Luton Airport APCOA PCN

write2msk

Hi everyone,

This is my first Thread. my vehicle was photographed with the alleged contravention of 02-Dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area at Luton Airport. I sent APCOA the following appeal letter based on info gathered from MSE see below:

APCOA PARKING

Date: XXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you regarding the Parking Charge Notice with Ref. No. XXXXX, dated 21/05/2013 for Vehicle Reg: XXXX, your charge is punitive and unenforceable. I deny all liability to your company. I require you to cancel the charge forthwith or provide me within 35 days a POPLA verification code so that I can appeal independently, per the BPA code of practice.

I have nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company, unless it contains the POPLA code.

Yours Sincerely,


XXXXXXXX
(Registered Keeper of XXXXXX)




APCOA have now rejected this appeal and sent me some photos of my car along with the POPLA code.


Note that the contravention occured on 24th April 2013, so this exceeds the 14 days response period.



I would be very greatful if someone could help with the next stage POPLA appeal. Thanks. please PM if required

Coupon-mad

Should have tried a stronger first appeal which seem to work with APCOA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62223421#Comment_62223421

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4687705

Never mind, you can use the points in your first link as part of your POPLA appeal, plus all the usual points as shown in these examples:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62523345#Comment_62523345

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Show us your draft appeal first, and do spend a few days on it and make it full of points. Each point made has the potential to win at POPLA.

Driver67

I dropped a friend off at the `IBIS Hotel` at Birmingham International Airport receintly. I must have been stopped for around ten (10) seconds while he hopped out before continuing around the airport ring road to the exit. A few days later I received a `PARKING CHARGE NOTICE` with photographs from a company called `APCO Parking` for an alleged contravention of BA02 - Dropping off/Picking up outside of a designated parking area.
Are they joking - they want me to pay them £100 !! before 28 days, if I pay them before 14 days they will drop it to £50 !! WHAT KIND OF SCAM IS THIS ? I expect John Wayne to ring me up next.
OK friends, how do I deal with these highway robbers?
It`s a Parking Charge and I have never parked at Birmingham Airport, not even put the handbrake on the car !
Has anyone else received one of these?
They go on to state that the alleged offence was in `Breach Of The Terms and Conditions Of Use` of the airport road infrastructure? It would appear that `APCOA` own the airport roads as well as trawling the car parks?
Your comments would be appreciated as these cowboys think they are on to a winner !!

pogofish

Could you tone-down that awful font/sizing please as its unreadable.

Then repost in your own thread instead of confusing matters by hijacking somebody else's.

Guys_Dad

pogofish wrote: »

Could you tone-down that awful font/sizing please as its unreadable.

Then repost in your own thread instead of confusing matters by hijacking somebody else's.

And if by any chance the parking signs were in those fonts, you would be bound to win as it would be unreadable! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

write2msk

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the info.

Please find below my first draft of POPLA appeal refering to the original post in this thread.

Please let me know of any changes so that I can finialise the POPLA appeal for Submittal. Thanks in advance for your help.

write2msk
POPLA Ref xxxxx
APCOA Parking.PCN no xxxxxxx
Reg xxxxxxx

A notice to keeper was issued to me (The Registered Keeper of vehicle reg XXXXXXX) for an alleged contravention of 02-Dropping/Picking up outside of a designated parking area on 24-April-2013. APCOA Parking issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system.

My Appeal.

1). The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. APCOA have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

2). The BPA code of practice contains the following:
21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.
21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the breach occurred on 24 April 2013, and the notice to keeper was received 30 days later on 24th May 2013 (Date of issue of Notice to keeper 21st May 2013).

3). The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details. 'The PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions as a generic catch-all. This does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

4). The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by
APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

5). I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

6). I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

7). I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

8). Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

Should you require further information, please inform.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr XXXXX

Address
E mail

Coupon-mad

''Specifically, the breach occurred'' = ''Specifically, the alleged breach occurred''

And add a point:

9) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

HTH

write2msk

Hi everyone,

Just got a reponse from POPLA stating that the appeal has been accepted and the parking charge notice is to be cancelled. Special thanks to coupon-mad for the help.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that there is ample signage throughout the area
displaying terms and conditions. The Operator submits that the parking
charge notice was issued for dropping off/picking up outside of a marked bay and in a restricted area. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant makes a number of representations, however I will only bediscussing relevant ones not address by the operator. The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the Operator’s loss. The Operator has not addressed this submission.
It appears to be the Appellant’s case that the parking charge represents a sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s
submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Marina Kapour
Assessor

Coupon-mad

Fantastic news!

I have added your success and a link to this thread, here for posterity and to help others:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Nice to see an APCOA one, makes a change from all the Parking Eye ones which ALSO win on 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss'!

raulrobbo

Had one from Birmingham Airport last week!!

This is a private land fine. They are not parking fines whatever they may look like. I realise that many of them mimic those issued by the council or the police but they do not have the same authority.
A private land firm is not an emanation of the state. It does not have the right to punish you for the manner of your parking any more than your neighbours do.
This is essentially an invoice arising from a civil dispute. They say that you accepted a contract by parking there and breached it by staying too long or otherwise parking at variance with the contract.
Private land fines used to be very easy to escape by refusing the details of the driver. They only have a contract with the driver. Unfortunately the Protection of Freedoms Act came into force in October 2012 and it makes the registered keeper liable for the penalty if he does not disclose the details of the driver within 28 days.
All that means is that the claim runs against the registered keeper. It just makes it easier to find the person against whom there should be enforcement.
The chances are high that they will not sue. Even though the law has recently changed in their favour and they were quite aggressive in the beginning, they do not sue in the majority of cases.
If they do sue then they would only have a claim for the sum of the original fine plus about £35 in costs. They will send you debt collection letters in which they will threaten to sue you for their debt collection costs. Do not be intimidated by that. They have no claim for that.
Even if they do go to court, they would still have to prove that the signs are adequate and clear. Quite often they are not.
Also, they will have to prove that they have suffered loss. They may be able to claim a very small amount in administration costs but it is going to be the sum they are trying to claim from you. Their loss would seem to amount to no more than about £5.
They will send you some very nasty letters though. You will get debt collection letters making threats of legal action. They will probably get Graham Whyte solicitors to write to you as well. None of these are anything to worry about. It will not impact upon your credit history and it will not add to the costs.
Unless you actually get a court summons, none of these correspondences have any legal basis. If you do get a court summons then you can always part admit the claim and offer £5 for their loss.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you need more information.
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister

bazster

Well thank the Lord a barrister has hijacked this ancient thread to explain all that to us. Who'da thunk it? And there was us for all these years advising folks that these things were lawful and they'd best pay them.