Luton Airport PCN - APCOA

wowman

Hi all,

Fantastic to find such a fantastic forum with such helpful and knowledgeable moderators I can't stand big companies ripping people off left-right and centre. At first I was going to just pay the fine but THANK GOD I GOOGLED!!

I am posting as a show of support to all of the moderators of what a fantastic job they are doing! There is such a wealth of information here that pretty much anyone can sort out their dodgy tickets and stick it back to these horrendous companies.

I am also posting as a more recent reference to parking at Luton Airport. Many of the threads I found with my google said to ignore notices (which is NOW NOT A GOOD IDEA!!). So having recently acquired a PCN from the lovely people at APOCA - a driver of my vehicle dropped off a passenger on an inlay of a roundabout for 4 seconds to avoid paying the ridiculous drop-off fees - I am not going to pay.

Background: It was dark (6am) and the driver was dropping of a passenger for departure. There were roadworks current all over the airport, with signs galore and confusing traffic flow directions. The driver pulled over to an inlay to get bearings and drop the passenger off (not blocking flow of traffic or anything) for a MAXIMUM of 26 seconds on the 12/12/2015. A notice was issued on 07/01/2016 for payment with pictures of the vehicle.

First step - Appeal to APOCA

I drafted and sent the following email to APOCA

---

Dear Sir/Maim,

I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the Vehicle (REG HERE) involved in Parking Charge Number (PCN) NUMBER HERE to challenge this PCN.

I believe the signs were not clearly visible and are ambiguous. During the time of the alleged contravention, it was still dark and the signs were insufficiently illuminated. Furthermore, the signage of the construction work that was in progress around and on Luton Airports roads was not clear, and so drivers can very easily become overwhelmed as they attempt to navigate - missing any poorly lit and ambiguous signage relating to parking.

It follows that without clear and adequate signage given the road conditions - no contract could be formed between the driver of the vehicle and landowner, and so no contravention could have taken place. Furthermore - the area of road where the vehicle is photographed was not marked as a 'No Stopping Zone'. The vehicle did not obstruct the flow of traffic, or cause any disruption.

In addition - I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

Continuing onwards - 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: <link> . 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): <link> - '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.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge. Since the former is not possible - I would kindly request that this PCN is therefore cancelled.

I have retained proof of submission of this appeal, and look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

NAME & ADDRESS

---

I then received (via post) a generic 'your appeal has been rejected'. Due to the amount of personal information contained. I will type what they said

---

'Thank you for your letter of appeal received against the parking charge notice issued to you. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise that your appeal has been unsucsessful on this occation.

All restricted areas are signposted and clearly state that no stopping is allowed at any time to drop off pick up, or for any other reason. CCTV and number plate recognition is in operation. Anyone in contravention of this restriction will be liable for a PCN of up to £80. There is a £2 drop-off zone at Luton airport. This was introduced to ease traffic congestion at the terminal. We do, however, offer free parking at the mid-term car-park for up to 30 minutes.

<2 pictures of my vehicle, timestamped and GPS coordinates (one with my boot open)>

<another picture of my vehicle with number plate, a picture of a (unlit) signpost stating all of the rules (in very small print)>

The restricted zone signs shown above are in place at the following locations around the airport

<map below of airport layout (with no roadworks indicated) with sign positions marked>

In answer to the points raised in your appeal - notices to private land are issued in accordance with the BPA guidelines and APCOA being an approved operator of BPA is authorized to issue notices on behalf of London Luton Airport. Proof of this landowner authority is provided below.

<Appalling scanned email from 'Rupert Lawne'?, Commercial Director , for and on behalf of London Luton Airport Operations Ltd.

As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the site - we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practice and are therefore not able to waiver the charge on this occasion. Therefore, you now have a number of options:

1)Pay the PCN at the discounted price of £48.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time, the PCN will increase to £80. You can pay by the following methods...
<Methods>

2)Make an appeal to POPLA. The independent appeal service within 28 days of this letter by completing the online appeal form at <address>, quoting the verification reference number <NUMBER>. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the PCN will be considered at the full amount of £80. If you require a hard copy of the POPLA form, please contact our Customer Services...... <details here>

By law, we are also required to inform you that ombudsman services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternate resolution dispute services. As such, should you with to appeal, then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

3) If you choose to do nothing. We will seek to recover the moneys owed to us via our debt recovery procedures, and may proceed with court action against you.

Yours Faithfully,

APCOA Appeals Department

wowman

I am now going to continue with the POPLA appeal, using the points outlined in my initial letter (of which they did not fully address) and additionally the fact of the lateness of the PCN received (contravention on 12/12/15, letter on 07/01/16).

This is my draft (which I will submit at the end of this week, based off another post)

POPLA Ref xxxxxxxxxxx
APCOA Parking PCN no xxxxxxxxxx

A notice to keeper was issued on 7th January 2016 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxxx) on 9th January 2016 for an alleged contravention of ‘01-Failing to park in a designated parking area’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4) Creditor not identified
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
7) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

1) The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

2) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 12th December 2015, and the notice to keeper was received 28 days later on 9th January 2016.

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

4) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of POFA 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it. This would require words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. APCOA have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

5) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Aiport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do 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. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.
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.''

