Apcoa luton airport

symbolUK

Hi, what an amazing forum, I got sidetracked and have spent hours reading it!

A quick question:

I received an PCN from APCOA at Luton Airport for "02-Dropping off /Picking up outsaide of a designated parking area"
Not unusual occurance from what I have been reading on the forums!

However, putting aside the obvious useless mistakes they have made in their letter as pointed out by many already on here, the date of the airport visit was 21/06/13 and the PNC is dated 10/07/13.
Now my by reckoning that is more than the 14 days timeframe they have to write to RK that I keep reading about.

So the question is do I very simply use this one fact to ask them to cancel it, is it enough, or should I use some of the other valid points (POFA not applying etc) also?

Thanks is advance.

Coupon-mad

Yepyepyep! Good reading of the current threads, you got it. Just appeal on the basis that the Notice was too late to be compliant. There's a template somewhere written by Broadsword on pepipoo I think, a strong rebuttal written for CEL but which can be adapted for any operator.

Make sure if they reject that you get our help at POPLA stage to write a winning appeal.

Welcome to MSE, wish every first post was like yours! Now see what else MSE has to offer as the parking forum is just the tip of the iceberg!

Stroma

Send this to them

Ref

Dear ACPOA


In reference to your Notice to Keeper dated xxxxx , you are in breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as your are out of time. So please cancel your invoice or forward a popla verification code to appeal independently within 35 days of this letter.

Sincerely

symbolUK

Thanks for your prompt replies!

I will write to them in the morning.

Coupon-mad

Yep but Broadsword's one is a stonker and also gives a template email to send a complaint to the DVLA as well. I will try to search it out later if no-one finds it.

Stroma

If you write please don't admit liability, and don't admit being the driver or who the driver is if its not you. Write in the third person

Stroma

I ain't seen that coupon , that was just something that took all of one minute lol

bazster

Another APCOA out-of-time! Second one today! Things slipping at the Lords of Luton it seems!

symbolUK

Coupon do you mean this post from Broadsword?

I can't post the url as I am being punished for being a newbie :-) but it's topic number 80182 on pepipoo maybe someone else could post it?

The unlawful issue of a ‘Notice to Keeper’ (BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22)

I am the registered keeper of a xxxxxxxxxx motor vehicle registration number xxxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your ‘Parking Charge Notice’ (copy attached) dated xxxxxxxxxx 2013.

The first matter that I would like to raise is that the £150 parking charge is excessive and in breach of Para 19.5 of the British Parking Association Ltd AOS Code of Practice.

Next, I would wish to draw your attention to the following statement contained within your ‘Parking Charge Notice’:-

“....if after 28 days from the issue date this PCN has not been paid or you have not provided us with the name and current address for service of the driver we may have the right to recover from the Registered Keeper all unpaid amounts due..............”

This statement makes it clear that CEL is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The document that you have (incorrectly) titled as a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ is prescribed under PoFA as a ‘Notice to Keeper’

The requirements of Schedule 4 PoFAare quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt.

The BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers).

CEL has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as follows;

Firstly, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012. Whilst your ‘Notice to Keeper’ has indicated that you require a payment to be made to CEL, there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”, who may, in law, be CEL or some other party. PoFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of PoFA does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. To “identify” a “Creditor” a parking company must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has legally contracted.

This view is supported by the Secretary of State for Transport. He has reserved to himself powers to make regulations to specify not only what must be said in a ‘Notice to Keeper’ but also what evidence should be provided. He says “The purpose of this power is to leave flexibility to mandate the specific evidence which must accompany a notice to keeper if it becomes clear that creditors are attempting to recover parking charges without providing keepers with sufficient evidence to know whether the claim is valid”

Secondly, in addition to CEL’s failure to specifically identify the “Creditor”, it has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

Thirdly, the most serious failure and that which has caused me to submit a formal complaint to the DVLA.

You have failed to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Act in that you failed to give the Notice to Keeper to me within the “relevant period”.

