Luton airport apcoa pcn popla

badbrains

Hello
Please can you offer me some guidance.
* PCN dated 10.09.2015 for dropping off/picking up outside designated area at Luton airport
* I was the driver but my sister is the Registered Keeper. I borrowed her car. I picked someone up just outside the short term car park, but not on the road. Pics show my companion load a case in the boot and me driving off.
* 23.09.15 Appeal based on Newbies letter template has been rejected

I have read nearly all the posts related to Luton airport APCOA POPLA appeals but none are recent. The newbies template which I copied references beavis vs parking eye. The court ruled in favour of parking eye so the template is out of date. A simple search would have shown me this but I mistakenly did not remove this from my appeal letter. APCOA rejection references this; they say they do not agree PCN is not a genuine GPEOL. And that the RK is liable.

I'm also considering using "appeal parking ticket" website but haven't seen any reviews on them.

Most of the successful appeals were based around GPEOL. I cant see what the bases of my POPLA appeal will be.

Any assistance greatly appreciated.

HO87

APCOA are one of the least litigious PPC's - in other words they very, very rarely go to court.

In their rejection letter did APCOA include a POPLA code and give you instructions as to how you can appeal to an independent body?

What makes you think that simply because APCOA have claimed that their charge IS a GPEOL that they are correct? Might their claim be influenced by the fact that they stand to gain £100 if they stick to that line whereas if they were to charge what their maximum loss really was the most they could make was £16?

Keep in mind that they do not own the roads, have no financial interest in them and operate was amounts to a skimdustry - they skim money off land owned by others.

APCOA's paperwork hasn't ever complied with the requirements of the law (Protection of Freedoms Act) and cannot invoke the keeper liability clauses of the Act (set aside the paperwork angle) because the airport land is covered by byelaws which means that - from the Protections of Freedoms Act point of view - it isn't "relevant land".

PS A lower court ruled in favour of Beavis but that makes no allowances for the fact that the case has since been appealed to the Supreme Court and we await judgment - probably in the near future. And if APCOA are seeking to rely on Beavis then one can only presume that they are speaking from entirely the wrong bodily orifice. The details of Beavis have as much connection to APCOA's operation and the use of roads at Luton airport as fish need bicycling lessons.

hoohoo

APCOA NTK are not known to be compliant and the land is probably not relevant land for POFA.

The RK should therefore appeal to POPLA stating keeper liability does not apply as the main point.

Also that there cannot be a contract because the signs cannot be safely read while driving, and in any case do not have APCOAs name on them.

You can add others.

Oh, and the 'appeal parking ticket' crew have phoenixed twice already, so buyer beware. If they appeal and lose, or even don't bother to appeal, don't bank on getting your money back.

badbrains

Thank you for your speedy response.
I have a POPLA appeal code. Here is there rejection letter.
I did scrutinize the original PCN. It was within the timeline. It included "Creditor APCOA" etc.
It's as though they had a scripted response for the Beavis argument. Do I need to rebut their points as mentioned on another post in my POPLA appeal? Can anyone direct me to a recent successful POPLA appeal that I could use at all please.
Thanks again.

---

RE : Ticket Reference
POPLA verification Number:


Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us to you on 03/08/2015. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, I must advise your appeal has not been successful on this occasion.


You were issued a notice having received an allegation of contravention at Luton Airport. Having investigated further, we have found that your vehicle was pictured in breach of the above terms set by Luton Airport, dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area, having failed to enter the designated pickup and drop off zone or short term car park.


ln response to your comments made in your letter, please note notices only need to be issued within 14 days if the notice issued mentions "under Protection of Freedoms 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 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 unauthorized parking event. lt is our understanding that as we have not referred to this act in our documentation, we are able to work in accordance with the BPA code of practise (June 2013) which states that we have up to 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention.


All enforcements are carried out according to British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines and APCOA being an approved operator of BPA is authorized to manage and enforce the property on behalf of Luton Airport. Any vehicles in contravention of the terms and conditions of Luton Airport are sent out to DVLA for registered owner's information under BPA guidelines.


APCOA is not liable to justify the charge as set out in section 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 £80." We are therefore of the belief that this parking charge is fair and reasonable at £80 reduced to £48 if paid within 14 days. The sum, and calculations which have been made in setting it, have been approved and agreed by the landowner.


Therefore, we feel that as our Parking Charge Notice was within the amount stipulated by the BPA guidelines, and as the Court of Appeal has found that charged of this nature are permissible, claiming that the Parking Charge Notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is not a suitable premise on which to base appeals.
HERE IT SHOWS A PHOTOGRAPH OF A ROAD SIGN WITH THE WORDING:


Restricted ZONE


No stopping at any time to drop off or pick up


CCTV and number plate recognition in operation


Warning Enforcement Charge of £80.00


This is a private road


THEN THE LETTER CONTINUES WITH:

Recently, the court of appeal unanimously dismissed the case of Beavis vs Parking Eye 2015. This case considered two key arguments: (a) whethere a parking charge for a contravention of the parking charge is unenforceable at common law because it is a penalty; and (b) whether it is unfair and therefore unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

The judges ruled that the parking charge notice that Mr Beavis had received from Parking Eye for overstaying a two hour limit "is not extravagant or unconscionable". They added that the termsand conitions of a car park should "provide a disincentive to drivers which will make them tend to comply", and that this is afforded by the Parking Charge Notice of £85. The judegs went on to say that the charge was justifiable by "a combination of factors, social as well as commercial".