Furthermore - at the particular time of the alleged contravention, it was still dark and there was extensive roadworks being undertaken. The combination of unlit, unreadable, unclear signage and roadworks 'clutter' (redirections, barriers ect.) would prove overwhelming for any driver.

6) The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

7) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.
I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.
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 contract 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.

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

----

Moderators (Coupon-mad or others) - feel free to advise on any adjustments or sticky this thread as a base for future reference on Luton Airport scams.

Fellow forum users or google browsers - feel free to use my experience and responses for your own appeals. Just remember - NEVER SAY WHO WAS DRIVING!!!!

Peace out

Redx

yep, we know , but its not a "fine" and its actually APCOA , not APOCA

so just find a recent popla appeal from the last 3 to 6 months of a similar nature, for Luton or Birmingham and then adapt it as required

POFA2012 does not apply on airport land so no revealing who was driving, bearing in mind they have sent letters to the KEEPER , who cannot be held liable due to POFA , whereas they should be chasing the driver (who you wont be naming)

the NEWBIES sticky thread also has advice on the popla appeal too, so please read it and check those examples

appeal reasons will be

POFA2012 does not apply
NTK errors
no contract
not a gpeol
poor signage
challenging the photographic evidence (times could be doctored)
no GRACE PERIOD given (clause #13 in the BPA CoP)

some of the above points are missing from your draft

Coupon-mad

Well done to the OP, that should be enough to see APCOA throw in the towel within a week or two, IMHO.

hoohoo

1) Is out of date.
Try...
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. 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 not ample, and the motorist had not 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.

As Beavis is binding case law it is submitted the charge should be dismissed.

Coupon-mad

True, but I think they've already submitted it? And APCOA do throw in the towel a lot!

wowman

Thank you guys for the reply!

@Redx Thank you very much for the info. I thought I got all of the points but clearly I missed some. I'll add the two points you highlighted that I missed and will post a revised POPLA appeal when I submit it this Friday for others to use.

@hoohoo Thank you very much for pointing that out. I wasn't aware it was ot of date! With your permission I will include your snippet in my revised POPLA appeal

I am assuming it only takes 1 point to be valid to win (POFA 2012 - Not applicable) but sod it

hoohoo

You don't need my permission, lol, anyone can use my stuff for free.

wowman

Thanks again guys for your replys. For completness of this thread, and anyone else who has any issues at Luton/Birmingham airport, below is my full appeal to POPLA for this PCN. There are litrally so many things in here lmfao that I'm sure someone somewhere will find snippets useful. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, EVERY POINT IS UP TO DATE AND VALID AS OF FEB 2016.

----

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Ref xxxxxxxxxxx
APCOA Parking PCN no xxxxxxxxxx

A notice to keeper was issued on 7th January 2016 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxxx) on 9th January 2016 for an alleged contravention of ‘01-Failing to park in a designated parking area’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4) Creditor not identified
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
7) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8) Photo Evidence appears doctored[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

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. 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 not ample, and the motorist had not 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.

2) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 12th December 2015, and the notice to keeper was received 28 days later on 9th January 2016.

3) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

4) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of POFA 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it. This would require words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. APCOA have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

5) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Aiport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do 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. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.
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.''

Furthermore - at the particular time of the alleged contravention, it was still dark and there was extensive roadworks being undertaken. The combination of unlit, unreadable, unclear signage and roadworks 'clutter' (redirections, barriers ect.) would prove overwhelming for any driver.

6) The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

7) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.
I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.
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 contract 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged (See [FONT=&quot]<Dail[FONT=&quot]y Mail Article on UKPC doctoring photos>[/FONT][/FONT] for more information). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location ect.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise type of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9) As par section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice - ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.’ [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Given the above points of unambiguous signage, including small sized font, it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to read the entire signage (let alone see it) while driving during dark hours. Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they MUST have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged ‘contract’. 30 seconds in a layby I would argue does not breach a fair ‘grace period’, and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]

---

I'm just going to assume this will win, and so will not reply further on this thread when I receive the 'APCOA has not submitted a defence' from POPLA. Best of luck to other drivers!

Peace

Guys_Dad

You need to make just a little more of point 3. You write "As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. "

That is not true. What is true is that in your capacity as keeper (and solely that) you do not have keeper liability, but if you were driving, then you do have liability.

You can either state that you were not driving (if that was true) or re-word the sentence to read "In my capacity as registered keeper I am not legally liable for keeper liability as this Act does not apply on this land. "

wowman

Hi all,

Me here again. They actually responded!

And it actually looks decent...

drive dot google dot com forwardslash file forwardslash d forwardshlash 0BynZj1JufqUzekdLQlB1NVhqTVE forwardslash view?usp=sharing

(I am still 'new' apparently so not allowed to post a full hyperlink. Just insert dots and slashes where words are. Also apologies for wierd enlarged pages, I redacted my personal info using Photoshop and it wasn't perfect lol)

The below doc is my POPLA appeal (compiled with the good help of the MSE community )

drive dot google dot com forwardslash file forwardslash d forwardslash 0BynZj1JufqUza2dLUmFRZTQ2Q0E forwardslash view?usp=sharing

No decision has been made by POPLA yet, but I will keep you all posted.

I'm very determined to get their little scam kicked back. What are your thoughts on their push?

Best,

WowMan