APCOA 02-Dropping off / Picking up charge notice

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

''If you care to read these paragraphs, you will see that your NTK to me fell outside this strict timescale. But I suspect that you probably knew this and are hoping I didn't. Sorry to disappoint.''

I like sarky replies to PPCs! Nice one! :T:T

Coupon-mad

Xoriguer wrote: »

I

I am about to complain to the DVLA about the case. Which terms do you think are the most appropriate for this?

Broadsword's letters here include a very very strong DVLA complaint, simple to do by email:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80531#

Broadsword is an expert on pepipoo with a lot of clout with the DVLA. He knows his stuff!

The_Slithy_Tove

Stroma wrote: »

I think the indication that their Notice to Keeper is in breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is enough, if they don't know what complies with pofa 2012 they shouldn't be a parking company its that simple!

Though, as the chief adjudicator of POPLA has pointed out, airport raods are not normally covered by POFA anyway, as they are subject to statutory authority (Byelaws). Much discussion on whether the roads there are subject to such byelaws here.

Coupon-mad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Though, as the chief adjudicator of POPLA has pointed out, airport raods are not normally covered by POFA anyway, as they are subject to statutory authority (Byelaws). Much discussion on whether the roads there are subject to such byelaws here.

It's another good point to throw in at POPLA with any Airport or Railway issued fake PCNs.

No work needed by the motorist whatsoever to find out of course. We can just devise a paragraph that puts the PPC to prove to POPLA that the area in question is NOT subject to byelaws and is therefore 'private land' as defined in the POF Act, otherwise registered keeper liability doesn't apply.

HO87

As C-M has suggested, should it come to a POPLA appeal then putting APCOA to strict proof that the relevant land was not subject to one or other of the provisions of para. 3(1) of Sch. 4 would be sufficient to bring the whole show down. They cannot have it all ways. Either the land isn't covered by any of the above provisions and their removal/clamping of vehicles is unlawful or the land is covered by them and their pursuit of keepers per POFA is baseless.

Xoriguer

Hi all,

I am only posting this to show that it is possible to beat those cowboys, so keep fighting their unlawful manners.

My reply from the experts in this forum worked like charm and my charge notice has been cancelled.

Can't post image but letter: pvijv5zhz

Best regards
Xoriguer

Xoriguer

Xoriguer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am only posting this to show that it is possible to beat those cowboys, so keep fighting their unlawful manners.

My reply from the experts in this forum worked like charm and my charge notice has been cancelled.

Can't post image but letter: pvijv5zhz

Best regards
Xoriguer

Letter is at postimg site

Kite2010

If the size of the font used on the signs is the same size as the APCOA "managed" First Great Western car-parks than it will be laughed out of court, as how can you enter a contract without being able to read them.

(And dear APCOA, "leaving site" is a very good term to have on a railway station car-park sign)

Stroma

Xoriguer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am only posting this to show that it is possible to beat those cowboys, so keep fighting their unlawful manners.

My reply from the experts in this forum worked like charm and my charge notice has been cancelled.

Can't post image but letter: pvijv5zhz

Best regards
Xoriguer

Well done to you and thanks for coming back to confirm this. If you drop the http part of the link you post it here

The_Slithy_Tove

Xoriguer wrote: »

Can't post image but letter: pvijv5zhz
Letter is at postimg site

Going to need to do a lot better than that if you expect anyone to find it. How about a URL, even an edited one if you can't post links?