APCOA BA02 Birmingham Airport

boxy123

Thanks for the information. I'll post off and see what happens!!

boxy123

I’ve just received my rejection letter from APCOA for BA02- Dropping off/Picking up outside of a designated parking area.

Please see letter below.

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us to you on xx/xx/2014. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise your appeal has not been successful on this occasion.

Please note red routes are in operation around the airport site in order to maintain the safety of our passengers, visitors and staff. Drivers are prohibited to stop, unload or park on the red routes, which are clearly marked around the airport roads via signage and double red road markings. A vehicle monitoring and enforcement operation is in place, with an enforcement charge of £100. The CCTV images below clearly show your vehicle stopped in a restricted area to drop off a passenger.

(2 pictures of the car).

(1 picture of my car, Restricted zone no stopping picture).

In addition to the double red lines, the restricted zone signs show above are in place at the following locations are around the airport.

(Map of airport roads).

APCOA is not liable to justify the charge as set out in 19.5 of the BPA guidelines, ‘If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”.

As per the BPA guidelines we believe the parking charge is fair and reasonable at £100 reduced to £50 is paid within 14 days. The sum, and calculations which have been made in setting it, have been approved and agreed by the landowner.

It is well established that a contract can be made by offer, in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the notice and acceptance by parking a vehicle. If a motorist is unhappy with the contract terms, they should not remain on site. By choosing to remain on the site you agreed to the terms and conditions and as such agreed to abide by the condition set out on clear signs at the entrance and throughout the site.

You vehicle was parked in breach of these terms by failing to drop of your passenger in a designated parking area.

In response to your comment made in your letter, please note notices only need to be issued within 14 days if the notice issued mentions “under protection of freedom act”. According to British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more than 28 days after receiving keeper data from the DVLA which takes no more than 35 days. Once we receive the registered keeper information we issue a notice to the customer, and no more than six months after the unauthorised parking event. It is our understanding that as we have not referred to this act in our documentation, we are able to work with the BPA code of practice (June 2013) which states that we have up to 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention.

Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided.
Notices on private land are issued in accordance to the British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines and APCOA being an approved operator of BPA is authorised to issue noticed on behalf of Birmingham International Airport. Proof of this landowner authority is below:

(letter from Chief Operating Office to APCOA dated 29th May 2014).

As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the car park we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practise and are not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.

Then goes into mentioning 3 options.

I’ve drafted my response. Please see below. In the photos of the car in question the “red” no stopping lines can be seen in the background –not sure if this makes a difference?

PCN xxxx
POPLA No: xxxxxx

[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A notice to keeper was issued to me for an alleged contravention within the Birmingham Airport site, recorded on APCOA's ANPR system. As registered keeper, I am not liable for this PCN and so I wish to appeal on the grounds numbered 1 - 5 as outlined below:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
APCOA’s letter of rejection against my appeal, and their signage (not seen by the driver at the time, see point 2 below) confirm that this charge represents liquidated damages for breach. It is apparent that the purpose of the charge at this extravagantly high level is predominantly as a deterrent.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]APCOA cannot demonstrate any initial loss caused by the alleged event, so there can be no consequential damages flowing from the incident. APCOA would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have many of the same business and staff/salary overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all. Nor is the charge 'commercially justified'. If APCOA cites 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley' it's irrelevant. Mr Beavis is taking that flawed small claim decision to the Court of Appeal, just as HHJ Moloney fully expected at the time he made his decision, which was full of caveats and full of holes and a distinct lack of case law. In addition, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014: ''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach...It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss...nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

I fully expect APCOA will send POPLA a generic statement showing duplicated layers of staff time, including unnecessary checks and balances. It will no doubt follow the now rather well-trodden path of trotting out the unsubstantiated and incredible assertion that around three hours of Management time 'double checking' the work of others, goes into each and every PCN (whether appealed or not). Where a large percentage of the 'GPEOL calculation' comprises staff costs, they must be able to justify those heads as relating to a typical PCN. And yet only 2% of PCNs get to POPLA stage, so clearly even if a Manager did waste half a day double checking those rare cases which go to POPLA, only 2% of those man-hours could be applied in advance as a GPEOL. Their calculation cannot, in the interests of good faith and open dealings with consumers, include the entire count of man-hours allegedly spent on the odd rare case appealed to POPLA because those extravagant layers of staff costs cannot be in the reasonable contemplation of the Operator at the time of issuing a PCN.

