Help with POPLA please

sparky47_2

Hi

My father (RK) received a parking notice from APCOA for driving in buses area for a few seconds to drop me off. Used a template on here to appeal,which has just been rejected. Our argument was that signs are confusing and not clear, notice was received after 14 days and no keeper liability. The rejection letter just received looks quite standard and states the car entered the airport coach area, is restricted and 'clearly signposted'. It refers to their entitlement to charge not more than £100....that the registered owner is liable unless driver details are provided (is this correct?), that under the BPA code of practice they have 28 days to deliver a postal PCN and that there are 3 options:-
1. Pay £40 now, increases to £80 after 14 days
2. Appeal to POPLA within 28 days, if we opt for independent arbitration, the notice increases to £80
3. If we do nothing. Court action.

My father is elderly and does not need the stress and is minded to pay. Can someone please advise whether he is likely to succeed at appeal and if so, what approach / arguments we should use on the appeal form.

Thanks

da_rule

Yes you are likely to win at appeal. Go to the Newbies thread and there are template POPLA appeals, and one of them covers airports. Also, they are wrong about the 28 days, so that's another appeal point. However, the winning point will continue to be no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

hoohoo

If they served this after 14 days then keeper liability does not apply. If they say it did then this is against the DVLA rules and they can get banned. How many days was it?

This would be a 100% winning appeal point, if they don't know who the driver is.

Failing that, is an airport, so POFA does not likely apply due to relevant land so see above.

Failing that, gpeol is your friend, another 100% winning argument.

Might be worth you posting a redacted copy of the ntk to see if it it violates the requirements

sparky47_2

They served the notice around 24/25 April, incident took place on 1st April. Well over 3 weeks. I'm not sure how to post the actual notice on here, but can try or give you any relevant info from there. Thanks to both of you, I'll see if I can find the thread for the POPLA appeals.

Coupon-mad

It's the NEWBIES thread where you got the template appeal from (I hope you didn't use the one in the MSE article, rather than the template in the NEWBIES thread?). Anyway 'How to win at POPLA' is the hyperlink you need, in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky, second from the top of this forum right now.

Or just search this forum for 'APCOA Airport POPLA' to find other POPLA appeals people won with earlier - they always win 100% so there is NO RISK with our templates, certainly not v APCOA.

sparky47_2

I used lots of different arguments from a few templates in this forum. Basically, said the following:-
1. No clear signage - they have a duty to ensure clear signs are in place
2. Failure to establish keeper liability
3. Failure to send notice within 14 days
4. No genuine pre estimated loss
5. If they purse, could be harassment and they will be liable for my charges at £20 per hour.

Do you think that's ok? Should I just relist all these (will look at the templates) or add more for the POPLA appeal.
Thanks

HO87

sparky47 wrote: »

Hi

My father (RK) received a parking notice from APCOA for driving in buses area for a few seconds to drop me off. Used a template on here to appeal,which has just been rejected. Our argument was that signs are confusing and not clear, notice was received after 14 days and no keeper liability. The rejection letter just received looks quite standard and states the car entered the airport coach area, is restricted and 'clearly signposted'. It refers to their entitlement to charge not more than £100....that the registered owner is liable unless driver details are provided (is this correct?), that under the BPA code of practice they have 28 days to deliver a postal PCN and that there are 3 options:-
1. Pay £40 now, increases to £80 after 14 days
2. Appeal to POPLA within 28 days, if we opt for independent arbitration, the notice increases to £80
3. If we do nothing. Court action.

My father is elderly and does not need the stress and is minded to pay. Can someone please advise whether he is likely to succeed at appeal and if so, what approach / arguments we should use on the appeal form.

Thanks

Yes, as others have said, you are more than likely to win an appeal at POPLA.

I'm assuming that your previous post was a simple summary of the points you were intending to cover in greater detail in the actual appeal.