The guidelines issued by the BPA ake clear that they 'would not expect this amount to be more than £100." We therefore believe that this parking charge is fair and reasonable at £80 reduced to £48 if paid with 14 days. This sum has been approved and agreed by the land owner.

Therefore we do not agree that claiming that the PCN is not genuine pre estimate loss is a suitable premise on which to base appeals.

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


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.

---

aideenj

Hi badbrians,
I'm just wondering if you found an appeal template or not? Or how you have taken this forward?
I have had a nearly indentical rejection letter from them for an almost identical situation.
My grounds for appeal were the guinuine estimate of loss, keeper not liable and also how the signs weren't legible without stopping which interesting they didn't mention in their rejection letter.
So hopefully you can provide some guidance as to how you have progressed from this point?
Aideen

Coupon-mad

I did scrutinize the original PCN. It was within the timeline. It included "Creditor APCOA" etc.

Yep, that's as maybe - but it fails on almost every other point as you will see when you copy out the bullet points from paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 then look for each and every mandatory piece of info...and what about the fact that Airport land is not 'relevant land' anyway? So there can be no keeper liability because POFA is the only legal route for that, and the POFA does not apply on land covered by statutory control under bylaws or traffic laws.

We can't show you a winning template POPLA appeal as such, because POPLA has just changed service provider.

So we are not yet sure that all arguments which won at 'old POPLA will win at NEW POPLA. However I do know 'no landowner authority' wins still, as do unclear signs, because if you look at the last few posts in 'POPLA decisions' sticky thread you will discover that fact. And no keeper liability/not relevant land surely HAS to win because it's a point of law, as long as you haven't blown it in an earlier appeal by saying who was driving.

Show us your draft POPLA appeal based on what I've suggested above, copying wording found in other POPLA appeals - how about searching 'POPLA Airport' or 'POPLA APCOA' as your keywords, using the 'search this forum' small heading on the right just above the sticky threads on page one - NB: (NOT THE SEARCH AT THE TOP OF THE ENTIRE PAGE - NOT THE SEARCH OF 'MSE').

badbrains

Dear Coupon-mad, aideenj and other readers

I have WON my appeal based on all the MSM expert and readers info on this forum.
I am immensely grateful as the fine was just infuriating.

Here is what the POPLA email said
APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

In my first post I said the Newbie letter made a reference to the Beavis case. It doesn't. This was my mistake in my confusion. So the newbie letter template works just fine.

I will be posting my appeal letter here shortly.

NFFCFAN

Dear badbrains, I'm now in a similar situation to the one you were in... would you mind posting your successful POPLA appeal letter please? Unfortunately the Supreme Court has now ruled in favour of ParkingEye. Am I correct in saying there are still other valid grounds for appeal, such as no RTK liability, inadequate signage and no landowner contract? Many thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Yes you are right. Also, you can point out the following because I saw a recent rejection letter and I am sure yours is the same:

APCOA’s rejection letter calls this a ‘fine’ in the letter - a term banned in the BPA Code of Practice:

14 Misrepresentation of authority:
14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’


and you can use other points which you mentioned already, as long as you've not already given away the driver in the first appeal:


- No contract formed and no contravention. Not marked as a no-stopping zone.

- No landowner authority.

- The requirements of the POFA schedule 4 have not been met & this is not ‘relevant land’ - the Airport Roads are under the statutory control of Luton Borough Council. The Byelaws documentation evidence can be found at:

http://www.london-luton.co.uk/en/content/8/244/byelaws.html

The byelaws make it very clear in part 3 ‘PROHIBITED ACTS INVOLVING VEHICLES’ that restrictions on parking on airport roads remains in the gift of the Airport under the byelaws.

The Government guidelines (page 10):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

‘‘The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.’’

Therefore keeper liability does not apply - only the driver is potentially liable to parking charges on such land and the POFA 2012 does not apply at all.

NFFCFAN

Thanks for your reply Coupon-mad.

The word "fine" wasn't used; however, they did use the words "enforcement charge" and "parking charge notice."

Also, they wrote, "This is private land and APCOA Parking has been issued landowner authority to enforce the terms and conditions on behalf of Luton Airport."

Is this total nonsense? I.e. more scare tactics from them?

In case badbrains doesn't reply I will put together an appeal letter based on other successful POPLA appeals and post it in a new thread. Is that OK? I'm just concerned there is now a "new" POPLA, but I guess the points of appeal haven't changed and are still valid/winnable.

Redx

sounds like a good plan to me, especially if you have a popla code

in the light of the recent Beavis decision , you may need to remove "not a gpeol" from any popla appeal, also the AZIZ test or UTCCR or CRA terminology too

but start a new thread with your draft popla appeal , and look at the recent Birmingham Airport popla appeals too , as its the same APCOA

airports are not relevant land under POFA , so thats the first of many appeal points as long as the drivers details were not given away