APCOA appeal rejected - Sorry another APCOA charge (a lease company involved

bod1467

No need to pay for recorded. A (free) certificate of posting is all you need - a letter sent 1st class is deemed "served" (delivered) 2 working days after posting. (Interpretations Act 1978).

ampersand

The reason for using CoP only is that a recipient can refuse to sign, defeating your object.

bod1467

Someone (BenefitMaster?) said yesterday that recorded signed-for is still OK, as you still have a record of it being sent. (Just no record of it being received if they don't sign for it).

But that means recorded signed-for offers no advantage over CoP, so why bother with the additional expense?

Coupon-mad

That appeal & letter to Lex look good. All I would add is that the 'no keeper liability as Airports are not relevant Land under POFA 2012' is worth pointing out to Lex of course. Tell them they have no liability in any case, because it's an Airport where byelaws apply and POFA 2012 does not. It is not for them to authorise you to handle it, quite the reverse - this IS yours to appeal, not theirs!

My only other concern is that Lex may debit your card with two admin fees for handling these pieces of rubbish. Why not add a sentence to APCOA at some point soon in this appeal process, telling them that when you prevail you will seek your costs and out of pocket expenses which in this case will include your admin fees Lex have debited (if they have). Basically this hassle is caused by APCOA, you will beat APCOA on 'no GPEOL' we expect - and you should not be out of pocket afterwards.

CostCutter

Thanks Coupon-mad

Unfortunately I didn't see your reply. I have, as you pointed out already been charged £12 by the lease company :mad: As of yet I haven't recieved a 2nd PCN (for the evening pick-up) but I don't know if they are following any timescales as to when they can send one?

I have now also recieved a poorly worded letter rejecting my appeal to APCOA. They have sent a letter with the 'blah, blah, blah' they had already stated but they have now include a 4th picture of a sign post saying - Restricted Zone - No Stopping - At any time to drop off or pick up - CCTV and number plate regognition in operation - WARNING ENFORCEMENT CHARGE OF £80 - This is a private road.

I have no idea if this sign is actually there as I wasn't driving nor was it seen by the driver at the time.

Do you think I still have a right to appeal to POPLA?

Thanks CC

CostCutter

Thinking about an appeal letter to POPLA (if I can still appeal):

I been looking through some of the POPLA appeal letters that others have written. Do you think that I use this below and that it is relevant to the contravention? I changed a couple of things but I'm not sure if all the point are relevant.

A notice to keeper was issued to me - The Registered Hirer of vehicle regXXXXXXX, for an alleged contravention of 02-\dropping off / picking up outsidedesignated parking area at Luton Airport on 27/03/2014 at05:22.

My Appeal.

1). The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditornot simply name them on it. This would require words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party withwhom any purported contract was made. APCOA have failed to do this and thushave not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them toattempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

2). The charge is unjustified. The amount demanded is a penalty and not agenuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive,contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I consider the PCN to be apenalty because APCOA Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditionsand yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include businessrunning costs nor the POPLA fee).

3). I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interestin the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOAParking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract withthird party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA ParkingLtd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allegetrespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA ParkingLtd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

4). I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd are only an agent working for the ownerand their signs do not help them to form a contract without any considerationcapable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the UpperChamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about thissort of business model.

5). I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitlesthem to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parkingcharge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOAParking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce acopy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicatorscrutinises it.

6). Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack ofownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contractto one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and theowner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use intheir own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

7) London Luton Airport land is not'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and so isspecifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered hirer I am not legallyliable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strictlyprove otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to showevidence including documentary proof from the applicable Authority that thisland is not already covered by byelaws.

Can anyone advise if this would work or am I going to have to cough up the £40

Thanks CC

Coupon-mad

Why on earth would you think you have to cough up? Where do we say that?!

I don't know if you can appeal to POPLA as you haven't said if you've got a POPLA code/form. Clearly if you've got the chance for POPLA you use it - the alternative would be debt collector boring letters for a year! I think I would add at the end, to point out to POPLA the fact you are merely the hirer - a fact which merely makes you the 'keeper' as defined in POFA 2012. As the driver has never been identified by the Operator, you are not liable.

And email/write to the hire company telling them to show you where their t&cs allow them to charge you £12 for dealing with private allegations of breach against a driver (which are not their liability in the case of non relevant land like an Airport). Tell them they may get another letter but please forward it as the matter is yours to appeal, not theirs, because this land doesn't fall within POFA2012 so there simply is no 'keeper liability' for them at all.

CostCutter

Thanks Coupon-mad

I didn't mean that you had said I would have to cough up, I just meant had they got me on the signage point with a picture of that stupid sign saying 'No Stopping'. Although thinking about it (with a less tired head) the other points in the appeal are still valid.


They have sent me a POPLA ref number and form so I will submit an appeal to POPLA online. I will add in the point about me being the hirer, thank you.


I will be writing to Lex. They have really annoyed me because they did as you said and just charged the £12 and took it from my bank without notification. I will have a read through my T&Cs to get my facts straight first.


Thanks again CC

Custard_Pie

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why on earth would you think you have to cough up? Where do we say that?!

Most leasing companies will have a wording as part of their lease contract that the driver will be responsible for any penaly fines or charges whilst the car is in their care. This of course is meant to cover proper speeding cameras or Police/Council PCN's and not scams. They will claim though that they are covered.

CostCutter

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Most leasing companies will have a wording as part of their lease contract that the driver will be responsible for any penaly fines or charges whilst the car is in their care. This of course is meant to cover proper speeding cameras or Police/Council PCN's and not scams. They will claim though that they are covered.

The contract does say the driver is responsible. However it also says that if futher notices are recieved they will pay and the hirer will be charged the PCN charge plus an admin fee. I have already informed them that I am appealing against the charge and NOT to pay any further notices if recieved. The £12 I have been charged already is the admin fee for them having to forward (with a letter) the original PCN. I don't know if I'll be able to do anything about that.