Luton Airport PCN - APCOA

wowman

@GuysDad Thanks for the comment, sorry I didn't reply earlier.

Now, I think it would be a 'stretch' to say I wasn't driving And now that they have responded using all of their photos, I would be happy to say that. But, I would prefer to not say that if at all possible. But maybe that doesn't make much of a difference. There are other people on my car insurance so it is not clear cut at all to attempt to chase me as a driver.

But yea, great point I should have mentioned in my POPLA appeal.

Coupon-mad

Your POPLA appeal:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BynZj1JufqUza2dLUmFRZTQ2Q0E/view

APCOA's evidence:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BynZj1JufqUzekdLQlB1NVhqTVE/view

Here you go, we'll take a look now and you will get some advice & comments I'm sure!

dazster

People appealing charges from Luton or Birmingham airports don't make enough of the signage.

Even if you could read the signs from a moving vehicle (and noting that the first sign as you approach Luton Airport is partially obscured by a cycle path sign LOL!) the signs don't make any kind of contractual offer, they merely set out a prohibition. In other words, at most all they are doing is imposing a term on the implied licence which entitles the public to use the roads, and if you breach that licence you become a trespasser, not a contract-breaker. And not only is it highly unlikely that APCOA has sufficient interest in the land to bring an action for trespass, any such action would be for a purely nominal sum.

Furthermore, the prohibition is specifically this: "No stopping at any time to drop off or pick up". So stopping for any reason other than to drop off or pick up is perfectly OK! The OP on this thread says he stopped to get his bearings. Well that's OK then! He can't be responsible for the actions of his passenger, and if the passenger decided to get out of the vehicle as soon as it was stationary what is the driver supposed to do? Physically restrain him?

wowman

@Dazster Thanks for that.

Lol you're right, I didn't even notice that sign being obscured ^^

This is where I feel very out of depth... All of the 'contractual' stuff you mention I am really not clued up about. As far as I am aware, a contract is something I have to sign, not some invisible rule when I... 'ahem'... a driver goes to drop someone off for a flight!

The 'No Stopping' thing for me is really an odd one. For example, when this is used say, on the roads in london with thick red lines, or, somewhere where traffic flows constantly so it would be bad to stop. If you car broke down, if something happened where you needed to stop for a moment in some emergency... Are you still breaking the law? Can I just say the car stalled for the driver and so the passenger got out while the driver was restarting the engine?

I'm also not sure why they use terms like 'criminal offence' now... Did they hire some legal guy that is saying that lawfully or? Because I thought this was civil, not criminal?

Coupon-mad

Here you go, I've nicked some of this from Edna Basher's words on the Portishead Marina thread but this will do as a rebuttal.

This won't fit in the Portal so you will have to email this as an attachment to POPLA, and ask specifically for them to confirm they have added this rebuttal to the case file for the Assessor to view:



I have reviewed APCOA's response and they have failed in several respects to show this charge was properly given under the circumstances of the case. This is the wrong claimant (not the landowner) aiming an unenforceable penalty for trespass at the wrong person: a registered keeper who cannot be legally liable.

I now rebut APCOA's evidence and take the opportunity to explain my position regarding the non-comparable (but useful in many respects) binding decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (“the Beavis case”).

- The circumstances at this Airport are fundamentally different to those considered by the Supreme Court. In the Beavis case, there was common ground between all before the court that the relationship between the parking company and Mr Beavis was contractual.

- However, in this particular case, APCOA's allegation is clearly only related to alleged trespass and not a matter of contract at all. The driver promised nothing which can in law constitute valuable consideration and, for their part, APCOA provided no contractual offer nor consideration, for the simple reason that APCOA argue that the driver had not been invited/authorised to park under any licence nor right at all.

- The charge of £80 is not (and cannot be) sought for the profit of APCOA, as a remedy for any 'criminal offence' so it is misleading of APCOA to mention this. Such matters would only be pursuable in a Magistrates' Court within six months and only then, of course, if a byelaws offence was proven against the person liable (which APCOA have failed to show can be the keeper/owner, under the byelaws).

- Apart from a cropped, brief section, the byelaws have not been provided in evidence so the mention of a criminal offence is a red herring from APCOA, thrown in to besmirch the driver and muddy the waters regarding the nature of the charge. It beggars belief that they have warned me as keeper about liability and 'falsifying information' despite them not using a POFA version NTK and this not being 'relevant land'.

- If anyone has falsified information it is APCOA by stating 'the appellant has retained liablity...the registered keeper remains liable'. That is false - a keeper cannot be liable in law at this site - and I object to their threat of magistrates' court regarding a criminal offence.

- £80 is extravagant and unconscionable and, notwithstanding any byelaws issue, substantially exceeds any possible loss that the landholder (not APCOA) could possibly pursue as a consequence of trespass.

I refer POPLA to the following extracts from the Supreme Court’s judgement:

Paragraph 97: ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass...

Paragraph 107: ...it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.

Paragraph 190: ...Mr Beavis...would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. But ParkingEye was not in possession of the car park, or capable of bringing proceedings in trespass. It had a mere right to control parking at the site - the right to permit or refuse others to park there on such conditions as it might stipulate. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract...

...the question arises whether the Parking Charge is an unenforceable penalty. The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis’s promise was the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free of charge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration.''

