We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
popla aHelp to Appeal against Apcoa st albans train station.
yggypop
Posts: 13 Forumite
Hi All,
Hi have received a ticket for not displaying a valid permit ticket @ stalbans train station courtesy of Apcoa..
Hi have appealed to Apcoa following your templates guidance with no success.
The car was parked in a semi-desert st albans train station parking on a Saturday afternoon.
I have avoided all the reserved bay signs(on pillars and walls) but not this "premiere bay" written on the asphalt. please see rejected apcoa appeal dated 19.06.14
The car was a courtesy car,but when I have appealed I have stated I was the driver.(please advise on how to address myself in respect of the penalty/car) I really need your help as English is my second language and really dont want to loose the appeal for this reasons.
this photos was taken a week ago as you can see is very dark (12 pm) and on the pillar says pay @ meter...I did not notice the yellow"premiere" as it was part of a pedestrian sign.
I think I got 4- 5 days to go before the 28 days.
Is it better to complete the popla appeal by letter or online?
I think online would be the best as I can attach photos..(should I)
Can Somebody please with the letter and advise?
I have this template from your website ...do you think will be a good enough to win appeal?
Dear Sir or Madam,
PCN number FCCXXXXXXXX
I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal:
1) Lack of signage – No contract with the driver
The vehicle was parked in a standard bay with a sign stating ‘Bay 34’ attached to the fence directly behind, as acknowledged by APCOA in their rejection of appeal letter. There was no other signage associated with the bay, nor with adjacent bays. This can be seen in the four photographs provided by APCOA, and Photographs 1, 2, 3 and 4, attached. Photographs 1 and 2 were taken on XXXXXX during daylight hours, and Photographs 3 and 4 were taken on Saturday, 22nd March, 2014. Photographs 4 and 5 (taken on Saturday, 22nd March, 2014 during evening hours) also illustrate a lack of signage or markings to indicate that the area is for Premier Parking bays only. Road markings were updated within the last seven days to designate the area as ‘Premier Parking Only’ as shown in Photograph 6 (taken on XXXXX during daylight hours).
A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.
The signage also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times''.
2) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.
3) Lack of standing / authority from landowner
APCOA has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put APCOA to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). APCOA have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.
4) 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.
5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.
A lack of signage designating ‘Premier Parking’ bays from standard bays, is far from 'transparent'.
Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".
The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
I THANK YOU ALL IN ADVANCE GUYS!!!
Yggypop
Hi have received a ticket for not displaying a valid permit ticket @ stalbans train station courtesy of Apcoa..
Hi have appealed to Apcoa following your templates guidance with no success.
The car was parked in a semi-desert st albans train station parking on a Saturday afternoon.
I have avoided all the reserved bay signs(on pillars and walls) but not this "premiere bay" written on the asphalt. please see rejected apcoa appeal dated 19.06.14
The car was a courtesy car,but when I have appealed I have stated I was the driver.(please advise on how to address myself in respect of the penalty/car) I really need your help as English is my second language and really dont want to loose the appeal for this reasons.
this photos was taken a week ago as you can see is very dark (12 pm) and on the pillar says pay @ meter...I did not notice the yellow"premiere" as it was part of a pedestrian sign.
I think I got 4- 5 days to go before the 28 days.
Is it better to complete the popla appeal by letter or online?
I think online would be the best as I can attach photos..(should I)
Can Somebody please with the letter and advise?
I have this template from your website ...do you think will be a good enough to win appeal?
Dear Sir or Madam,
PCN number FCCXXXXXXXX
I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal:
1) Lack of signage – No contract with the driver
The vehicle was parked in a standard bay with a sign stating ‘Bay 34’ attached to the fence directly behind, as acknowledged by APCOA in their rejection of appeal letter. There was no other signage associated with the bay, nor with adjacent bays. This can be seen in the four photographs provided by APCOA, and Photographs 1, 2, 3 and 4, attached. Photographs 1 and 2 were taken on XXXXXX during daylight hours, and Photographs 3 and 4 were taken on Saturday, 22nd March, 2014. Photographs 4 and 5 (taken on Saturday, 22nd March, 2014 during evening hours) also illustrate a lack of signage or markings to indicate that the area is for Premier Parking bays only. Road markings were updated within the last seven days to designate the area as ‘Premier Parking Only’ as shown in Photograph 6 (taken on XXXXX during daylight hours).
A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.
The signage also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times''.
2) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.
3) Lack of standing / authority from landowner
APCOA has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put APCOA to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). APCOA have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.
4) 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.
5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.
A lack of signage designating ‘Premier Parking’ bays from standard bays, is far from 'transparent'.
Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".