Like other operators, it is in the public domain that APCOA have recently jumped on the bandwagon and manufactured a newly re-written ‘loss’ statement. This is surprisingly similar to that used by PPS (after PPS had won a couple of anomalous POPLA decisions). This allegedly plagiarised calculation is now common to several operators and POPLA has seen it and dismissed it before. A generic 'model loss statement' cannot possibly show any regard to calculating before the event, a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss which might typically flow from a parking event. I contend APCOA's calculation is merely a conveniently-totalled sum of actual loss suffered, made afterwards, rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Earlier this year and during the whole of the 2 years since POPLA started, APCOA have used a completely different template of 'GPEOL calculation' as evidence, showing the intention of their charges at Airports as calculated in advance. So, a shiny 'new version' written this Summer cannot replace the well-documented (and known to POPLA) old version purely to try to win POPLA appeals, as it is without a doubt, not genuinely based on any calculation made in advance, when meeting with the Airport owners to set the charges for this contravention before APCOA started to charge and operate at this Airport.

As such, POPLA should I hope, see through it just as Ricky Powell did in 6861754004 (re PPS, the originators of the generic calculation APCOA now use):
''I find that the ‘appeal writing’ loss asserted is duplicated in two heads of loss. The ‘Appeals staff’ appeals writing costs are included in the sum for £9.51. However, there are further appeal writing costs included in the ‘Management’ costs, which total £71.65. It has not been explained how the individual heads of loss included under the heading ‘Management’ are calculated. It is also impossible to determine what contribution the appeal writing costs contribute to the total of £71.65. Therefore, I cannot find that the total costs for ‘Management’ are substantiated and so must disregard them from the total genuine pre-estimate of loss...I find that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case. '' (Ricky Powell, Assessor, August 2014). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I contend that APCOA's calculation (even if it is a more credible effort than those recently presented) must fail as it has been re-written recently and is not a genuine PRE-estimate. In fact it would be a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. As such, any re-write by APCOA would be disingenuous and not acceptable, according to the words of POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade: “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

