Apoca parking fine Luton Airport info needed please

bazster

Bingo!

It clearly states that the registered keeper is liable if he/she fails to identify the driver! Wrong, wrong, oh-so-very-wrong! Registered keeper liability applies only to parking, and you never parked!

Oh ho ho, this so needs to go to the DVLA! Pleeeze, pleeeze say that you'll let taffy explain to you where to send it and what to say about it! Or privately supply taffy with your details and let him do it on your behalf, with your permission!

ManxRed

You see, four posts later and my memory's gone again!

taffy056

bazster wrote: »

Bingo!

It clearly states that the registered keeper is liable if he/she fails to identify the driver! Wrong, wrong, oh-so-very-wrong! Registered keeper liability applies only to parking, and you never parked!

Oh ho ho, this so needs to go to the DVLA! Pleeeze, pleeeze say that you'll let taffy explain to you where to send it and what to say about it! Or privately supply taffy with your details and let him do it on your behalf, with your permission!

This is on its way to Mike Butler via the DVLA this evening thanks very much :T

daveyjp

They also state POPLA is the final avenue of recourse, suggesting once you have gone through that the 'debt' is due. Wrong, wrong and thrice wrong.

Download_Dave

bazster wrote: »

Bingo!

It clearly states that the registered keeper is liable if he/she fails to identify the driver! Wrong, wrong, oh-so-very-wrong! Registered keeper liability applies only to parking, and you never parked!

Oh ho ho, this so needs to go to the DVLA! Pleeeze, pleeeze say that you'll let taffy explain to you where to send it and what to say about it! Or privately supply taffy with your details and let him do it on your behalf, with your permission!

A bit over my head regarding the legality of the wording but if Taffy (whoever Taffy may be) seriously thinks the wording is out of order and contravenes any regulations then I'm happy to work with Taffy to highlight this to the DVLA as you suggest.

Download_Dave

taffy056 wrote: »

This is on its way to Mike Butler via the DVLA this evening thanks very much :T

Ah !! so you are the now infamous TAFFY. Hello to you.

Feel free to use the attached image as required.

RENEGADE_2

Hi Dave. ManxRed made an interesting point but it can be a bit hard to follow for the untrained, so I'll explain it.

Part of his statement goes:
they may pursue the registered keeper with an unenforceable invoice, instead of pursuing the driver with an unenforceable invoice.

So they can go for the keeper? Read it again and take note of bold type:
they may pursue the registered keeper with an unenforceable invoice, instead of pursuing the driver with an unenforceable invoice.

It means that it cannot go through court successfully. In any case, your matter was not even a parking affair, so APCOA shouldn't even be going down this Schedule 4 route which is the crux of this month's legal changes.

Bottom line: your action cost Luton Airport £0.00, therefore the maximum anyone can demand is the very same £0.00. Ignore them.

Download_Dave

RENEGADE wrote: »

Hi Dave. ManxRed made an interesting point but it can be a bit hard to follow for the untrained, so I'll explain it.

Part of his statement goes:
they may pursue the registered keeper with an unenforceable invoice, instead of pursuing the driver with an unenforceable invoice.

So they can go for the keeper? Read it again and take note of bold type:
they may pursue the registered keeper with an unenforceable invoice, instead of pursuing the driver with an unenforceable invoice.

It means that it cannot go through court successfully. In any case, your matter was not even a parking affair, so APCOA shouldn't even be going down this Schedule 4 route which is the crux of this month's legal changes.

Bottom line: your action cost Luton Airport £0.00, therefore the maximum anyone can demand is the very same £0.00. Ignore them.

Thanks Renegade, I've made a note in my diary to ignore them, and when I have finished ignoring them, ignore them some more. :beer:

The_Slithy_Tove

Download_Dave wrote: »

As promised here is a scan of the letter from APCOA, I have deleted all identifying info. I have also realised they have entered the incorrect date and time of the alleged offence on this letter too.

i46.tinypic.com/2v1b6fl.jpg

Edit : Ah can't add links with being a new user so you will need to add http:// before the link above

FAIL!


As well as it not being a Parking contravention, and thus falling outside the scope of the POFA, even if it was, the notice fails in a number of places:

• Doesn't show the period of parking
• It's got the 28-day period wrong
• Probably more if I looked harder

Worth sending in a pathetic appeal to APCOA, which will be rejected, and then going on to POPLA. They cannot hold the RK liable for several reasons.

RENEGADE_2

That is one thing, if you go down the "appeal" route, you can preside over a nice little APCOA binding bill for £32 to POPLA. I quote the word "appeal" because you shouldn't use that word in any document. Don't let them think you accede to their authority. Your posts must be a rejetion of the illicit demand.