APCOA Parking Charge Notice Luton

hoohoo

Sistershiptothetitanic wrote: »

I am beginning to feel as though I should take the easy way out and pay the lesser amount of £40 as I fear being stung for £80, but there is a streak in me that knows this is totally unfair and want to continue to fight it !!


Thank you

There are 2 slam dunk wins here which mean APCOA have shot themselves in the foot and will have to fork out £27 for the privilege of swallowing their own stupidity.

1) POFA 2012 does not apply so only the driver is liable. As APCOA have not identified the driver, they cannot enforce charges

2) The charge does not represent a true pre-estimate of loss and the operator has not given a breakdown. It is impossible that the landowner lost money through the drivers actions. Equally, as APCOA make a sizable profit, their charge cannot represent a loss.

There are two others to throw in.
3) The operator is not authorised by the landowner to issue charges and pursue to court

4) The signage is not adequate to form a contract between driver and operator. The key wording is too small and too detailed to read from a moving vehicle. The only way to read the signs is to stop and park, thus contravening the instructions.

prosnap

Sistershiptothetitanic wrote: »

I am beginning to feel as though I should take the easy way out and pay the lesser amount of £40 as I fear being stung for £80

And there you have their whole business model!


How do you think they manage to keep up these scams. If nobody paid them and made it as difficult as possible they would all give up.

Sistershiptothetitanic

Dear POPLA
Re verification code .......

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the followinggrounds :

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) No Contract with driver
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at the
location, which is not a car park



1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which wouldoccur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimedis excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping.

2) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeperliability.

The driver has not been identified, yet APCOA are claiming POFA 2012 registeredkeeper liability.
The registered keeper is not liable for the charge as Luton Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary ofState and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws, meaning POFA 2012 does not apply.

3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers.


As APCOA are not the owners of the land, they cannot forma contract with the driver. I welcome APCOA providing me with a full un-redactedcopy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such acontract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient

4) No contract with driver.


If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read,understand and agree to the terms and conditions. A driver could not stop inorder to read the signs as they enter the layby as by so doing they would have to stop the car and get out - which they did not do.

5) Misleading and unclear signage.


The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Aiport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displaying'. It would however appear that signage at thislocation do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permittedvariations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be readwithout stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice.APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of theChief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked;bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size,as to be read
by a motorist without having to stop to look at it.Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, aregenerally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at the
location - which is not a car park.


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 parkingin private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent andtransparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you areusing this
technology and what you will use the data captured byANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carryout a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make surethat it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you shouldcheck are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good workingorder. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securelyheld and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage yourANPR 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 processvehicle 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 useof CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such asvehicle registration marks.''


I dispute that at this location, the secret camera van operates in areasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that APCOA havefailed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code ofPractice. APCOA will need to show evidence to the contrary on every point, andexplain how the hidden camera van can be compliant when thisis not a car park, it is a road, and there is no opportunity for drivers inmoving traffic to be informed that the technology is in use and what APCOA will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. APCOA have breached the BPA Codeof Practice as regards the use of a non-compliant ANPR system being merely avan fitted with a hidden camera, patrolling land which is not a 'car park' andneither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'.
I therefore request that POPLA cancel this unlawful PCN.
Yours faithfully,

SHOULD I PUT IN THE PHOTOS OF THE CAR STOPPED IN THE LAYBY TO SHOW POPLA ? AS PROVIDED BY APCOA AS EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION 01.
thank you to anyone who takes a look at this for me

Coupon-mad

No need for photos of anything - APCOA will have to send their evidence to you and to POPLA and it will be in that bundle.

Was this definitely a camera van like VCS also use at Airports?

And that appeal should do the job - as a version of it always does against VCS and APCOA at Airports! I would just change this:

''I welcome APCOA providing me with a full un-redactedcopy of their contract''

to this:

''I require APCOA to provide POPLA and myself with a full un-redactedcopy of their contract''

Sistershiptothetitanic

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No need for photos of anything - APCOA will have to send their evidence to you and to POPLA and it will be in that bundle.

Was this definitely a camera van like VCS also use at Airports?

And that appeal should do the job - as a version of it always does against VCS and APCOA at Airports! I would just change this:

''I welcome APCOA providing me with a full un-redactedcopy of their contract''

to this:

''I require APCOA to provide POPLA and myself with a full un-redactedcopy of their contract''

Thanks for the speedy reply Coupon-mad as I do want to send this off asap - just in case I forget to do it in the lead up to Xmas !

I believe the photos were taken from a car/van but cannot of course be certain. Although I do recall seeing one such vehicle prowling around on the day.

Coupon-mad

Probably was a van at an Airport - I would leave it as it is, with the 'secret camera van' wording, and submit it online now.

Sistershiptothetitanic

:exclamati:exclamatiSurprise, surprise ! APCOA have passed my details on to the ROXBURGHE debt collecting company ! despite me applying to POPLA for an independent decision. POPLA have acknowledged my appeal and told me I will hear from them during February. I am obviously prepared to wait but it looks as though APCOA are not !

Redx

same here too https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4851398

Coupon-mad

Sistershiptothetitanic wrote: »

:exclamati:exclamatiSurprise, surprise ! APCOA have passed my details on to the ROXBURGHE debt collecting company ! despite me applying to POPLA for an independent decision. POPLA have acknowledged my appeal and told me I will hear from them during February. I am obviously prepared to wait but it looks as though APCOA are not !

Report them to the BPA Ltd., using the email addy in the NEWBIES FAQs sticky thread. Each and every complaint is logged and investigated so it is ALWAYS worth it. You never know how close a PPC might be to sanctions.

Sistershiptothetitanic

Eureka ! have received an email confirming that POPLA have decided in my favour !

Attached herewith the paragraphs relevant to their decision, which may prove to be of help to anyone else in this situation :

"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is punitive and it is not a genuine preestimate of loss.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations because they state that by failing to park in a designated parking area, they breached the terms and conditions of parking. They state that this area is clearly signposted to enter the free term car park and directional signage is in place in this area advising drivers where they can stop and park and road markings are also in place providing direction. They state that there is free parking at the Mid Term car park for up to 30 minutes for the motorists to utilise.
I note the Operator’s submissions in this present case and I appreciate them, nevertheless, the Operator has not sought to justify the amount of parking charge as being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have carefully considered the Operator’s submissions and considering everything before me, I do not find that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

:j yipee !!!!!

I have to admit, that on occasions this situation has given me nights of troubled sleep but I am glad I persevered !

I just hope that APCOA now do as they are supposed and back off ! Time will tell on that one, for as I said in another post, they have already made an 'administrative error' in jumping the gun and refering it to Roxburghe debt collectors before POPLA made their decision - a decision APCOA are supposed to adhere to.

Thanks a million to all those of you who gave input and encouraged me not to cave in and pay these bandits !

The longer this went on the more incensed I have felt about the injustice, so took the opportunity to complain about APCOA to the British Parking Association (of whom they are members) and the DVLA's Chief Executive Oliver Morley (from whom ticketing companies obtain vehicle keeper details). I thought this might help my case, but also hoped that if enough of us do that then APCOA (and companies like them) will behave better.

I have also thought to contact Stephen Hammond MP, the Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State,the Minister responsible for the DVLA. I think ultimately the governing of these quasi-official ticketing companies lies with him and perhaps he should be made aware of the way they overstep the boundaries of legality ?


SO MY ADVICE TO ANYONE IN THE SAME POSITION IS TO HAVE FAITH !!