Towed at the drop off at Luton airport

esmerobbo

RENEGADE wrote: »

The police don't draft the law, they are supposed to enforce it. I believe that unlike railway byelaws, no such statute exists to allow arbitrary penalising at airports,

A Police officer can have a vehicle removed under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 if they believe it is causing an obstruction from anywhere that is public or designated as such.

Regarding the fee charged that could be looked at but if the police or their agents seize or remove a car then there is always a fee to pay!

As regards APCOA's involvement their invoicing for parking at Luton may well be unenforceable, however if they are acting as agents for the Police as many private companies do the charges may well be legit.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the towing and the charges, as I posted earlier it is not too clever to leave a vehicle or anything else for that matter unattended at an Airport.

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

This is it. Nobody can have it both ways because the two principles conflict with one another. If a private enterprise is acting according to a statute then more regulation is legally required as with railway byelaws because this way, the operator is abusing a power devolved to its sector by making a gross profit for itself and for having seized property which was never above board even before October. Be that as it may, this is the precise behaviour that was outlawed by the recent bill.

So either the Airports Act 1986 lays down precise instructions as to what an operator can or cannot do. Unless it says that in this eventuality, the citizen's right to a trial before making payment is discarded and possession of his property is legal until he makes that payment and moreover that the payment may indeed exceed losses with no limit thus clearing the way for the operator is issue a de jure penalty, then I vehemently contend that Schedule 4 applies on airports.

Too many people seem to back down because the police won't help them. Cops are human beings and they make mistakes. For fear of getting involved where they shouldn't, their policy is that if not 100% certain, they leave it. That however doesn't change the law. This is the reason the OP MUST get legal advice from criminal lawyers. I say this because I am sure the money can be reclaimed but definitely not via the County Court. They'll say "criminal matter". The police can make arrests if prompted to by criminal experts who draw out the full picture to them.

It's really quite simple the Airports Act allows the Airport Operator to remove vehicles by virtue of The Road Traffic Regulations 1984 Section 99-102.
So towing seems to be being done with lawful authority, there is no POFA offence.
However IF that is what they are using to enable their towing operation then they may well be committing other offences by not fully compling with the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulations. Or to put it simply all the rules and appeal routes available when a council removes your vehicle should be applicable.

That said only Sections 99-102 of those regs apply for any other matters the roads are still private hence the private ticketing, the Airports Act does not enable an Airport Operator to issue statutory tickets.

So unusual tho it may seem they can have it both ways.
The only questionable part is the release fees and denial of proper appeal rights under RTR84.

However if you roll that up it could be argued that because the towing is non compliant with RTR84 then it is not being done with lawful authority ,so maybe POFA does apply.

If we look at the byelaws there is nothing covering towing etc etc

So if Luton Airport quote byelaws then I think the OP has got them bang to rights.


On a general note if airports fall foul of POFA I would expect the legislation to be amended PDQ because the airports supported by the Police will have a quite compelling arguement as to why unattended vehicles at airports should be removed.

LutonGirl

The airport's own website states "cars must not be left unattended" in that area. It's not the length of time you were there, it's the fact you got out of the car and left it.

interstellaflyer

OP, if you knew your friend would need help, why didn't you use the short stay car park, I'm damned sure it's cheaper than £180, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a PPC towing and impounding your car, we are talking airport and unattended vehicles are treated as a security risk.

Sirdan

interstellaflyer wrote: »

OP, if you knew your friend would need help, why didn't you use the short stay car park, I'm damned sure it's cheaper than £180, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a PPC towing and impounding your car, we are talking airport and unattended vehicles are treated as a security risk.

We digress slightly , this is a money saving site and security aside , we are exploring avenues for the OP to be able to claim their money back.
£180 is no way reflects true costs it is just extortion.

BTW what kind of idiot would tow a vehicle if they REALLY thought it contained a bomb ????

Rover_Driver

Sirdan wrote: »

This would allow the Airport operator to act under Sections 99-102 of The Road Traffic Regulations 1984 as they apply to a public road.

So it would appear that Apcoa have it both ways ..the roads are private so they can issue their fake £80 tickets AND yet they can still tow as if the road were public.

If APCOA were acting as agents for the airport operator as far as removing vehicles is concerned. Would they not be acting for the airport operator in the same way that some PPCs act for local authorites - the payments to, and the administration of, is dealt with by the local authority, not the PPC.