I put APCOA to strict proof of the date when the GPEOL was discussed and decided for this contravention at this site. This must include documentary evidence of a meeting with their clients at the Airport and/or contemporaneous notes or emails or other evidence which shows how/when this PCN sum was decided in advance, specifically for this part of the Airport, detailing genuinely likely losses caused by this alleged contravention.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2) APCOA have failed to establish keeper liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]APCOA have failed to fulfil the requirements necessary under statute (the POFA 2012) to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Sites designated as Airports by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If APCOA argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the Airport is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon APCOA to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
However, even if this Operator counters the above point, there is still no keeper liability because the notice to keeper (NTK) is not valid. It fails to meet the requirements of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. The liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute and the wording is prescriptive and mandatory. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The NTK issued by APCOA appears not to comply with the Act as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](A) Paragraph 2(a) requires APCOA to specify the 'period of parking',. A layman's interpretation means this requires a stated 'time period' during which the car was evidenced to be 'parked'. A 'period of parking' is not evidenced by a photo of a single moment in time when unmanned ANPR cameras captured the presence of a vehicle registration number on a road. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](B) Paragraphs 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) require a NTK to “inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full” and to ''describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable'' and to ''specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—(i)specified in the notice; and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper''. I see no 'time' specified which falls between the date/time of the ANPR photo and the issue date of the NTK. Further, nothing is specified about any charge which could be described as 'unpaid' by the driver, before the day the NTK was issued invoicing me for another sum (which, whilst conveniently also described as a 'parking charge' is not capable of being 'unpaid parking charges' prior to the invoice). If there were no 'unpaid' parking charges then the NTK must still specify those as zero, to comply with 2(d).
(C) Paragraph (2)(h) requires an operator to "identify" the creditor. A layman's interpretation means this requires words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made, which could be the operator but is likely to be the landowner or their client, in view of the court-exposed failings of APCOA's known contracts as detailed in point 4 below.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The fact that some or all of this information may be able to be implied by a reader familiar with the legal context of parking does not mean that the NTK is compliant. As the NTK is not explicit as regards mandatory wording in the Act, it is not valid. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In addition, in my case the NTK was not received within the 'relevant period' either - a fact which which APCOA were made aware of - yet they replied "Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided". This is incorrect and misleading, and a serious breach of the BPA CoP for APCOA to say that keeper liability applies when they know that it does not.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3) Unclear and unreadable signs; lack of repeater signs for a 'no stopping zone'[/FONT]
If APCOA[FONT=&quot] intend this road to treated by drivers as a clearway then the signs and lines must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 to avoid confusion. Any repeater signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic, are obscured in places and the words are too small to read from a car. The circumstances which may give rise to a PCN cannot be read and understood without stopping. In breach of Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice and despite the words of POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade in the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the POPLA Report 2013, there is a lack of regular repeater signs and nothing about the risk/amount of a PCN can be read by a driver in moving traffic, particularly late in the day or in the early hours or even in adverse weather, because the signs lack prominence at this busy site. The number of recorded cases in the public domain with drivers having no idea that this road is apparently meant to be a clearway, shows that this site is a cash-cow for APCOA and they have had no reason or incentive to make the restriction clear.


4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate mandatory contract wording. APCOA has no status to legally enforce this charge in their own right because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts. They do not own this land and have a bare licence to put signs & cameras up and 'ticket' vehicles, merely acting as an agent on behalf of the Airport. No evidence has been supplied showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in the courts in their own right.

I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. APCOA have previously failed in several attempted small claims in 2014 when it was exposed that only their principal had the right to start court proceedings. I say this is likely to be typical of APCOA contracts and therefore they are a commercial agent with no standing or authority which can impact directly to form any contract with a motorist. If APCOA produce a redacted contract or basic site agreement/witness statement saying they 'can issue PCNs' this will not rebut my appeal point because a relevant clause showing the landowner to be the only party with rights to sue may well be omitted.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ANPR photos show no 'parking' event and the camera system breaches both the ICO registration and the principle of transparency in the UTCCRs
As I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to show me that my car was involved in any 'period of parking' at all. Photos of a vehicle clearly not in a car park but on a road, with the images zoomed in on a number-plate and taken by an unmanned ANPR camera, are not parking photographs. APCOA cannot show beyond the balance of probabilities that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity - e.g. queuing at a junction or adjusting a seatbelt or slowing briefly to read any signs to locate the car park or exit. All of which are acceptable features of driving carefully along an unfamiliar Airport roadway, with the distractions of pedestrians, other signs, bright lights and flags along parts of the road; even if a vehicle slowed or stopped momentarily then this is not parking. I put APCOA to strict proof of an actual period of parking, not proven merely by remote photos of a vehicle on a road.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In addition, the BPA CoP contains the following obligation in paragraph 21:
''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.''
APCOA fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'; I have seen no evidence of signs which inform a driver about ANPR technology in use here, nor what the system is used for. Even if there is a sign with a picture of a camera - and I have no idea due to the lack of information from this operator - this would simply suggest CCTV cameras are on site for safety or crime detection by the Local Authority or Police, which would not be an unreasonable assumption in an Airport. A sign with a camera picture would not be sufficient under the Operator's ICO registration, to meet their duty to inform a driver about the circumstances under which the ANPR images and DVLA data is actually being collected and stored and by whom and for what purpose. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Further, the UTCCRs 1999 (statutory regulations based upon mandatory EU Directives) create a duty upon parties offering contract terms to consumers that these must be fair and transparent and set out clearly in plain English. Terms on a sign - which by definition is a contract not negotiated in advance and where the consumer has had no opportunity to influence the terms or have any bargaining power - must ensure that the rights and obligations of both parties are made clear. A hidden ANPR camera or CCTV car trained on the road, with no clear signs informing drivers about the operation or identifying the private firm which is using the data and for what purpose, is clearly unfair and lacks transparency. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UTCCRs Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] states:
''Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9.2 ''...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UTCCRs Test of fairness:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
''A term is unfair if...it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, contrary to the requirement of good faith. Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Yours faithfully,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Any suggestions for amendments/additions much appreciated. [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yep I can't argue with that one as I wrote it fairly recently and quite enjoyed writing the first appeal point! It will win, even though I say so myself.

