APCOA Parking Charge Notice - Birmingham Airport

GB79

I understand that your advice is freely given, and I do appreciate your responses. Thank you for confirming the airport "special case". I had not picked up on that previously.

Redx

in my initial response I wasnt overly crirical except to point you at another "war and peace" thread about the same airport that is getting out of hand due to far too many questions when the answers are all in the thread or in the newbies thread

namely this BM airport thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5021475

had you read through that you would have had all you needed to know about this , I was the one that also pointed you at the newbies thread as the popla route costs these idiots apcoa money due to them pursuing the keeper when the RK has no liability due to pofa 2012 not being relevant on airports or ports etc (yet apcoa sent the RK a pcn, not the driver)

bazster has taken the view that prevailed for years, ignore any pcn where only the driver is accountable and remains unknown to the PPC

I took the view of using pofa 2012 and popla to cost them money to prove the point that only the driver is liable , plus they cannot pursue you as RK once popla has ruled in your favour , so a double whammy

I knew little of this 12 months ago, but can see you joined here before I did so have had more time to peruse these forums and learn the topics, we were all new once BUT that didnt mean you could not read a dozen apcoa or birmingham airport threads and get the gist of this scenario

you said it was confusing, I beg to differ, its not confusing at all so yes I will be critical of your statements , sorry to say , especially when there are dozens if not hundreds of airport threads on here that all follow the exact same path

ie:- liverpool , humberside , robin hood (doncaster) , birmingham , luton , and ports like hull and southampton etc , all not relevant land as far as POFA2012 is concerned

read my replies in that other thread to the pedantic issues on signage, parking , stopping etc

now bear in mind these sites have local bylaws for the roads and so parking invoices cannot apply (except maybe on the actual car parks - lol) - period

when you have as many posts and "thanks" in your profile as we both do, maybe then you can be allowed to be critical of any replies but I feel 8 posts and no thanks means you need to be more pro-active

GB79

APCOA have sent the relevant POPLA details for my appeal. I have based my wording on a posting I found from 2013. I have copied below. Is there anything else I need to add to this to ensure a win?

Thanks in anticipation.....

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx
APCOA Parking PCN no: BIAxxxxxxx

A notice to keeper was issued to me (The Registered Keeper of vehicle reg xxxx xxx) for an alleged contravention of 02-Dropping/Picking up outside of a designated parking area on 05-July-2014. APCOA Parking issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system.

My Appeal.

1). 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 have 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.

2). 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 have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, 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 5th July 2014, and the notice to keeper was received 30 days later on 23rd July 2014.

3). 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 PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions as a generic catch-all. This does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

4). The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Ltd 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).

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

6). I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd 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. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

7). 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 Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

8). Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions 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 Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

9) 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.

Redx

4) needs expanding on the not a GPEOL including those actual words

each section needs a numbered header

the numbered headers need adding as numbered bullet points at the top of the actual appeal section

I would think other additions etc need to be made too

or use this recent one ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5021475

GB79

OK - thanks for the advice. I will try that one instead. Looks like the headings just need tidying up a bit.

Guys_Dad

If the NtK was non compliant on dates - and it looks like that is the case - then point 1 should be

"The date of the alleged contravention was Saturday 5th July 2014. As this was an ANPR case with no windscreen ticket, POFA 2012 is explicit that the Registered Keeper must receive the Notice to Owner/Keeper no later than 14 days after the event.

The NtK is dated 18th July and, again, POFA states that the notice is deemed served two working days following posting.

The earliest date that an NtK dated 18th July 2014 can be deemed delivered is, therefore, Tuesday 22nd July, which, as you can see, is outside the time that keeper liability can be invoked.

As I was not the driver at the time, I am therefore not liable for this charge.

I therefore require POPLA to instruct the operator to cancel this charge.

If, however, POPLA choose to ignore the statutory requirements of POFA 2012 - and only if they choose to do so - then I further appeal on the following points........"

That is the real reason the appeal should be upheld.

Then tidy up your appeal points and I suggest you follow the normal winning 4 or 5 point templates that are proven to work.

The_Deep

If, however, POPLA choose to ignore the statutory requirements of POFA 2012 - ...

But what possible reason could they have for ignoring the Law of the Land?

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

If, however, POPLA choose to ignore the statutory requirements of POFA 2012 - ...

But what possible reason could they have for ignoring the Law of the Land?

None whatsoever.

But the "appeal" to them is, in fact, 2 different things.

The first is that the PPC has not followed the law and the RK has no liability whatsoever and, therefore, does not need to give any appeal points.

The 2nd fallback is the standard appeal points.

I am trying to put them in a corner and get the charge dismissed on the non-compliant point of law rather than a lazy std GPEOL .

The_Deep

So, why mention anything else, belt and braces?

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

So, why mention anything else, belt and braces?

Yes.

Look, if it was me, I would do a single point based on out of time. But I am, as you know, a regular, as you are. And I guess you would do the same.

OP is not and wants off the hook. So, he doesn't want to prove a point, he wants it to go away and by including the other points, it is, indeed, belt and braces.

I see our job is to give the OPs the best chance as top priority and our "mission" as second.