The alleged infringement occurred on the xxth xxxxx 2013 and no ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued at the time. The Notice to Keeper is dated xxth xxxxxx 2013 which is xx days after the event and too late to ensure delivery within the statutory 14 days prescribed by PoFA.

Paragraph 9(4) indicates that the Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper not more than 14 days after the car allegedly infringed the car park terms and conditions. Paragraph 9(6) states that “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted” (my emphasis).

Your company would have been well aware of these facts when it took the decision to send out the Notice to Keeper. You have misrepresented the legal position in the full knowledge that no such keeper liability existed.

That is an aggravating feature which the DVLA must take into account in determining what sanction to issue to your company.

I therefore expect you to immediately cancel the ‘parking charge’ and inform me, in writing that you have done.

If however, you reject this challenge, then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer this matter (and any further issues that I may subsequently raise) for their adjudication on the matter.

I do not expect to receive a ‘generic’ template response and which fails to address the specific issues that I have raised with you. No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely


............and then one for the DVLA - 'First step' complaint via email to Carole Evans (Carole.Evans@dvla.gsi.gov.uk)


Dear Carole Evans,

Ist Step complaint - DVLA


Please find attached a NtK (misleadingly titled 'Parking Charge Notice') that I recently received from CEL Ltd.


You will also find attached my challenge to CEL because the NtK fails to comply with the statutory provisions of PoFA.


There are two issues here;


The first is a formal complaint that CEL have unlawfully used my data obtained from the DVLA to misrepresent keeper liability under PoFA.


The second is a formal (step one) complaint against the DVLA for making my data available for PoFA purposes in these circumstances


I expect the DVLA to fully investigate these complaints and provide me with full disclosure of the outcome of those investigations (including a copy of the data request/release information).


I am not interested in the numerous breaches of the BPA COP my complaint solely concerns the misuse of my data with the apparent complicity of the DVLA. Therefore you do not have my authority to disclose my personal data to the BPA Ltd.


You have the evidence in front of you and your own records will be able to confirm the veracity of this complaint. I am mindful of the fact that at the end of the year the DVLA suspended six members of the BPA Ltd for similar breaches (without a BPA Ltd 'investigation') and I therefore expect the DVLA to act consistently.


For misrepresenting registered keeper liability CEL Ltd should therefore be suspended from accessing DVLA data for a minimum of three months.


Please advise me as soon as you have suspended CEL Ltd and for how long.


Regards

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks like it! If the Notice doesn't use the word 'creditor' you can use that bit too and just adapt it to suit an APCOA notice instead.

Oh! I also just recalled one I wrote recently which poked a bit of fun over the recent unlawful clamping by 'On Time' at Luton Airport (x-steem's thread on pepipoo, well worth a read!). In this strong appeal I deliberately tarred the whole dubious operation there with the same brush in the hope that APCOA will just cancel rather than try to pursue it. I also pointed out that Airport land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA at all so there can be no rk liability there:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4685369

Post #4 (but remove irrelevant bits like the 'disabled' issue).

I suppose in the end you will have your own hybrid version of a strong first challenge - just make sure no sentence implies who was driving as without rk liability and without knowing who was driving, they are stuffed.

And we really, really do encourage a DVLA complaint every single time an operator issues a non-compliant NTK pretending that the POFA and rk liability applies when it doesn't. They have got the rk's data from the DVLA under false pretences.

pmfsaza

Hi,

Does all the above (extremely useful) information apply if the very first communication received is from the debt collection agency Roxburghe?

Having been shocked to receive a letter from them four months after alleged incident and completely unaware of any wrong doing, I rang Roxburghe who told me that a letter and photos would have been sent to me shortly after the incident, and that they were not legally obliged to re-send them. I genuinely did not receive anything. They went on to epxlain that I should pay the fine and proceeded to try and extract the money from me - which thankfully I didn't pay. Instead I did some research and found this forum.

Can I really be expected to pay a fine when the 'crime' is unknown.

Also - I wasn't even in the car which the cameras should show - is that still a relevant point?