APCOA BA02 Parking Charge Notice (Birmingham Airport)

Bezza44

Hi,

Sorry to start another thread, as I have seen there are a number already posted about APCOA at Birmingham Airport. I know that I need to use the template from the Newbie section, but I have a question with regards to the photos.

Most of the threads I have seen refer to the fact that airports are not 'relevant land' and therefore the keeper is not liable, the driver is, and the challenge for them is obviously identifying the driver. But what if the driver can be seen in the photos?

The photos show me getting out of the drivers side (I am not the registered keeper), and then crossing paths with my wife (who is the registered keeper). The photos do not show her in the drivers seat. So does this affect things at all, as they can see my face? Although the registered keeper is female and it shows a man getting out of the drivers side, and not her getting in?

I have tried to attach the photos, but as a new user it says I can't post links.

Thanks in advance.

waamo

You could be anybody. All the photos show is a male and a female. Unless the PPC has facial recognition software how do they know who it is?

Redx

just challenge it in the usual manner, same as all the others, as KEEPER, no mentioning anything about the driver

send with free certificate of posting at the PO (not recorded)

dont overthink this , assume I was the driver

Bezza44

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to check and make sure.

I did see that in the Newbie thread, about sending it with proof of postage and not recorded. I will do that, but just curious as to why that is the case?

waamo

Proof of posting is free. Post is assumed to be delivered unless the recipient can demonstrate it wasn't delivered. That is a very difficult thing to do. Proof of posting makes it incredibly difficult for them to deny having received anything.

bod1467

And the legal basis behind this? The Interpretations Act 1978.

Redx

if they refuse a recorded delivery, its not delivered, the opposite of what you require

Bezza44

So to confirm, the below is the response that I require?

Date


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, 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 keeper 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.

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.

Yours faithfully,


{the registered keeper's name}

Rover_Driver

bod1467 wrote: »

And the legal basis behind this? The Interpretations Act 1978.

S. 7, Interpretation Act 1978 only applies where an act authorises or requires service by post.

Bezza44

So it is now 33 days after the appeal letter was written and sent and I have not heard back. Is the 'fine' null and void if they do not reply to my appeal within the 35 days quoted on the appeal letter?

Redx

nope, nothing makes it "null and void" except a landowner cancellation, a PPC cancellation or a popla or IAS cancellation, ot a judge cancelling it in court

its an invoice, dont give it any more creedence than what it is

they have 6 years to bring a court claim under the SCC

this 35 days is a BPA guideline and isnt enforced by the BPA, a guideline is simply that, a guideline