boxy123 wrote: »

In addition, in my case the NTK was not received within the 'relevant period' either - a fact which which APCOA were made aware of - yet they replied "Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided". This is incorrect and misleading, and a serious breach of the BPA CoP for APCOA to say that keeper liability applies when they know that it does not.

Yep that is a serious breach and wholly misleading - a lie in fact. So don't let APCOA off - report them to the BPA and DVLA for stating in writing that keeper liability applies yet they haven't even invoked the POFA (and cannot because it's not relevant land).

boxy123

Many Thanks coupon-mad.

I just wanted to re-check that I'm using the correct template?

I've just re-read before sending off to POPLA and it refers to "parking" in a few places. APCOA alleged that there was a contravention of BA-02 Dropping Off/Picking Up outside of a designated parking area.

Also in the photos of the car that the ANPR cameras picked up, “red” no stopping lines can be seen in the background – not sure if the makes a difference?

Coupon-mad

No difference at all and yes, stopping is 'parking' in PPC World so that is the right template. It can be submitted online to POPLA now, tick 3 out of 4 appeal reasons in the boxes (it's obvious which). Then follow it with a quick complaint email to drop APCOA in it as they have already been investigated for misleading motorists about keeper liability at Airports and deserve sanction points against them for this wording in your letter.

boxy123

Coupon-mad

I've sent off the POPLA appeal.

Can you please point me in the right direction for a template to complain to the BPA and DVA.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

We don't have one - it just needs to be an email of a few lines pointing out the part in the BPA Code of Practice that you allege the PPC has breached, and ask them to investigate the complaint. Email addies are in post #6 of the Newbies thread.

Guys_Dad

Actually, the "Failed to Estabing the fact that the PPC has admitted themselves that the NtK was not being served under POFA,

In response to your comment made in your letter, please note notices only need to be issued within 14 days if the notice issued mentions “under protection of freedom act”. According to British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more than 28 days after receiving keeper data from the DVLA which takes no more than 35 days. Once we receive the registered keeper information we issue a notice to the customer, and no more than six months after the unauthorised parking event. It is our understanding that as we have not referred to this act in our documentation, we are able to work with the BPA code of practice (June 2013) which states that we have up to 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention.

So that point could have been considerably shortened to "The Operator has confirmed in their appeal refusal that the charge was not issued under POFA, see here............., therefore keeper liability is not applicable and their later assertion that as keeper, I am liable, is inaccurate. Only the driver could be considered liable."

boxy123

I’ve got 2 PCNs on the go at the moment. The first appeal is currently being considered by POPLA.

As far as I am aware the 2 alleged contraventions : BA02- Dropping off/Picking up outside of a designated parking area, are the same except for the dates (2 weeks apart).

I’ve just received my APCOA rejection for the second PCN. There are a few differences between this latest APCOA rejection letter and the first received (only a few weeks apart).

I’ve copied the letter below, but also listed the deleted APCOA paras.

