Birmingham Airport PCN (BA02) Dropping off/picking up outside of a designated aera

Redx

read post #3 , click on the link and read post #6

Stroma

I would make those complaints to the dvla and bpa if you haven't already done so, they cannot hold the RK responsible for this, so ensure that you include anything received from the DR+ as well as they are in the AOS

SongtoWoody

Thanks for the advice.

I am preparing the complaint letters now.

One more thing, do I just completely ignore the collection agency letter, treating it as a bluff. Whilst waiting for APOCA to deal with my direct complaint.

Thanks again for the help.

Coupon-mad

Yes, that is correct.

SongtoWoody

Received 27/02/2014, I have been abroad hence the delay in posting this thread.

The letter states that the original notice clearly explained that the registered owner is clearly liable to provide driver details and must do so within 28 days. If after 28 days the Parking Charge Notice is not paid in full under schedule 4 of the protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have the right to recover from the registered keeper.

In response to my factual out of date (14 days) argument and that they can not pursue the registered keeper. There is a really confusing, badly written paragraph that doesn't make sense to me. Nb. I have included their typos....

["please note notices needs to be issued within 14 days, if notice issued/mention under Protection of Freedoms Act and According to British Parking association (BPA) guidlines, the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more that 28 days after receiving keeper data from the DVLA which take no more that 35day" that really is how it was written.

My reading of this is that they are simply ignoring the timeline facts re the original PCN being out of date and are acting as if it was valid, still trying to pursue the registered keeper. They are just hoping I pay up or slip up by writing as the driver, which I will not do.

My main question is are the grounds of my time line argument so strong that I simply re-iterate the time lines in my POPLA appeal, not forgetting supporting arguments re unproven damages etc....

Any help greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

please note notices needs to be issued within 14 days, if notice issued/mention under Protection of Freedoms Act and According to British Parking association (BPA) guidlines, the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more that 28 days after receiving keeper data from the DVLA which take no more that 35day'

Wow, that's is gobbledegook. Hilarious!

But you say you have a POPLA code - beware and be quick as it will have nearly run out by now, it's only valid for 28 days from the day THEY generated it at their office! Check the expiry date of it quickly by using the Parking Cowboys code checker. It's in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky which also has a hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA'.

SongtoWoody

POPLA APPEAL HAS TO REACH BY THURSDAY SO COULD A REGULAR CHECK AND CONFIRM OK . I have followed the advise for cases at this stage. THANKS.

A notice to keeper was issued to myself, the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration number OE02 ZNZ, for an alleged contravention of 02-Dropping/Picking up outside of a designated parking area on 29/12/2013. APCOA Parking issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system.

I wrote directly APOCA to contest the charge (copy attached), they declined my direct appeal. I can not understand the reasons stated in their letter as they are written in such poor English (copy attached), and in the meantime authorised a debt collection agency to write and attempt to recover the alleged amount outstanding (copy attached).

The grounds of my appeal are as follows:

1). The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the registered keeper ‘out of time’ according to the BPA Code of Practice 2012. See Point number 3). below and copy of the PCN enclosed).

APOCA have failed to deliver the charge notice within the relevant period (being 14 days, for APRN tickets), with regards to Keeper Liability:

- The alleged parking incident was on the 29/12/2013
- The relevant period (14 days) starting the day after being 30/12/2013
- The notice was issued on the Fri 10/01/14, assumed delivery 2 working days
- Notice delivered 1st working day being 13/01/2014,
- 15 days clearly out of time.

2). 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, I can see no reference to the creditor on the PCN. 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.

3). 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.

4). 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 and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. As APOCA are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.

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.

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.

10). I look forward to your decision, upholding my appeal within the proscribed timeframe.

Coupon-mad

That's fine - except for the odd typo where you've put APOCA about 3 times instead of APCOA, and the camera thing should be ANPR.

If I were you, I would just Google to find a link to the Airport Byelaws that you think apply and actually state, confidently, in point #9 'the attached linked Airport Byelaws apply & they relate to parking of vehicles and create a statutory penalty of just £x, therefore this PCN is unrecoverable.' {if you can find the term in the byelaws that talks about vehicles waiting on Airport land}. Then it's up to APCOA to prove otherwise.

Redx

SongtoWoody wrote: »

POPLA APPEAL HAS TO REACH BY THURSDAY SO COULD A REGULAR CHECK AND CONFIRM OK . I have followed the advise for cases at this stage. THANKS.

A notice to keeper was issued to myself, the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration number OE02 ZNZ, for an alleged contravention of 02-Dropping/Picking up outside of a designated parking area on 29/12/2013. APCOA Parking issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system.

I wrote directly APOCA to contest the charge (copy attached), they declined my direct appeal. I can not understand the reasons stated in their letter as they are written in such poor English (copy attached), and in the meantime authorised a debt collection agency to write and attempt to recover the alleged amount outstanding (copy attached).

The grounds of my appeal are as follows:

1). The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the registered keeper ‘out of time’ according to the BPA Code of Practice 2012. See Point number 3). below and copy of the PCN enclosed).

APOCA have failed to deliver the charge notice within the relevant period (being 14 days, for APRN tickets), with regards to Keeper Liability:

- The alleged parking incident was on the 29/12/2013
- The relevant period (14 days) starting the day after being 30/12/2013
- The notice was issued on the Fri 10/01/14, assumed delivery 2 working days
- Notice delivered 1st working day being 13/01/2014,
- 15 days clearly out of time.

2). 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, I can see no reference to the creditor on the PCN. 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.

3). 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.

4). 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 and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. As APOCA are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.

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.

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.

10). I look forward to your decision, upholding my appeal within the proscribed timeframe.

as well as APOCA being incorrect you have also got APNR as well in section 1)

its not nitpicking as such because you allege that their letters are not understandable and contain errors etc, so best to have your appeal squeaky clean

I would also include numbered bullet points just before the main appeal section, reflecting the title of each one, making it easy for the assessor to find

SongtoWoody

I have fixed the typos from both you suggestions..thanks a lot and inserted the following summary paragraph.

A summary of my appeal grounds, with numbered paragraphs, are as follows:

1. - The notice to keeper is out of date (over 14 days).
2. - The notice to keeper does not identify the alleged creditor.
3. - References to BPA Code of Practice 2012 supporting my claims, and request for APCOA to evidence compliance.
4. - Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and request for APCOA to evidence.
5. - No proprietary interest in the land, and request for APCOA to evidence.
6. - APCOA are only an agent of the landowners, unable to form a contract.
7. - APCOA have no contract with landowners enabling the right to levy charges (PCN’s), and request to evidence otherwise.
8. - Acting agents and third party customers.
9. - Airport land is not ‘relevant land’, as it is already covered by statuary bylaws, request to APCOA to evidence otherwise.


I will search for the bylaw and insert it. if located, thanks for all you help