APCOA Evidence Pack received

OBAone

Hello all,

Following my POPLA appeal, details here, I have now received an Evidence Pack from APCOA with regards the alleged parking contravention at Birmingham Airport.

Basically, they have included appeal processing costs and business running costs (including staff wages) in their GPEOL calculation. They must be clairvoyants; knowing that I will appeal. :rotfl:

To this end, I have searched through the forums and commenced a draft rebuttal letter to POPLA. However, within the same evidence pack, APCOA have tried to justify that their Parking Charges are fair and reasonable and that it has been tested at the Court of Appeal) by stating the following case laws:

- A charge of £75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of Parking Eye v Somefield Stores (2011) to be reasonable charge.

- Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012).

- Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007).

- Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller (2012).

- Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas (2008).

- Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner (2008).

Any ideas as to how I can counter all these in my rebuttal? Or should I omit them and just focus on the GPEOL aspect?

Thanks for your help.

Redx

try a forum search using the surnames above, then check what rebuttals (if any) have been put into recent popla appeals in other threads

I have definitely seen rebuttals on some of those cases before on here

the gpeol and not relevant land etc are the most important aspects (only the driver being liable)

like this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761346

trisontana

See all the dates of those cases? All at least two years old. What they fail to include is all those cases that have been lost recently by various PPCs.

OBAone

trisontana wrote: »

See all the dates of those cases? All at least two years old. What they fail to include is all those cases that have been lost recently by various PPCs.

Excellent, thanks for this.

OBAone

Redx wrote: »

try a forum search using the surnames above, then check what rebuttals (if any) have been put into recent popla appeals in other threads

I have definitely seen rebuttals on some of those cases before on here

the gpeol and not relevant land etc are the most important aspects (only the driver being liable)

like this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761346

Great, will focus on the gpeol etc. Appreciated.

HO87

Whilst it might be tempting to accept what would appear to be a flimsy case I recommend that everyone counters the content of a PPC's so-called evidence pack.

Clearly they think that cases that relate solely to parking in small car parks rather than traffic regulation (which is what they are seeking to do at the airports they "patrol") are relevant to their own situation. That is, frankly, arrant nonsense and they are clutching at straws if they think that. The Mayhook case related to a situation involving the clamping and holding to ransom of a car against a number of allegedly unpaid PCN's and may easily be distinguished from your circumstances. Besides, NCP and their fellow defendant were roundly spanked and were ordered to pay substantial costs. To quote that case is a bit of a forlorn hope.

As a counter to each of the quoted case I would use the case of OBservices Parking Services v Thurlow where it was held (it being a appeal) that the PCN was a penalty.

If APCOA are suggesting that any cost not caused as a direct result of the alleged infringement you are being pursued for then that is not enforceable. The same applies to any business costs - salaries, office running costs etc.