APCOA are very shy ....

RENEGADE_2

A response to APCOA (via Sirdan's comments though not addressed to him directly)

Sirdan wrote: »

Reply from Luton Airport :-

Dear **********,

..., there are however notable exceptions to this. Two notable ones are railways and aerodromes, we are in this case the lawful authority.

Wrong. The police at airports are the authority and unlike where Railway Byelaw 14 sets out the framework for parking on railways, no such legislation governs alleged breaches of parking terms on the airport - you're just a private enterprise out to make big money for yourselves and this is incommensurable with railway byelaw breaches in which a private parking company merely plays messenger boy if hired in the first place and with which magistrates ultimately deal.

Sirdan wrote: »

The towing charge is made to cover the costs (we use a third party) and the cost is £150 + vat

.
Bullѕhit. Firstly this doesn't authorise you to empound the motor and secondly, if you can analyse your so-called "cost", you know what you can do - sue your target. After all, if you're telling the truth, you'll have the symapthy from the judge? Right?

Sirdan wrote: »

...which hasn’t been increased for 3 years.

I'm not interested, I never asked for an annual history of fees. The fact that inflation itself goes up each year but your fee remains the same is very concerning when you claim "costs".

Sirdan wrote: »

The actual charge permitted by the Prescribed Sums Regulations is £200.

BS. The actual charge permitted by LAW (you know, that thing you don't obey) is ACTUAL LOSSES. If that exceeds £200 or even £2,000 then so be it, but unless you can prove the figure claimed, your fee is little more than a de facto penalty.

Kite2010 wrote: »

Do you really want unattended cars outside airports?

More of a security risk than anything else

Not my problem mate!

Sirdan

Renegade is of course quite correct The Railway Byelaws contain this enabling clause

"Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person."

Now can anyone , LLAO ,APCOA or maybe Arthur Daley show me the equivalent enabling clause in the Luton Airport Byelaws .....?

no ????

I thought not !!

and just to rub salt in ..

the Railway Byelaws also say :-

... shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle’s owner.


(iv) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person.

I can assure you there is no mention whatsoever on the Luton Airport towing notices of any Byelaws ...maybe that's because there is no such byelaw !!!

peter_the_piper

They are trying the old B.B.B. ploy,

taffy056

So who's going to be the first to sue them for clamping/towing a car without lawful authority ? And I know it's a waste of time, but wouldn't it be fun to ask the bpa and the dvla for their opinions ? After all they are an aos member doing this.

Coupon-mad

taffy056 wrote: »

So who's going to be the first to sue them for clamping/towing a car without lawful authority ? And I know it's a waste of time, but wouldn't it be fun to ask the bpa and the dvla for their opinions ? After all they are an aos member doing this.

Or to call the Police as clamping/towing on private land without lawful authority is now a criminal offence? No need to pay and sue.

taffy056

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Or to call the Police as clamping/towing on private land without lawful authority is now a criminal offence? No need to pay and sue.

But I think the police will be of the opinion of the airport having authority and won't get involved, so it will be down to the courts

HO87

I can think of a Common Law self-help principle they could make use of that would render the towing of vehicles and retention of them against payment of costs lawful (and not in breach of s.54 POFA) but seeing as they have nailed their colours to the mast by attempting to suggest that they have statutory power I'm disinclined to set out the details. So there!

@AD - Its all very well stating that parking/waiting in certain areas is an offence but if there is no accompanying power to immobilise/tow then there is no lawful authority as required by POFA.

As for the correspondent from Luton Airport suggesting that they are the lawful authority methinks someone is dabbling in an area in which he lacks expertise. In the case of s.54 POFA you cannot be the lawful authority you must have lawful authority granted by statute or secondary legislation such as with a byelaw.

However, we should not necessarily dismiss the powers available under the provisions of s.99 RTRA 1984 although there would have to be a specific order (Stat. Instrument) establishing LLAOL as an "authority" for the purposes of the Act. If this was the case I am surprised that the man from Luton has glossed over it. One wonders whether the whole vehicle removal issue is being driven (no pun intended) by APCOA rather than the airport?

jkdd77

HO87 wrote: »

I can think of a Common Law self-help principle they could make use of that would render the towing of vehicles and retention of them against payment of costs lawful (and not in breach of s.54 POFA) but seeing as they have nailed their colours to the mast by attempting to suggest that they have statutory power I'm disinclined to set out the details. So there!

If you are thinking of "distress damage feasant", the consensus among solicitors is that it would probably not apply to PPC towing (it definitely doesn't apply to clamping as per Arthur v Anker), and even if it did apply in the case of an actual trespass, the PPC could only hold the vehicle for payment of actual losses incurred (and not for an arbitrary ransom far in excess of the said losses).

I wonder if a private prosecution might be possible if the police refuse to act?

HO87

jkdd77 wrote: »

If you are thinking of "distress damage feasant", the consensus among solicitors is that it would probably not apply to PPC towing (it definitely doesn't apply to clamping as per Arthur v Anker), and even if it did apply in the case of an actual trespass, the PPC could only hold the vehicle for payment of actual losses incurred (and not for an arbitrary ransom far in excess of the said losses).

I wonder if a private prosecution might be possible if the police refuse to act?

You might think so but I couldn't possibly comment.

As for Arthur v Anker the comments made about distress damage feasant by the judges on the appeal are very useful in understanding its application. There would be nothing to stop a landowner using a contractor to tow a vehicle. However, only the actual costs could be recovered and any element of profit added in would be likely to render the amount demanded a penalty and therefore make it unenforceable. Taking that to its natural conclusion, it could be effectively argued that if the amount demanded was unenforceable then the removal of the vehicle in the first instance may well amount to conversion or, at least, tortious vehicle interference.

Civil proceedings would be likely to be far more effective. Trying to drag the police into the matter would be like drawing teeth and there is always the risk that CPS would simply take over the prosecution and promptly discontinue it.

As I have commented before on the subject there are a number of dissenting views and in other UK-linked Common Law jurisdictions a far less proscriptive approach has been adopted to the extent that the employment of ddf at locations where there are no warning signs is deemed entirely acceptable. Thankfully, not here.

Sirdan

However, we should not necessarily dismiss the powers available under the provisions of s.99 RTRA 1984 although there would have to be a specific order (Stat. Instrument) establishing LLAOL as an "authority" for the purposes of the Act. If this was the case I am surprised that the man from Luton has glossed over it. One wonders whether the whole vehicle removal issue is being driven (no pun intended) by APCOA rather than the airport?

Indeed Section 66 of The Airports Act 1986 may well apply but if that is the case why not say so ?
I'm sure LLAOL have not a clue but have taken APCOA's word that his is perfectly lawful ...hence the woolly reply from LLAO and more significantly a deafening silence when APCOA were sent the exact same question !
Hope LLAOL realise that it is they who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their agents on their land should any proceeding ensue !;)