown of loss of business
    Remove anything that talks about GPEOL. POPLA just go into 'Beavis case mode'. Delete #9.

    Apart from that, good appeal!

    Maybe add the extra bit from the 'no landowner authority' template from Post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, which quotes in full section 7.3 of the BPA CoP, setting out what a landowner contract must include. That puts them to prove all the points. You could replace your point 7 with the POPLA 'no landowner authority' template from the NEWBIES thread, instead, because it is stronger.

    And as well as uploading the appeal under OTHER, also upload the byelaws, don't leave it open to the PPC just saying 'byelaws don't apply here' and POPLA believing them, because an appellant hasn't actually put the byelaws in as evidence. Byelaws are easily Googled, public documents.

    But be confident - we ALWAYS beat APCOA and they normally scurry away with 'no contest'!
    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.

    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 7th Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mzed005
    • #5
    • 7th Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Sep 17, 9:09 PM
    Hi,


    I've removed point 9 and replaced point 7 with "No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice"


    Does this look ok for me to send now? I understood the bit where I need to upload the appeal under "other" but wasn't sure about the last bit about uploading the byelaws? do I need to google something and upload something about "byelaws"


    Many thanks to all who have given advice on this


    Thanks


    POPLA Ref xxxxx
    APCOA Parking PCN no xxxxx
    A notice to keeper was issued on 2017 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxx) on 2017 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    1) APCOA not using POFA 2012 - Byelaws
    2) Airport Act 1986
    3) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
    5) 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)
    6) Misleading and unclear signage
    7) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    8 Photo evidence appears doctored

    1) From APCOA’s rejection to my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

    2) Airport bylaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.
    Airport Act 1986
    65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.
    Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say thatbyelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

    3) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.
    The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

    4) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered bystatutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
    POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016 that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
    ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

    5) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLAmust 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.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLAon numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    Understanding keeper liability
    “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."
    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 5 above.

    6) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.
    I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."
    The photographic evidence of the signage supplied by APCOA appears to be located within a car park next to a building and is therefore deficient in demonstrating compliance with the above requirements.
    I contend that in order for a motorist to read and understand the content of the signage they would need to stop to study it. Any attempt to read and understand the signage whilst driving at the prevailing speed limit would compromise their ability to drive safely. It is clearly unreasonable for a motorist to have to breach the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure in order to acquaint themselves with those terms and conditions.
    Furthermore, I contend that APCOA’s assertion that no stopping is allowed at any time on a red route is inconsistent with motorists’ obligations under the Highway Code. There are numerous circumstances in which a motorist would be obliged to stop; for example following a road traffic accident, break down, obstructions or pedestrians crossing. The photographic evidence shows that the vehicle in question had stopped but does not offer factual proof of the reason.

    7) As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I 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 Parking Charge 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).
    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    8) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.
    I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 9:22 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,107 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 17, 9:22 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 17, 9:22 PM
    wasn't sure about the last bit about uploading the byelaws? do I need to google something and upload something about "byelaws"
    When you appeal online to POPLA you can upload more than one PDF. In your case, one is your appeal (and the above is fine) and the second thing is the Byelaws themselves.

    I did say:
    actually put the byelaws in as evidence. Byelaws are easily Googled, public documents.
    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.

    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 7th Sep 17, 10:28 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mzed005
    • #7
    • 7th Sep 17, 10:28 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Sep 17, 10:28 PM
    Ok thanks for that. I think I've found a pdf document about the byelaws for the airport


    Looks like the POPLA verification code given to me is incorrect, i'm getting the following message on the POPLA website "The number you entered appears to be invalid or may have expired. Please contact the private parking operator. "
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 11:36 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,107 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 11:36 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 11:36 PM
    Interesting - complain to the BPA about this, as you only got the code today:

    aos@britishparking.co.uk
    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.

    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 8th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mzed005
    • #9
    • 8th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    • #9
    • 8th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    Thanks for that, I've emailed them.


    Should I send an email to APCOA about the invalid POPLA code they have given?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Sep 17, 10:24 AM
    • 7,376 Posts
    • 6,423 Thanks
    The Deep
    Of course you should, how else will you be able too appeal.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 8th Sep 17, 3:47 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mzed005
    Thanks,
    Did email them earlier so just waiting to hear back from them
    • mzed005
    • By mzed005 15th Sep 17, 12:48 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    mzed005
    Hi all,
    Had an email from BPA yesterday and mentioned they contacted APCOA and they gave an incorrect POPLA code to me but they gave a POPLA code to BPA to give to me.
    I used the POPLA code and submitted the letter and the byelaws document. Just had an email back from POPLA

    "Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference .

    APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team

    A big thank you to all that gave advice, you all are doing a brilliant job
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 12:11 AM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,107 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hahahaha - that was easy!
    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.

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

669Posts Today

5,140Users online

Martin's Twitter