PCN for BHX Airport

Coupon-mad

superflygal wrote: »

while driving during dark hours.

Just checking the obvious - was it dark? you'd be amazed how many people copy words like that when their event was in daylight.

Also we hope you realise not to try to restrict your word count? You do not have to and no-one tells you to tick any POPLA boxes like 'I didn't see the signs' because this is not about 'I' when a keeper appeals. You should be throwing the kitchen sink at them with a long appeal saved as a PDF and attached under 'other' in the POPLA submission portal.

superflygal wrote: »

1) The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Therefore a penalty charge and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The above needs changing and adding to, in order to distinguish the case from the PE v Beavis case. In fact you could argue that unauthorised vehicles can only be a trespasser like in this rebuttal (be aware this isn't a POPLA appeal, it's the stage after when a firm has sent 'evidence' but the wording here says something that you can/should use):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70249701#Comment_70249701

You DO need a lot more than just an accusation that the charge is not related to any loss.

You also need a point like in that one, about the signs not telling a driver how the data captured will be used. Wording like this which I have adapted for you, from the same linked post:

These signs are inadequate notice of terms and conditions and also inadequate as regards this operator's duties as a data handler of photographic images of vehicles. ANPR data falls under their ICO registration and the BPA CoP.

Its signs do not warn motorists that data captured by its cameras would be used for the purpose of parking enforcement including trying to enforce cases of trespass by unauthorised vehicles (as is the claim here). There cannot be a breach of any contract when the terms are forbidding and making no offer. This is because *offer, consideration flowing between BOTH parties and acceptance of terms* are the essential elements of any contract, without which there can be no 'breach of contract'.

Non-compliance by 'unauthorised' vehicles can only be a matter of trespass and it is impossible for a driver to breach a contract for a non-existent licence to park. Unlike in the Beavis case, such a licence was never offered and there was no promise made by the driver, no consideration flowed between the parties and indeed the driver had no fair opportunity to read any signs or even consider for one moment that they might be filmed/the VRN would be captured for a 'fine' for the heinous 'crime' of being at a zebra crossing for four seconds...any reasonable man in the street would agree this is sharp practice and an unfair charge.

And indeed in the PE v Beavis judgment at the Supreme Court, it was reaffirmed that in cases of trespass by unauthorised vehicles, a non-owner third party like a parking firm would have had no authority to pursue a charge. Only the landowner could and even then the sum would be restricted to a nominal amount.

All courts have a duty under the CRA to consider the question of unfairness in each and every consumer contract allegation, whether or not the appellant/defendant raises the issue. I am choosing to state the charge IS unfair under the CRA and indeed a breach of the CPUTRs 2008, being an unfair and non-transparent business practice.

The capturing and storage of photographs of the vehicle and registration by cameras and the processing of this data by APCOA to request registered keeper details from the DVLA is unsupported due to ICO and BPA CoP breaches. The resulting ultra vires 'charge' is therefore, unenforceable.

Even if this information had been clearly brought to the driver’s attention, this would have been after the driver had already entered the area, not before, because of the woefully inadequate signs which have failed to create a prominent and obvious 'no-stopping zone'. I would remind the Assessor that in real time in moving traffic in a large and extremely busy site with a plethora of much brighter signs, the driver did NOT have a fair opportunity to read any of the terms and no contract was accepted, nor capable of being breached.

In this one I've added your words about one sign misleadingly shown by APCOA not being anywhere near that place:

superflygal wrote: »

2) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear, that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice.

The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear nor ample, and the motorist had no time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

In the rejection letter, APCOA [STRIKE]they[/STRIKE]included a picture of a notice, which shows the MAGLEV rail track above it. I am local enough to know that this sign is categorically nowhere near the alleged contravention! Totally on the other side of the terminal, and would only be visible well after the driver had driven to the other side of the airport loop not at the time of any aleged 'contract'. This is misleading and that sig MUST be completely disregarded, as the car is not shown anywhere near the rail track.

Further, I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: ''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

I have added more here:

6) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

Even if a basic site agreement or letter [STRIKE]contract[/STRIKE] is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

It is known that APCOA contracts are often simply an agreement to send PCNs in the post, only 'on behalf of' the landowner who remains the principal. APCOA have in the past attempted to sue in their own name under such a site agreement but had to discontinue cases (this is in the public domain).

APCOA have in the past shown POPLA 'a letter from a Manager' to hide the serious holes in their site agreements which are for services only and it is believed APCOA are paid for that service as sub-contractors, which grants them no locus standi whatsoever. There is nothing to show that any authority flows to charge at a zebra crossing for stopping (a ridiculous allegation, liability for which is denied of course). Even more importantly, a vague letter saying an agent can carry out parking management on site is not the same as saying that agent can sue/has any legal standing. Indeed the words 'on our behalf' would prove that APCOA are merely an agent with no standing, they merely provide a facility, a service like a cleaning or security firm or any other - but the prinicipal remains the Airport and only they have the right to enforce in the courts.

