Apcoa PCN

ncoates

So should I change the word 'Keeper' to 'hirer' in the template?

And remove the paragraph regarding POFA?

Coupon-mad

Yes you certainly could do, that would work. And leave in the wording as it is where it says you won't be naming the driver.

ncoates

Ok and remove the wording regarding POFA?

bod1467

Not sure ... does POFA even apply here? (It's land probably covered by byelaws [so not relevant land], and it's not a parking event. Relevant land and Parking are requirements for POFA to apply).

Coupon-mad

ncoates wrote: »

Ok and remove the wording regarding POFA?

You could leave it in anyway; you could even add that due to Airport byelaws the keeper cannot be held liable anyway.

ncoates

ok so heres what i'm sending with the amendments...

APCOA Parking
PO Box 222
Lowton Way
Hellaby
Sheffield
S98 1NX

Date: 8th January 2015

N**** C*****
19 *********
R*******
********
LL** 4**

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. BIA101****

I challenge this 'PCN' as hirer of the van, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As hirer I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.
(g) Due to airport bylaws the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable anyway.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate.

Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.


3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Is that good to go?
Regards
Neil

ncoates

Hi all,
Thought you might like an update, after sending in the above letter, I have a reply....i've attached it for you all and thank you all for your amazing help with this!!
Regards
Neil

Hmm as a new user I can't post with a link??? so I can't show you guys the letter :-(

Jim_AFCB

just post the link without the http bit and someone will do the rest.

ncoates

ttp://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag135/neil_coates1/apcoa_zps76c36f8d.png

Just add an h to the above ;-)

Jim_AFCB

http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag135/neil_coates1/apcoa_zps76c36f8d.png

You still have the PCN number showing, but as they have cancelled it I guess it doesnt matter.
Well done for getting it cancelled, they knew they were onto a loser with a robust appeal.