APCOA HELP!! - Station Parking Fine

lloydt2000

Hello,

I have had a good read of these forums.
My car received a ticket a while back at a station. what i understand to have happened is that in between the driver leaving the car and paying by phone, the car was ticketed.

I received the Notice to Owner fairly promptly. I sent an appeal letter, but APCOA have rejected my appeal on the grounds they believe at the time the car didnt have a valid ticket. APCOA have sent through the POPLA form and verification code.

In parallel I am getting increasing threatening letters from debt recovery plus. As I am still in an appeal process with APCOA - can i just ignore the debt recovery letters or do i have to take action here as well.

The main reason for posting on this forum, was just to get guidance on how raise a successful appeal with POPLA and to check what i need to do about the debt recovery people.

Any help appreciated.

Redx

this sticky thread explains everything you need to know https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

how you missed it I have no idea, but its the latest advice

HO87

@OP Read the thread linked by Redx and then use the templates in there (there are APCOA specific ones) to craft your own appeal. You will win at POPLA and that will be the end of it.

Personally, I have found that debt collectors' letters are a useful source of hamster bedding - once shredded. The HO87-lets will attest to the same.

lloydt2000

Hiya,

Thanks for your replies - I am constructing by popla appeal.

I was going to base by appeal on 5. points

1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards andt here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

5.The prompt payment discount offered is less than the 40% stipulated in the latest BPA code of practice document.



Based on what i have read for train station fines point 4 GPEOL seems to resonate, however most appeals I have read relate to free parking areas, i have spliced the following from various posts...does it hold water?



4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

APCOA are not compliant with clauses 19.5 and 19.6 BPA code of practice (Version 3) which states:
• “19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. “

• “19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading”

In addition the Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:
• "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.
5. Prompt payment discount not 40% less

In addition, APCOA are not compliant with the early payment discount clause of the BPA code of practice (Version 3) which states:

19.7 If prompt payment is made, you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. The reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of the full charge. ‘Prompt payment’ is defined as 14 days from the date the driver or the keeper received the notice.

The discount that APCOA offered for payment within 14 days was 33% of the total, not 40% as stipulated in the BPA code of practice document.

Thanks in advance.

bod1467

Might be worth also checking whether this is relevant land (per POFA) ... in many cases stations are covered by byelaws and so keeper liability under POFA does not even apply.

Coupon-mad

I agree - if the OP searches the forum for 'APCOA station' as keywords, I am sure they will find several examples of pre-written POPLA appeals including the 'not relevant land' assertion.

lloydt2000

Hello,
I have worked up my POPLA appeal based on the facts and various other popla appeals.

What do you think - good enough?



Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA XXXXXXXXXXXX

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
REASONS FOR APPEAL

1. Not A Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss
2. Prompt payment discount not 40% less
2. Notice To The Keeper Not Pofa 2012 Compliant – No Keeper Liability
3. Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
4. Non-Compliant Signage
5. No Legal Standing Or Authority


1. Not A Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to APCOA or the landowners.
APCOA are not compliant with clauses 19.5 and 19.6 BPA code of practice (Version 3) which states:
• “19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. “

• “19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading”

In addition the Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:
• "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."
The charge contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the Parking Charge Notice 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 not the POPLA fee).

2. Prompt payment discount not 40% less

APCOA are not compliant with the early payment discount clause of the BPA code of practice (Version 3) which states:

“19.7 If prompt payment is made, you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. The reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of the full charge. ‘Prompt payment’ is defined as 14 days from the date the driver or the keeper received the notice.”

The discount that APCOA offered for payment within 14 days was 33% of the total, not 40% as stipulated in the BPA code of practice document.

3. Notice To The Keeper Not Pofa 2012 Compliant – No Keeper Liability
The notice received was the notice to keeper and no notice to driver was given. APCOA have failed to establish a right to claim unpaid charges from the keeper as by failing to give a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 they have not met the requirements of POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 4(2) (a), in that the notice to keeper: -

a) it is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2) (h) of schedule 4 of POFA 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.

Consequently I contend that the keeper is not liable for this charge and respectfully request that my appeal be upheld.

3. Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA 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 ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

4. Non-Compliant Signage

Having visited the location of the alleged “breach” it is evident the signage provided by APCOA does not comply with the BPA code of practice in particular 18.3, 18.5, 18.7, 18.8 and 18.10 in addition signs are unlit and therefore illegible in the hours of darkness. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5. No Legal Standing Or Authority
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.
I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is 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.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it 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. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions Parking Charge Notices, 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.

I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct APCOA to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

Coupon-mad

That's a good first draft - the numbering needs sorting out as in the top bit you have 2 x 2 and in the blurb you have 2 x 3.

The wording is fine.

lloydt2000

Thanks for all the help, got a letter for APCOA dropping the fine. Thanks very much all

Coupon-mad

Great news!