So this is the wrong claimant, if the case ever progressed to court and the charge was not properly issued or pursued under the CoP.

In the following cases (which are NOT in any way negated by the Beavis case as the issues are fundamentally different) motorists found from FOI requests that APCOA did not have standing to take them to court:

24/4/14 3YQ53901 APCOA Parking v Hull, at Kingston County Court before DJ Smart

The Defendant paid to strike the claim out due to APCOA having no standing:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...struck-out.html

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83479

APCOA wanted £700 but ended up paying the Defendant £200 costs.


and before that:

5/2/2014 3YQ53850 and 3YQ53894 - APCOA DROPPED TWO CLAIMS:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83241

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...93#post64601793

These were both discontinued by APCOA, who realised rather late that they could not sue in their own name, due to the contract being one where they were merely paid for a service and nothing more. All court papers were in APCOA's name but failed due to them being the wrong claimant of the charge.

It cannot be assumed that the situation is any different now and this is the polar opposite of the Beavis case where the question of 'standing' was not an issue within that completely different type of landowner contract. I put APCOA to strict proof that this contract with this Airport gives them the right to sue in their own name to 'pursue charges in the courts if necessary' as is a requirement of the BPA CoP, otherwise they fail on lack of standing.

And in failing on lack of standing, APCOA will also fail in any attempt to paint a picture of any 'legitimate interest' to pursue a disproportionately high charge in compensation, contrary to the CRA and against the basis of the rules for suing under the tort of trespass, the remedy for which gives rights to compensation only to an actual landowner in the event of damages or loss.

Added a bit here:

superflygal wrote: »

10) APCOA refer in their rejection to the appeal as “your vehicle was observed parked on a red route”. The driver [STRIKE]would[/STRIKE] vehemently denies this ludicrous claim and as the registered keeper appellant, I reject that stopping at a zebra crossing to in any way be classed as “parking”.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
Yours faithfully

superflygal

Coupon Mad thank you so much for your tireless efforts and assistance. Have you thought about setting up your own company to fight these w*$%^rs?? You're amazing!! x x

superflygal

Furthermore, if a passenger decides to jump out of a momentarily poised vehicle, the driver cannot be held responsible for another person’s actions.


Another point raised by a pal ^^

hoohoo

superflygal wrote: »

Furthermore, if a passenger decides to jump out of a momentarily poised vehicle, the driver cannot be held responsible for another person’s actions.


Furthermore, if a passenger decides to jump out of a vehicle stopped at a zebra crossing, the driver cannot be held responsible for another person’s action

Coupon-mad

superflygal wrote: »

Coupon Mad thank you so much for your tireless efforts and assistance. Have you thought about setting up your own company to fight these w*$%^rs?? You're amazing!! x x

Ohhh the irony...

superflygal

Two more points to add to my POPLA appeal

1) The registered keeper has no driving licence, as the keeper has never passed a driving test.
2) The two photos of the car stopped at the zebra crossing do not show the car registration plate, so how can we be sure this is the same car?

Worth mentioning?

Sfg x

Coupon-mad

Yes, I believe in chucking the kitchen sink at the appeal. Both good points.

superflygal

Hi folks,

Just received a letter dates 16th March from POPLA addressed to keeper but then it says "Dear Jenny Giffin" (sic)

(Totally different name and no one we know of!) It says:

" We note you wish to submit an appeal regarding a Parking Charge Notice you have received. In order to do so, you must have a 10 digit verification code, which the parking operator would provide to you. If you do not have a verification code, please contact the parking operator. Once you have a code, please visit http;//popla.co.uk/poplahowto and follow the instructions provided, This will take you through thte process of submitting your grounds for appeal and any supporting evidence you may have.

Once you have submitted your appeal online you will receive your own log in details, which allow you to track the process of your appeal using our website.

If you are unable to submit your appeal online, please complete the enclose appeal form and return this back to us."

I sent the appeal first class on the 12th March (saturday afternoon) with Proof of Posting, so it should have reached them on the 15th latest, so this letter would have been sent after receipt. It is possible it is not intended for RK as it says Dear Jenny Giffin, (an unknown person).

Thinking I might send another letter to POPLA, or maybe email? but i don't want them to get my name (different to RK and I was NOT the driver)

Coupon Mad? Red X any advice?

Many thanks!!

Sfg x

Redx

use a free accomododation email and mention you are a case handler for the appellant

ask them to check that the popla appeal sent in by yourself (with the correct popla code which you now give them) has been received and is being correctly processed under the correct name or names (which you provide), along with the pcn number and VRN as well (for checking purposes)

and mention that RK or keeper has received a letter supposedly sent to someone of a completely different name (give them the name) that has nothing to do with the case you sent in, giving them as many details as possible

tell them that they have sent these details to the wrong person and so may have breached the data protection act and that the persona named may have had no correspondence at all

superflygal

Thanks Red x, i've done that using a psuedonymic claim handler identity.

Sfg x