APCOA Birmingham Airport

Redx

it is when you think its not parking they are "doing you" for yet its a parking ticket they have issued

if the roads etc there are enforced by using bylaws you have not seen any contract that says a company can issue some form of legal penalty notice on the roads, but had you parked in a parking space and still broken the rules then maybe that letter would have some merit

a letter could have been signed by the queen or rolf harris but its not a copy of the unredacted contract

warop31

Ok, so should I go back to APCOA asking for a copy of this contract? Or, just proceed to POPLA (including point 6 obviously)?

Umkomaas

warop31 wrote: »

Ok, so should I go back to APCOA asking for a copy of this contract? Or, just proceed to POPLA (including point 6 obviously)?

No - put it in your POPLA appeal. You are done with dealing with APCOA, so forget them; you're now dealing with POPLA.

Redx

you wont get it from apcoa and shouldnt be wasting time asking for it , but you can insist that they show this to popla by saying a witness letter isnt good enough, doesnt mean popla will actually get it but you are asking for it to be seen as proof of the pudding

so make sure point 6 is worded in that manner

concentrate on your popla appeal , not writing to apcoa

warop31

So, am I good to go with this..........................?

A notice to keeper was issued to me (The Registered Keeper of vehicle reg ) for an alleged contravention of BA01 – Failing to park in a designated parking area on . APCOA Parking Limited issued a Parking Charge Notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system.

My Appeal:

1) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2) The notice to keeper received late; and not compliant with BPA code and POFA 2012.

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land'.

4) No evidence that APCOA Parking Limited has legal ownership of the airport land.

5) APCOA Parking Limited are only an agent working for the owner.

6) No evidence that APCOA Parking Limited has a contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges.

7) Lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land.

8) No evidence APCOA complied with BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets.

1) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by APCOA Parking Limited and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the Parking Charge Notice to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Limited have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

2) The notice to keeper received late; and not compliant with BPA code and POFA 2012:

The notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 01 June 2014, and the notice to keeper was only issued on 17th June 2014, and received on the 19th June 2014, 18 days after the alleged breach.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details. The Parking Charge Notice says 'either/or' of two different contraventions as a generic catch-all. This does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14. In addition this 'either/or' contravention fails to comply with paragraph 9 (2)(c) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

Further, the notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 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 Parking Limited has 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.

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land':

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.

4) No evidence that APCOA Parking Limited has legal ownership of the airport land:

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 Limited any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Limited’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 Limited to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

5) APCOA Parking Limited are only an agent working for the owner:

I contend that APCOA Parking Limited are 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.

6) No evidence that APCOA Parking Limited has a contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges:

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Limited to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Limited produce a copy of a totally unredacted and contemporaneous contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

7) Lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land:

Even if an unredacted and contemporaneous contract is produced and mentions Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), 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 Limited and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Limited can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

8) No evidence APCOA complied with BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets:

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a Parking Charge Notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.
21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a Parking Charge 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 out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9).

I have had no evidence that APCOA Parking Limited have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

Please note the above points and observations were highlighted to APCOA Parking Limited on my appeal letter dated .

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

Yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

Yep, you've got most of the main appeal points covered (but see below).

I haven't got the time to go seeking out the thread you originally posted this on for context (the danger of the hijack), but I assume this was a camera van taking photos of cars 'stopping where stopping is not allowed', if this is the case, you need to mention the covert operation and the lack of information about how this van is operating.

But the main omission from your appeal is a 'Signage' appeal point, especially if signs are on approach roads where cars are travelling at a speed where it is impossible to read detailed signage - without stopping to read, and Catch 22 is complete!

warop31

Super. Yes, it was a camera van driven by a guy who pulled up alongside me and asked me to move on, after having evidently taken the pic!

Regarding the signage though, it is on the approaches, but also in the area I stopped in. They included pictures of this in their appeal response, so I'm not sure how much impact that will have?

Redx

the point you have to bear in mind is not that they are there, but do they face the oncoming traffic ? , can they be read easily without stopping ? if you have to stop to read them then you get caught which is the catch22 referred to

so just becaause there are signs doesnt mean they comply with the laws or the BPA CoP or any other resonableness in the eyes of the law or a judge

if a judge said you had to stop to be able to read them, then by stopping you have incurred a penalty or invoice due to stopping to read them , you have trapped yourself by the act of stopping to read them , entering into the contract due to the act of stopping, yet breaking it at the same time

think it through

warop31

Ok, thanks again. This is not nearly as cut and dried as I had surmised, having read a few previous threads on these appeals?

Bottom line is that I was perfectly aware that I was stopped where I shouldn't be, but I'd stopped in the same area on probably a dozen previous occasions, without penalty. There are clear red lines on the road, which are a give away, regardless of signs. Playing devil's advocate, if the shoe were on the other foot, realistically, I would find it difficult to take anyone seriously who suggested that they didn't know they were parked "illegally".

However, I detest these companies as much as the next man, so I will proceed, despite the fact that it would have been much easier to pay the £50 and be done with it, and the time spent on appealing might easily surpass £50 worth!

Redx

but if I play devils advocate , they cannot and should not be using parking invoices to enforce local bylaws as an alternative to actually enforcing local bylaws correctly

its a red route so you are not "parking" yet they send you a pcn , a parking charge notice

so by all means make them lose at popla