“The CCTV images below clearly show your vehicle stopped in a restricted area to drop off a passenger”.

“In response to your comment made in your letter, please note notices only need to be issued within 14 days if the notice issued mentions “under protection of freedom act”. According to British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more than 28 days after receiving keeper data from the DVLA which takes no more than 35 days. Once we receive the registered keeper information we issue a notice to the customer, and no more than six months after the unauthorised parking event”.

“Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided.”

I’m going to use the same template as I used for the 1st POPLA appeal, but I have difficulty in re-wording “[FONT=&quot]In addition, in my case the NTK was not received within the 'relevant period' either - a fact which APCOA were made aware of - yet they replied "Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided". This is incorrect and misleading, and a serious breach of the BPA CoP for APCOA to say that keeper liability applies when they know that it does not”[/FONT]


Whilst the NTK was received outside of the relevant period, as APCOA have removed the sentence “you are liable for this ticket…..”, I’m not sure how to re-word it.

Any advice much appreciated.


APOCA second letter rejection:-

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us to you on xx/xx/2014. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise your appeal has not been successful on this occasion.

Please note red routes are in operation around the airport site in order to maintain the safety of our passengers, visitors and staff. Drivers are prohibited to stop, unload or park on the red routes, which are clearly marked around the airport roads via signage and double red road markings. A vehicle monitoring and enforcement operation is in place, with an enforcement charge of £100.

(2 pictures of the car).

(1 picture of the car, Restricted zone no stopping picture).

In addition to the double red lines, the restricted zone signs show above are in place at the following locations are around the airport.

(Map of airport roads).

In answer to the points raised in your letter, APCOA is not liable to justify the charge as set out in 19.5 of the BPA guidelines, ‘If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”.

As per the BPA guidelines we believe the parking charge is fair and reasonable at £100 reduced to £50 is paid within 14 days. The sum, and calculations which have been made in setting it, have been approved and agreed by the landowner.

It is well established that a contract can be made by offer, in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the notice and acceptance by parking a vehicle. If a motorist is unhappy with the contract terms, they should not remain on site. By choosing to remain on the site you agreed to the terms and conditions and as such agreed to abide by the condition set out on clear signs at the entrance and throughout the site.

You vehicle was parked in breach of these terms by failing to drop of your passenger in a designated parking area.

Notices on private land are issued in accordance to the British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines and APCOA being an approved operator of BPA is authorised to issue noticed on behalf of Birmingham International Airport. Proof of this landowner authority is below:

(letter from Chief Operating Office to APCOA dated 29th May 2014).

It is our understanding that as we have not referred to this act in our documentation, we are able to work with the BPA code of practice (June 2013) which states that we have up to 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention.

As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the car park we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practise and are not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.

Then goes into mentioning 3 options, with a slight difference is that there is a cheaper parking option of £50 paying earlier than 14 days.

Coupon-mad

“Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided.”

I’m going to use the same template as I used for the 1st POPLA appeal, but I have difficulty in re-wording “[FONT=&quot]In addition, in my case the NTK was not received within the 'relevant period' either - a fact which APCOA were made aware of - yet they replied "Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided". This is incorrect and misleading, and a serious breach of the BPA CoP for APCOA to say that keeper liability applies when they know that it does not”[/FONT]

Whilst the NTK was received outside of the relevant period, as APCOA have removed the sentence “you are liable for this ticket…..”, I’m not sure how to re-word it.

Just say the NTK was not received within 14 days and APCOA have admitted the POFA 2012 does not apply at this Airport site, so it is a simple fact that, as keeper you cannot be held liable.

If you wanted to be brave you could send a POPLA appeal with a JUST couple of sentences to that effect (nothing else!) and you'd have to win as keeper, as long as at no point had the driver been implied in a previous appeal letter! As I said earlier:

''... you can't lose at POPLA if appealing as a registered keeper (NOT saying who was driving) and pointing out that means a keeper cannot be held liable as this is not relevant land. ''