APCOA Birmingham Airport

warop31

Thanks again. So, just to clarify, I should still mention the signage, even though it clearly refers to "CCTV and number plate recognition in operation", and "Enforcement Charge of £100", and also states "This is a private road"?

I get the point about the PCN when it isn't parking.

Is it worth mentioning the "deceptive" actions of the operative, who asked me to move on (in a chatty, matter of fact manner), having already snapped me?

warop31

I also understand your point about having to stop to read the signage.

Redx

doesnt really matter what it says, you have to be able to read it and form an opinion on the contractual obligations that it means to either decide to accept the contract or not

if this can be done ON THE MOVE whilst driving at a reasonable speed for the road due to the fact that the signs are pointed towards you and easily read from a moving car whilst distracted then maybe they could be valid, assuming that they comply with the BPA CoP too (which doesnt usually happen at these airports with any PPC)

if you have to stop in order to do this, thereby breaking the rules and incurring a "penalty" , then how can that be deemed as "parking" in which case how can you get a pcn from a private company ?

if you do it on a red route on the public road, do the police issue a parking notice ? I think not

at my local airport its the police that patrol the private roads and enforce the bylaws, not some idiotic private parking company issuing a parking charge notice !

frankly, they should not be allowed to "police" this private road and somebody is a moron that employed them in this capacity when all they should be doing is enforcing parking on the private car parks at BM airport

so its not relevant land for pofa 2012

the roads are not "parking areas2 so no pcn should be issued at all

the roads are subject to local bylaws so if you have broken a bylaw then they should enforce the bylaws , surely ?

as for the question of signage, dont do their job for them

allege its not relevant and cannot be read whilst on the move and doesnt meet the BPA CoP and then they have to prove the opposite

if you dont mention it at all it wont be considered

popla will neither want to know , nor care, about the operative , they only consider legal arguments, not mitigation and not the attitude of any parking company employee

concentrate on winning at popla, nothing else matters

warop31

Ok, here's what I've added..........

Inadequate signage which would be dangerous to read without stopping:
The signage which is designed to inform drivers of the no stopping area, is entirely inadequate, in that it requires drivers to stop to be able to read safely. If a driver were to slow down sufficiently to have a realistic opportunity to read the sign without stopping, it would be dangerous and could easily result in an accident on a stretch of dual carraigeway approaching a roundabout.
The signage does not meet the BPA Code of Practice, and is not relevant at this location.

Does this cover it, and does it matter where I position it? I have it as Point 7 of 9 at the moment.

Umkomaas

You should be saying that the only way to read these signs is to stop and that will result in a ticket. Don't bother with this 'slowing down' scenario it doesn't address the situation, as slowing down won't get you a ticket. Take it out completely.

Place the Signage paragraph as #2, immediately after #1 No GPEOL.

warop31

Thanks, ok I've done that, so here's my amended letter...............

Good to go?


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) Inadequate signage.

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

9) 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) Inadequate signage which would be dangerous to read without stopping:
The signage which is designed to inform drivers of the no stopping area, is entirely inadequate, in that it requires drivers to stop to be able to read safely, which will result in a ticket.
The signage does not meet the BPA Code of Practice, and is not relevant at this location.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) 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.

7) 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.


8) 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.

9) 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

Your index doesn't reflect the paragraphs. You have moved the Signage paragraph to #2, but haven't done so in your index.

Your GPEOL paragraph is a bit lightweight compared to many that have gone before, just have another read of a few more beefy versions and see if they might bolster things.

Alternatively you can send it off as it stands (after altering the index as above) and wait to see what APCOA send as their evidence pack to POPLA in regard to GPEOL and then do a more thorough job in rebutting it.

warop31

Thanks, I will tidy it up before submitting.

So this is unlikely to be the end of it?! We shall see!

warop31

Ok, I've had a response from Popla, saying that they now await APCOA sending their evidence to them before the "scheduled date of hearing".

Is that all to be expected at this stage?

Umkomaas

Perfectly normal - and you should also receive a copy of the APCOA submission which you will need to go through thoroughly in order to rebut anything that is incorrect.

What anticipated date has POPLA given you for the 'hearing'?