Sirdan

Rover_Driver wrote: »

If APCOA were acting as agents for the airport operator as far as removing vehicles is concerned. Would they not be acting for the airport operator in the same way that some PPCs act for local authorites - the payments to, and the administration is dealt with by the local authority, not the PPC.

Indeed and this is where the legislation is baffling because the "Airport Operator" is a private company not a "Local Authority" ..so it's difficult to see how the Airport Operator can be operating properly under the RTR84..if they use APCOA and that is who any appeals go to then they clearly aren't complying with the very legislation which MAY give them some claim to lawful authority to tow in the first place !

Def a job for a good lawyer , which I'm obviously not.

OP should def get Luton Airport to tell them what lawful authority they believe they are acting under and come back here for further advice , that would be a good starting point.

esmerobbo

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the charges. £180 seems high for a tow, I wonder if a parking charge was included in the fee? Now that may be something to look at!

jean232

Thank you all for the reply. I have contacted the APCOA in regards to the towing charge and the penalty that has been issued and they replied back by saying the following: "I’m afraid we are unable to assist you with your enquiry, as we only manage the pre-booking for London Luton Airport. Unfortunately you will need to contact Endeavour Vehicle Services directly to enquire further."

Endeavour Vehicle Services is a private company based in Essex and definitely is not and does not act as a lawful Authority. Having said so, the police was not involved in this matter.

If the fact of towing my car away was in the purpose of preventing terrorism or suspected bomb threat, I would have imagined special forces to be involved and area to be secured. Clearly that was not the case as they were two amateur civilians issuing a £180 release fine in order to most probably have a commission from their privately owned company. That was clear from the fact that I have been asked to pay and then contact their office to complain.

The fine represented only a release fee as I had to pay a £1 charge to leave the parking premises as that was the charge for 10 minutes.

I might have committed an offence by leaving my car unattended but I do not believe it was neither rightful nor lawful to be punished by £180, have the fine exercised by an unlawful authority, being denied of my right for an appeal, having to pay an additional £1 release fee and breaching the Protection of Freedom Acts2012.

I will contact the company again and will let you know of the outcome as I would not like to hear of anyone being unfairly treated again at that drop off zone.

RENEGADE_2

I have been away, abroad again, since Saturday and have just returned. I recall my last post but it seems to have been removed. Perhaps somebody detected a level of extremism but I meant every word.

Bottom line
Security threat? Police problem. End of story. APCOA is not the bomb squad. If a lunatic is going to strike, he will do so anyway and whoever messes about with the vehicle with the intention of releasing it upon payment is clearly the path of least resistance should there be an explosion. I also fail to make the connection between unattended cars posing threats in prohibited areas and unattended cars posing threats whilst left inside car parks within marked bays. The question of security is not an issue so we should not revisit that matter.


The issue
Contorversial as clamping and towing were even prior to the new laws (seizure of property until unsanctioned penalty is paid in accordance with predrafted terms not negotiated by all parties), there is no more a devolving of enforcement powers from the Home Office to the private sector at airports than there is to matchday stewards at designated sporting events. As at football matches where there is a police presence at the venue (funded mainly by home club) and the police have one task the stewards have theirs, the police are also present at airports. Often they are also armed. Where there arise a need to transfer statutory enforcement to private enterprises, the operation would be regulated and it would be known that the private enterprise is working as a client of the police and not the operator.

NOWHERE within the relevant acts have private companies been granted a disclaimer that enables them to take the law into their own lands. So a car which is blocking may indeed be moved though only to a more convenient spot, such as inside the car park. This thread is not about the so-called "self help" factor which legalises the towing, it is about the impounding of the vehicle - how will APCOA justify the need to have isolated the vehicle by storing it in a compound from which the owner may not easily redeem it? If their service carried a fee which were legal, how would they justify holding onto the property until that fee is paid in light of there being ample laws that ensure a legitimate charge will be paid (ie. when did the council ever need to seize a car simply because the valid ticket expired ten minutes ago and there is no sign of the driver)? And most of all, how do they justify £180?

But the biggest question of all is: WHO is going to deal with it? Magistrates or County Court? With such ambiguity, I can see them playing "pass the buck". Be that as it may, whichever legislation is in place to govern over APCOA, those are your questions with which they need to be interrogated either by you in a County Court, or by the prosecution before magistrates.

Good luck Jean, and don't let it defeat you.