The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
I THANK YOU ALL IN ADVANCE GUYS!!!
Yggypop
0
Comments
-
Hi have tried to load pictures with no success...... i had to remove the images that were copied from open office....anyone can help..advise how to put them as URL from my HD.
Thank you.
Yggy0 -
You can show us pictures by changing the http to hxxp so that the links 'don't work'.
Just call yourself the driver in this POPLA appeal as well. So you can and should change the start to 'I am the driver and this is my appeal...'The car was a courtesy car,but when I have appealed I have stated I was the driver.(please advise on how to address myself in respect of the penalty/car) I really need your help as English is my second language and really dont want to loose the appeal for this reasons.
Show your photos to us as a non-working link starting 'hxxp' instead of http. Host the photos on 'tinypic' or 'photobucket' which is free and you don't have to have account.this photos was taken a week ago as you can see is very dark (12 pm) and on the pillar says pay @ meter...I did not notice the yellow "premiere" as it was part of a pedestrian sign.
That appeal will win, just get rid of this (below) as you are the driver so APCOA don't need to prove 'keeper liability':I think I got 4- 5 days to go before the 28 days.
Is it better to complete the popla appeal by letter or online? ONLINE
I think online would be the best as I can attach photos..(should I) YES YOU CAN
I have this template from your website ...do you think will be a good enough to win appeal?
4) 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.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
thanks coupon-mad,
as I am a new member it does not allow me to post links....any more suggestions?
thank you.0 -
[IMG]hxxp://i58.tinypic.com/wa4q9y.jpg[/IMG]0
-
does it work?
Ok Sorry!0 -
Yep:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=wa4q9y&s=8
but if it was dark, then I think that picture in daylight doesn't help your case so I wouldn't attach it to the POPLA appeal.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
[IMG]hxxp://i58.tinypic.com/2u8xhlc.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i57.tinypic.com/2144652.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i60.tinypic.com/b5jypj.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i60.tinypic.com/9amo2c.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i62.tinypic.com/289v2q.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i60.tinypic.com/2efjkg3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i58.tinypic.com/34sezau.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://i57.tinypic.com/2v29uoi.jpg[/IMG]
Hi Coupon-Mad these are apcoa & my pics please advise if I should include any for the appeal.
Shall I mention that "premiere" road sign is confusing as it has the pedestrian sign in other locations ...also I want to mention that apcoa increase the charge if I appeal to POPLA .
Also What shall i thick on why I am appealing ..all except the vehicle was stolen?
[IMG]hxxp://i60.tinypic.com/2jagb34.jpg[/IMG]
I will try to finish it today/tomorrow so someone could read proof it and suggest any changes before i send this electronically to POPLa.
Thank you
Yggy0 -
Congratulations on your English, would that many of the indigenes who come on here are as literate.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
I think I would just include these two (below):
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2144652&s=8
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2efjkg3&s=8#.U8Lt2U3Qepp
and change your first paragraph about 'unclear signage' so that the appeal starts like this:
Dear Sir or Madam,
PCN number XXXXXXXX
I was the driver of this car on the day of the PCN and this is my appeal:
1) Lack of signage – No contract with the driver
The vehicle was parked in what appeared to be a standard bay with a sign on the adjacent pillar instructing me to 'pay at meter' as is shown in the first photo I have attached. That sign could have said 'reserved bay' but it did not; indeed I was careful to avoid any 'reserved bay' signs (on pillars and walls elsewhere but not at this bay).
I have no idea when APCOA painted the yellow markings shown in some of their photos as I did not see them, nor would the word 'premier' have told me that this bay was 'reserved'. English is not my first language - I have had help to write this formal appeal which is not my usual writing style - but I must say that 'premier' in most languages simply communicates 'primary' 'main' or 'first' (NOT 'reserved'). As can be seen from the attached second photo, the dirty yellow footway/floor markings in this car park primarily relate only to pedestrian walkways, so any average driver would not have given these yellow marks a second glance, having been invited to 'pay at meter' at that bay.
If APCOA had wanted to communicate clearly that this bay was 'reserved' why was there a 'pay at meter' sign on the pillar beside the bay and why did the floor markings not simply say 'reserved' in bolder red or white paint so it was significantly different from the pedestrian walkway pictogram, so that the function of the bay would have been explicit and clear?
A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver relied upon the 'pay at meter' sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The signage also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times''.
Don't forget to remove point 4 about registered keeper liability and make your point 5 'point 4' instead.
Submit it online as your deadline must be close, do it today if you see this in time. Tick 3 out of 4 boxes, yes!
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you for your help and support coupon-mad.
I have submitted it.
Let's hope for the best now.
thanks again for your time and effort.
Yggy0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 243K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards