Another APCOA fine thread

anothpark

I've sent an email through. I have to say I really appreciate all the help. You people really make a difference and help the little guy and I sincerely appreciate the fact that you follow these threads up in your own time

anothpark

So the guy from the DVLA has replied, but the one from BPA hasn't. The DVLA said it's for the BPA to sort out but just to include them in the correspondence as they would be interested in the outcome.

I've seen some threads talking about replying to the debt agency. Is it worth sending something such as?

With regards to your letters received xx/xx/xx and xx/xx/xx I would like to inform you that I have in fact contacted APCOA twice during the required timeframes requesting to appeal the parking charge notice as is my right. APCOA have failed to respond twice and instead have involved yourselves. Due to this fact I have now had to escalate this matter and involve the BPA, of which APCOA is a member, as well as the DVLA who are extremely interested in the outcome. I would suggest that you refer this case back to APCOA with the utmost urgency and I would appreciate a confirmation from yourselves that this has been done, as well as an apology for the stress your letters have caused. Aside from the aforementioned acknowledgement, I trust I shall not be hearing from you again.

Regards

Coupon-mad

I would actually ping a reply back to the DVLA and thank them for their interest and point out that this PPC is also in breach of the KADOE terms of registration (to get your data in the first place) as they are using a debt collector which is no longer a member of the Credit Services Association and you believe does not follow the OFT guidelines for debt collection.

anothpark

So the BPA are investigating now and I've sent them all my evidence apart from the initial windscreen ticket. Do you think I should send this as well pointing out that APCOA didn't offer the 40% discount for early repayment regardless of whether I chose to acknowledge it or not and failed to sign it (not sure if the signature is required or not)?

Coupon-mad

Nope. Presumably you are writing as keeper (you, not your wife?) so the windscreen ticket wasn't for you, was it. The windscreen ticket was ignored by 'the driver'. If you have in your original appeal or in the complaints, already - for whatever odd reason - outed the person who was the driver (doh!) then yes, you could!

anothpark

So APCOA have finally replied, cancelling the debt collection agency but saying our appeal was unsuccessful. As a gesture of goodwill they have offered to reduce the charge. They have produced the photographs of the vehicle again stating their reasons for not waiving the charge highlighting the terms and conditions on the sign. They've said the car was potentially obstructing another car park user from using the car park and that even with a valid ticket it would still be parked in contravention. They have however provided the form to appeal to POPLA.

Looking at the grounds under which I can appeal via POPLA there is a "The vehicle was not improperly parked" heading it looks like it doesn't cover a vehicle not being parked in a designated bay.

I'm tempted to point out that there were cars in the bays either side proving that no one was obstructed and that it didn't really block any pedestrian walk ways similar to the posts that mention "charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss
and is an unenforceable penalty". Is it worth pointing out that we were customers of the station in question and so they were also receiving money there (similar to how people appeal shopping centre tickets?)

Umkomaas

Get on with your appeal to POPLA. No need (or benefit) in any further correspondence with APCOA.

Tick any or all (except 'Car Stolen') on the POPLA submission - it's not (and has never been) an issue; this is standard forum advice.

Put up your POPLA draft appeal here for checking out by regulars. Remember, no mitigation stuff (other than a short opening paragraph) - work on the real winning points of not a GPEOL, signage, no proprietary interest in the land, no authority to form contracts etc - all detailed in Coupon-mad's NEWBIES sticky (How to win at POPLA section).

Stroma

Just use the standard popla appeals wording, genuine pre estimate of loss, no contract or authorisation and signage not adequate. This is not about what happened but the destruction of their basis of issuing tickets

4consumerrights

Important to include NO keeper liability as their NTK did not mention POFA and this is a train station not relevant land.

Research POPLA appeals and post up before submitting.

Remember the whole appeal refers to the Keeper and the driver!

Get over the hang up about the car being slightly outside the bay markings - totally irrelevant and these are the "terms" parking companies impose to raise revenue only.

Coupon-mad

anothpark wrote: »

Looking at the grounds under which I can appeal via POPLA there is a "The vehicle was not improperly parked" heading it looks like it doesn't cover a vehicle not being parked in a designated bay.

Doesn't matter a jot - you could appeal saying the car wasn't a car but was a bouncy castle in the shape of a car if you wanted to! POPLA have to consider anything, look:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/secret-reasons-you-can-use-in-your.html

So like the others have said, just tick 3 out of 4, leaving the 'stolen car' one blank. We know what we are doing and out forum POPLA appeals win every time.

anothpark wrote: »

I'm tempted to point out that there were cars in the bays either side proving that no one was obstructed and that it didn't really block any pedestrian walk ways similar to the posts that mention "charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is an unenforceable penalty". Is it worth pointing out that we were customers of the station in question and so they were also receiving money there (similar to how people appeal shopping centre tickets?)

I wouldn't add much at all to a template winning POPLA appeal, as there's the danger of saying who was driving (although you might be safe adding 'we' were customers but TBH there is no point as POPLA don't consider that).

Just choose a recent template linked under 'How to win at POPLA' in post #3 of the 'NEWBIES' sticky, and adapt it making sure you certainly have the words 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' and 'the Operator has no standing/authority to pursue parking charges in the courts in their name nor to make contracts with drivers in their own right'. And ask for the unredacted landowner contract as evidence.

And state that under POFA 2012, a railway car park is not 'relevant land' due to Railway byelaws taking precedence in terms of creating statutory control rules about parking and real penalties. And APCOA Notice to Keeper letters do not comply with POFA2012 anyway, so there is no 'keeper liability' where POFA2012 doesn't apply to land and so in a case where the driver has not been identified there is no case to answer.