Furthermore, the Beavis Case concerned allowed parking (not disallowed dropping off) and it was at a Retail Park and as such, the rationale behind that decision is not relevant here. I refer POPLA to Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Supreme Court’s judgement:

''The notice at the entrance describes ParkingEye as being engaged to provide a “traffic space maximisation scheme”, which is an exact description of its function. In the agreed Statement of Facts and Issues, the parties state that “the predominant purpose of the parking charge was to deter motorists from overstaying”, and that the landowner’s objectives include the following:

The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants’ prospective customers;
The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;
The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential number of such customers;
The related need to prevent ‘misuse’ of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants’ business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to off-park premises; and
The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves.''

The case of an unauthorised motorist inadvertently stopping for the sole purpose of getting their bearings among a plethora of confusing signs and barriers and road works - and a passenger then deciding of their own volition to get out - is clearly very different from the Beavis case.

Also, ParkingEye’s success in the Beavis Case was dependent upon there being clear signage. I refer POPLA to Paragraph 90 of the Supreme Court’s judgement:

''At all material times since then, ParkingEye has displayed about 20 signs at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals throughout it. The signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so.''

As detailed in my appeal and as is shown in APCOA's own evidence - misleadingly showing the signs only in daylight - the 'no dropping off' signs were neither prominent nor legible in darkness among the conglomoration of other notices. None of the photographs of the car stopped shows where it was in relation to any signs and it is shown next to other cars also with boots open so where is the evidence that this place was not a drop off zone? Indeed, APCOA's own evidence shows the driver had to keep their eyes on the road, negotiating through a slalom of cones before they passed a large, driver-height and illuminated black/orange 'drop off and pick up' sign with an inviting arrow pointing the way the car appears to have gone.

Finally, in response to my point #8 about ANPR compliance they have cited BPA CoP point #21 which states that an operator must state clearly and transparently 'what the data captured will be used for'. Yet they have failed to show any signs which fulfil this ICO and BPA obligation. And in their answer to my point #9 they have cited the byelaws 3.6(c) yet, going back up to view the section of the byelaws they have shown earlier, they've cropped them to stop at 3.6(a).

dazster

wowman wrote: »

This is where I feel very out of depth... All of the 'contractual' stuff you mention I am really not clued up about. As far as I am aware, a contract is something I have to sign, not some invisible rule when I... 'ahem'... a driver goes to drop someone off for a flight!

There is such a thing (it's well established in law) as "acceptance by performance". So if you drive into, say, a car park and there are huge, prominent signs saying that "By parking here you agree to the following terms..." then if you park you've entered into a contract. But (i) the signs have to be so prominent you couldn't possibly miss them and (ii) the signs have to convey some kind of offer (e.g. parking). No offer = no contract.

The signs at Luton could easily be missed by someone driving a car in free-flowing traffic, especially if they are unfamiliar with the airport and concentrating on where they are going. And, they don't offer you anything. If the signs weren't there you would still be entitled to use the airport roads under something called an "implied licence", which effectively means this: there's a bloody great airport there, open to the public, with roads approaching it, so quite clearly the airport operator has implicitly given permission for you to use the roads. So what are the signs offering you that you haven't already got? Answer: nothing. So no contract.

wowman wrote: »

The 'No Stopping' thing for me is really an odd one. For example, when this is used say, on the roads in london with thick red lines, or, somewhere where traffic flows constantly so it would be bad to stop. If you car broke down, if something happened where you needed to stop for a moment in some emergency... Are you still breaking the law? Can I just say the car stalled for the driver and so the passenger got out while the driver was restarting the engine?

That's completely different. Red Routes have statutory backing, but the roads at Luton Airport are privately owned and the red lines are just graffiti on the road. Sure, the airport operator can make its own rules, but if you break those rule you are a common-or-garden trespasser, for which damages are typically minimal which is why people very rarely sue for trespass!

APCOA are pretending that by driving past their pathetic signs you entered into a contract with them, APCOA, and if you stop on the road you've breached that contract. It's nonsense on stilts.

wowman wrote: »

I'm also not sure why they use terms like 'criminal offence' now... Did they hire some legal guy that is saying that lawfully or? Because I thought this was civil, not criminal?

Who is talking about criminal offences? APCOA?

Coupon-mad

Who is talking about criminal offences? APCOA?

Yes indeed they did, and warned the appellant about 'falsifying information' and said the keeper was still liable (hence the suggested wording from me about that). I think this needs a complaint to the DVLA and BPA as well.

dazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes indeed they did, and warned the appellant about 'falsifying information' and said the keeper was still liable (hence the suggested wording from me about that). I think this needs a complaint to the DVLA and BPA as well.

I see what you mean. Yes, complaints all round.

System

Why not also call the council and ask when the Borough of Luton (London Luton Airport) Traffic Management Order 2009 was rescinded.

We don't want LLA and APCOA carrying out wholesale fraud of the good people of Luton by diverting cash from statutory penalties to a private company. Would we.

dazster

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Why not also call the council and ask when the Borough of Luton (London Luton Airport) Traffic Management Order 2009 was rescinded.

We don't want LLA and APCOA carrying out wholesale fraud of the good people of Luton by diverting cash from statutory penalties to a private company. Would we.

But local authorities don't make money out of penalty charges, they're cost-neutral. :rotfl: