DR+ reply refers me to ParkingEye vs. Beavis&Wardley

enfield_freddy

how can PoPLA , adjudicate when the land in use does not come in there jurisdiction?


its the wrong "court" , this case should be tried under bylaws at Liverpool magistrates court


however:


there might be a no parking bylaw , but is there one for "no stopping"?

Half_way

If the PPC is a BPA AOS member and offers POPLA then POPLA will attempt to adjuticate just as it would anywhere else, and if its bought up correctly they will probably rule on the GPEOL issue

The_Slithy_Tove

You're failing to understand the nuances of the relationship between various things.

And ADR, in this case POPLA, was a condition placed on the PPCs in order for PoFA to be enacted. However, it is not related to PoFA. It's a service available to all BPA members' "victims", at least in England and Wales, regardless of where the "parking" incident happened.

PoFA cannot be used by the PPC on non-relevant land, including LLA. So all that means is there is no Keeper Liability. This would even indemnify a rental company, so they could have told APCOA to get lost right from the start, as they had no liability. That's quite aside from the point that a brief stop is not parking, so a "parking charge" cannot be applied in the first place, so again, no RK liability under POFA.

Redx

this one is Luton and APCOA , not JLA and VCS, but as an airport its not relevant land so yes you would think they would not use popla , but they may know who the driver is in which case POFA would not apply, hence the trick to try and sc@m people into naming the driver by issuing the notice to the keeper

POPLA have to accept the appeal if a popla code is issued, doesnt matter if its not relevant land, they would look at the appeal points and make a ruling, but have ducked out of the not relevant land decision in favour of other decisions like not a gpeol , assuming the apellant has made a good case and not tried mitigation

the fact that an airport is not relevant land hasnt stopped VCS or APCOA from getting RK details, which is a different issue

maybe if POPLA decided to rule on this point things would be different, but its true that POPLA have ruled on hundreds of airport appeals , so do the IAS, where one appeal against VCS at Humberside airport recently won

salmosalaris

enfield_freddy wrote: »

but this can,t go to POPLA , as its not relevant land , and any decision (if taken) would be worthless


any company wanting to use POFA , must be a member of a trade "club" in this case the BPA ,


and they must be able to offer an alternate resolution scheme , because the land is non relevant , no resolution can be offered , therefore information has been given illegally by the DVLA in all cases involving this land

Complete unadulterated twaddle

enfield_freddy

as posted by the slithy tove


PoFA cannot be used by the PPC on non-relevant land, including LLA. So all that means is there is no Keeper Liability. This would even indemnify a rental company, so they could have told APCOA to get lost right from the start, as they had no liability. That's quite aside from the point that a brief stop is not parking, so a "parking charge" cannot be applied in the first place, so again, no RK liability under POFA.


the case should not happen

euromike

Guys, thank you everyone for bothering to reply. This case is, clearly, complicated enough to cause confusion even among seasoned forum members. In short - should I (1) leave it (2) write to Apcoa and if so, is my draft above, minus the bit about £15 Zipcar charges, ok?

Thanks!
M

enfield_freddy

as per post 2, to DR+ only

salmosalaris

If you do write to DR- you deny the debt rather than decline it, but it appears you have already done this so just ignore unless you get a letter before claim or court papers

Redx

I would reply to the BPA saying that if the pcn went to the registered address then it went to the owner and as you hired the vehicle a new pcn should have been sent to you as keeper/hirer from apcoa once the leasing company informed them of the correct keeepers details (ie:- you are not the RK so apcoa should have issued a new pcn to you)

in other words, they appear to think you are the RK and in fact the hire company issued them with the keepers details so a new pcn could be issued, which wasnt , so your chance to appeal to popla as keeper was denied

if you have done this and included copies of paperwork, let them investigate it and get back to you



I have also said this a million times on here

IGNORE DRP , post #4 of the newbies sticky thread makes this quite clear

DRP cannot do anything except send out scary looking letters, dont waste your breath, nor one minute of your day, just file ALL drp letters for now and bin them in say 6 years time