By way of re-assurance, APCOA do not "do" court.

da_rule

You need to expand on the points as set out in the templates. Post the full version on here for feedback.

sparky47_2

Ok thanks. Will post my appeal on here for feedback in the next few days once I've drafted it. Not quite sure how much more detail I can go into, but will look at the templates again. Yes, the 5 points I have listed above are a summary of what I put on the initial appeal to APCOA, although I didn't really expand on the gpeol point.

sparky47_2

Hi

Here is my draft to POPLA. I'd be grateful for any comments. In their rejection of my initial appeal, APCOA say they have the right to recover from the keeper under Schedule 4 POFA if no driver details are provided. Re the timescale, they state that 'as we have not referred to this act in our documentation, we are able to work in accordance with the BPA codeof practise (June 2013) which states that we have up to 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention'.

Not sure if I need to beef it up anymore with reference to cases etc

Thanks.

A notice to keeper dated 24th April 2014 wasissued to me (the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxxxx) for an allegedcontravention of 02-Dropping / Picking up outside of a designated parking areaat Luton Airport on 1st April 2014.

My Appeal

1. The short stay and drop off area at Lutonairport is confusing and badly signposted. Under the BPA code of practice thereis a duty to clearly signpost areas the operator wishes to enforce. The signsmust be visible and readable when the driver is still in the car. This signagefailure is a breach of the industry code, unfair and a breach of the ConsumerProtection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Unfair Terms inConsumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999. Under 18.5 of the Code ofPractice, the operator must give the driver ‘the chance to read the terms andconditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had thatopportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the area, you mustprovide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be boundby your parking contract’. The engine was never switched off and chose to leavethe car park within seconds. The signage is not sufficiently clear to provideany form of contract whatsoever. The operator refers to a drop off zone and afree mid term car park for 30 minutes in the appeal rejection letter dated 13thMay but does not fully address the above point. If there was clear signageabout the correct drop off area or free parking, the driver would of coursehave used that. Any signage was notprominent or reflective. A Notice is not imported into a contract unless soprominent that the driver must have known of it AND agreed terms. The driverdid not see any sign, there was no consideration / acceptance and no contractagreed between the parties. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to group 18(a):unfair financial burdens, states ‘ 18.1.3 Objections are less likely…if a termis specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what cirumstances’

2. The amount being claimed is not a genuinepre-estimate of loss to the operator or the landowner. Firstly, the appellant’scase is that there cannot be a breach of contract because a contract has notbeen entered into due to the reasons in point 1 above. There is no trespass andin any event, the operator does not have the standing to bring a claim fortrespass or offer contracts. Theoperator is asserting a breach of contract which must be based on the genuinepre-estimate of loss suffered, but has failed to assert loss suffered. Instead,the operator is referring to not having to justify its charge. This isincorrect. It MUST base the charge on a genuine pre estimated loss (ie a lossflowing from a breach of the parking terms) and there is no loss here. Theoperator has failed to provide a breakdown of the damages suffered as requestedin the original appeal letter. Furthermore, if any loss has been proven, theamount of the charge is disproportionate. The burden is on the operator toissue the parking charge notice correctly, and by not trying to prove that thecharge justifies a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has NOTdischarged this burden. The operatorwould have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not beenissued.

3. Airport land is not ‘relevant land’ as it isalready covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from ‘keeperliability’ under Schedule 2 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As Iam the registered keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply onthis land. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree withthis point and would require them to show evidence including documentary prooffrom the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

4. Paragraph 21.5 of the BPA code of practiceclearly states that if you want to make use of the keeper liability provisionsin schedule of 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parkingcharge 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 outin the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOAhave complied with the BPA code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so requirethem to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the Notice to Keeperwas not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the allegedbreach.

5. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant withparagraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of POFA in that it does not identify thecreditor.

sparky47_2

I did not refer to the creditor point numbered 5 in my original appeal and have repeated some of the points about lack of clear signage frm my original appeal.