Apcoa parking charge notice - birmingham airport

enfield_freddy

Redx wrote: »

if APCOA reply to either of these 2 appeals with similar words, we know its bylaws

if they issue popla codes, we know its not bylaws

until the replies come back, we have no idea (but I believe it will be popla codes and not bylaws) - as its always been up to now for Apcoa and Care

yes APCOA are confused, as are Care Parking , Parking Eye and many other ppc,s

but they never let the law stand in their way of making a fast buck from ignorance

I suspect that UKPPO were prevented from the popla angle so tried a different tack, ie:- your tack

quote from there invoice


"'alleged contravention is a breach of the terms and conditions of the use of the airport road infrastructure and that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the breach is required to pay the charge.



how can POPLa apply on land that is non relevant?

Redx

NellyK wrote: »

I can see both points of view and agree it is muddy waters. As I have received a PCN as registered keeper I think I have no choice but to respond stating that POFA does not apply therefore I have no obligation to name the driver or pay the charge. Even if it did apply, the PCN was received 19 days after the alleged event so I think it would be void - is that right: Also, as the charge relates to an alleged contravention of use of the airport road I will state that a parking charge is not applicable as it is not clear that the car was indeed parked and anyway, the charge is unfair and cannot be justified. I will request that the charge be cancelled or a POPLA number issued. I have looked at the Newbies thread and these seem to be the most relevant points to my situation.

no its not right

people are always looking for a VOID , an easy get out

its an added appeal point, it doesnt void the pcn

if you read the NEWBIES sticky thread, it actually tells you that many PPC,s dont abide by POFA, so its a relevant appeal point but doesnt void the invoice (its an invoice)

apcoa generally fail POFA, so its a valid appeal point, but it doesnt negate or void the invoice, cannot stress that enough

if it went to court, it would be an appeal point in your degfence, the judge could VOID the ticket , the landowner could VOID the ticket (which they di in the link I gave earlier)

dont look for an easy get out, appeal as you said, see what comes back, if its a popla code , use it

if its a bylaws issue, come back and start your own thread and dont hijack other ones like this

meanwhile , try a complaint to the CEO at the airport and ask for a cancellation too

Redx

enfield_freddy wrote: »

quote from there invoice


"'alleged contravention is a breach of the terms and conditions of the use of the airport road infrastructure and that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the breach is required to pay the charge.



how can POPLa apply on land that is non relevant?

is a question for the BPA , DVLA and the courts , not me

I am not debating this any further

I will confine my replies to helping those members that need the help

I am not going to write page after page debating the relevancy of popla and not-relevant land, that is a job for the bpa, dvla , courts , ICO and MP,s (I asked my MP that question last year, plus I mentioned it in the public consultation in may 2015 too)

if the Communities Department or my MP ever give me the answers, I will let you know what they say

good luck in your search for clarity, its commendable, but should really be in a thread of its own , as should the questions by NellyK

enfield_freddy

Thanks for your reply , I fid not answer with the indentation of antagonising you.
at the end of the day , the government brought the rules in , back in 2012 , they were set and in "stone" however more and more PPCs are breaking those rules and acting outside of government rules.


the DVLA do not give a toss
the BPA look afer there members


the IPC are just ,, well indescribable.




it is time that the people(government) that agreed to the laws of POFA checked that they were being used correctly , instead of just sitting back , and thinking its working OK


and I have been a member of this forum (and other motoring forums) from 2008 , and trying to help motorist that were being ticketed and clamped


I like many hoped that the POFA2012 would bring some legality into the PPC world , however in the period (under) 3 yrs its turned shambolic

Redx

sorry to say "you did"

but I totally agree with you, and I brought it to the attention of my MP, the DoT (who he sent it to) and the Communities feedback poll as well, none have given me a satisfactory explanation, so how can I answer you when I havent been told myself ?

in my case I mentioned airports like JLA (in my area) and Metrolink (manchester tram system with Care Parking) with railway stations and railway land) - never received a satisfactory reply

so as I say , I agree with your theory (and always have), in practice I tell an OP what currently works for the place in question, and the PPC in question, ie:- practical help on their current problems, not debating the theory as nobody has ever answered that theoretical set of questions satisfactorily for us

I cannot tell you what I dont know, just as those who should know have never told me so I cannot pass it on

yes its a shambles, so until its fixed I will tell those with Luton or Birmingham Airports or Metrolink railway station pcn,s to appeal, then go to popla , so dont be surprised if you see it mentioned in the future too , lol

let me know if you ever get a proper answer or resolve it though, I hope you do

NellyK

Apologies to everyone for confusing the issue and particularly to Sporty 169 for my mistake in adding to this thread, have never joined such a forum before and clearly misunderstood the etiquette. Will post my response and let you know how I get on in a separate thread. I am grateful for all your advice and truly apologise for my error

Redx

NellyK wrote: »

Apologies to everyone for confusing the issue and particularly to Sporty 169 for my mistake in adding to this thread, have never joined such a forum before and clearly misunderstood the etiquette. Will post my response and let you know how I get on in a separate thread. I am grateful for all your advice and truly apologise for my error

this is why we operate "one person, one thread" as a policy, as do most forums, saves on the confusion or replied advice

just start your own thread if necessary, no biggie

at least you should now be aware of the issues involved, plus good info on appealing and why, plus what NOT to say

NellyK

Thank you Redx will do

Umkomaas

I feel for Sporty169, his/her thread has been totally bombed out and has not returned. NellyK should have been eased out into a new thread long time ago.

I hope Sporty comes back for specific advice - and not feel without support as his/her plea for help has gone unanswered - with the prospect of feeling obliged to pay the PCN.

I know (hijacking) newbies get a bit miffed when they are asked to start a new thread, but this is a very clear example of how things can go so badly wrong from a hijack!

NellyK

Don't agree that Sporty 169 has been 'bombed out'. Our situation was identical which led me, albeit, wrongly, to add my query. I have apologised for this and have to say I am no way 'miffed' at being asked to start a new thread as absolutely agree with the comments given. However, I do think that Sporty 169 will also benefit from the advice offered from this thread.


Instead of just stating the obvious, it may have been more helpful if you had offered direct advice to Sporty on the issue he/she raised instead of just voicing criticism on that which has already happened.
Please don't respond to me on this thread as it will be unhelpful to all - start a new thread if you feel it will be constructive