NTK - APCOA Twyford Station

Coupon-mad

dunmol wrote: »

That's exactly what has happened. My appeal to POPLA on Tuesday 9th. Evidence pack from ACPOA e-mailed to me on Wed 10th , followed an hour later from a further mail from POPLA stating i have 7 days to respond to ACPOA's 'evidence'.
Does my reply on the relevant land look good enough ?

Add some stuff from post #16 here by email to POPLA if you think any of this isn't already in your rebuttal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70134378#Comment_70134378

POPLA will normally add anything you ask to be added to the file...may as well add more. Throw the kitchen sink at it.

Boonitch

Hi all,

It seems my car is in the exact same situation as the above OP.

I've read this whole thread as well as others.

A lot say to simply ignore the fine and subsequent letters.


What are your thoughts on that?

Cheers,

Boonitch

Coupon-mad

Boonitch wrote: »

Hi all,

It seems my car is in the exact same situation as the above OP.

I've read this whole thread as well as others.

A lot say to simply ignore the fine and subsequent letters.


What are your thoughts on that?

Cheers,

Boonitch

Our thoughts are you've ben reading old threads. Why read 2012 stuff? Parking firms are egged on by the POFA 2012 and then again by the recent ParkingEye v Beavis case.

Advice shifted away from 'ignore' in 2013 onwards and even more so, 4 months ago after the astonishing PE v Beavis decision, where the Supreme Court managed to decide: (effectively) 'if it looks like a penalty it isn't, it's commercially justified'.

An interpretation of penalties which is now (perhaps unintentionally...) being used and misused to support one of the very lowest, rip-off industries in the UK. A gobsmacking decision by all but one Judge, in National Consumers' week too. Sadly it is proving to be a green light for protection racketeers jumping on the bandwagon.

Read the sticky threads at the top of any forum. Don't read old threads.

dunmol

We have a winner !!!!


DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameColin Pugh
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not parked wholly within a bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that: • Railway land is not relevant land since bylaws apply to railway land. • No keeper liability. • No contract with the driver, inadequate signage. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • Lack of standing / authority from landowner. • Unreasonable/unfair terms.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As a result, the appellant is being pursued as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that she believes that the Twyford Station car park has no keeper liability, due to byelaws prevailing, not being relevant land. Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that: “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”. It is from the reading of these sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 that I conclude, if statutory provision exists that imposes a liability in respect of parking on the land, PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability for any charges incurred from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the land in question is subject to Byelaws regarding the parking of vehicles, and that as such they cannot be pursued as the keeper of the vehicle using the PoFA 2012 for the charges incurred. Reviewing the Railway Byelaws (found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf) states under section 14, “Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking”, that: “(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway: 1. in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an operator or any person using the railway; or 2. otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an operator or an authorised person. (3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an operator or an authorised person at that place. (4) In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” Further to this, the Railway Byelaws state, under section 24 “Enforcement, that: “(1) Offence and level of fines Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.” From my reading of these Byelaws, I am satisfied that the operator is unable to use PoFA 2012 to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, on this occasion. Within the operator evidence it has stated that “APCOA can confirm that we do not enforce under the Bye-laws”. Therefore, I have not assessed whether the operator would have been able to pursue the appellant under the Byelaws. Accordingly, as the driver has not been identified and as PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal; however, as I have allowed this appeal on this ground I have not assessed the other points raised.

BT68

nice. Same for me at Harpenden Station, where they simply caved in at POPLA.

System

For Rail parking charges in future could I suggest that you decline to appeal to POPLA but say you will seriously consider the issue and reply in 181 days. ;-)

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

For Rail parking charges in future could I suggest that you decline to appeal to POPLA but say you will seriously consider the issue and reply in 181 days. ;-)

Good plan! :T

The_Deep

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

... you need to do a full POPLA appeal with ALL the points that have been used in the past. Only one needs to win for your appeal to win.

I disagree, submit a single point appeal. If it is not relevant land, it is not relevant land, no matter what new PoPLA may think.

If they find against you, and are proven wrong, it will seriously damage them.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

I disagree, submit a single point appeal. If it is not relevant land, it is not relevant land, no matter what new PoPLA may think.

If they find against you, and are proven wrong, it will seriously damage them.

TD - POPLA has already found for the OP. Not sure whether your advice was directed towards the OP (in which case that train has left the station ) or whether it was one of a more general nature for railway cases.

The_Deep

A general observation, K.I.S.S.