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

SongtoWoody

I have corrected the typos.....thanks to you both and inserted a summary of appeal paragraph at the beginning, as below:

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 - The notice to keeper is out of date (over 14 days).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.


If i find the bylaws link i will insert it, if not i think I am good to go tomorrow with registered mail and my appendix of documents.

Thanks again.

Redx

personally, I would submit online and add your appeal and any evidence as attachments in the usual manner, to be on the safe side

if you wish to send by post, then I would do so with free certificate of posting at the PO as well as the online submission

the last thing you want is it to be "out of time" , whereas an online appeal is immediate - so dont lose sight of the ball

SongtoWoody

Thanks i will do the on-line app...just founf that on the web.

I found this bylaw on the birmingham airport website referring to clamping charges etc..... is it of any use.

7. VEHICLE CLAMPING ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
7(1) The Airport Company shall be entitled to claim from the owner of a Vehicle, and the owner of a Vehicle shall be liable to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Airport Company (or other person acting on its behalf) in clamping, storing or removing a Vehicle from any area of the Airport where a Notice is displayed advising:-
21
BYE-CS-00-001 (02)
a. that any Vehicle parked contrary to these byelaws may be clamped, stored or removed by the Airport Company; and
b. that the costs incurred by the Airport Company (or other person on its behalf) for this may be recovered from the Vehicle’s owner, provided that the power of clamping shall not be exercisable in any area where parking is permitted, unless there is on display in that area a Notice advising that any Vehicle parked contrary to these byelaws may be clamped by the Airport Company (or other person on its behalf).

SongtoWoody

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

I found this bylaw on the birmingham airport website referring to clamping charges etc..... it seems the closest thing to parking and charges.....is it of any use.

7. VEHICLE CLAMPING ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
7(1) The Airport Company shall be entitled to claim from the owner of a Vehicle, and the owner of a Vehicle shall be liable to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Airport Company (or other person acting on its behalf) in clamping, storing or removing a Vehicle from any area of the Airport where a Notice is displayed advising:-
21
BYE-CS-00-001 (02)
a. that any Vehicle parked contrary to these byelaws may be clamped, stored or removed by the Airport Company; and
b. that the costs incurred by the Airport Company (or other person on its behalf) for this may be recovered from the Vehicle’s owner, provided that the power of clamping shall not be exercisable in any area where parking is permitted, unless there is on display in that area a Notice advising that any Vehicle parked contrary to these byelaws may be clamped by the Airport Company (or other person on its behalf).

Coupon-mad

Yes - I would say that fits the bill as described here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/popla-decree-parkingeye-are-incorrectly.html

The decision by POPLA (ref 6060164050) was that Town Quay is NOT relevant land, and as a result, Parking Eye can only pursue the driver, not the keeper. So quote that POPLA number and the byelaws section you have found and say your case is effectively the same.

SongtoWoody

Here is what i came up with:

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.

I contend that this case is effectively the same to that in POPLA ref 6060164050. Namely, that Birmingham Airport Bylaws 2004 as displayed on the Birmingham Airport Website (see link below) clearly refer to existing bylaws covering amongst other things the parking of vehicles:

http://www.birminghamairport.co.uk/meta/about-us/byelaws.aspx

e.g.

SECTION 5: PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
(12) Parking of Vehicles

SECTION 6: ACTS FOR WHICH PERMISSION IS REQUIRED ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
(3) Parking
(4) Unattended Vehicles

SECTION 7: VEHICLE CLAMPING ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY




Am I good to go and send my on-line appeal today

Again thanks for all your help.

Coupon-mad

Yep that is certainly enough of your life wasted on these scum! It's good to go!

SongtoWoody

I sent the appeal on-line with proofs yesterday pm, thanks to everyone, who has got me this far.

Tyler_Du

How did this end ?

Umkomaas

Tyler_Durden_UK wrote: »

How did this end ?

Woody hasn't even visited the forum (let alone updated it) since the last post he made in March. So GOK!

It's extremely frustrating when regulars have put so much into giving advice, there's seemingly a lack of good grace in just dropping a short line with an update.

There again you just don't know what's happened to the OP - there may be very valid reasons why we've heard no more.