IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Luton Airport PCN - APCOA

Options
135

Comments

  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 17 February 2016 at 11:10AM
    having read that response by APCOA it all seems a hotch potch of smoke and mirrors to me , especially the signage , bylaws and keeper liability etc

    they state numerous times that they dont use POFA2012 yet they try to force the KEEPER to be the appellant on the grounds that he/she did not disclose driver details, if POFA2012 does not apply , then it does not apply , period

    they state on numerous times there are 21 or more signs all over the place, yet studying those pictures there is no way you could possibly read them whilst driving a car and if you stop to read them you have broken the rules, lol (like JLA and RHA and BHX airports where similar sc@ms operate) - so a driver cannot sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak - their own pictures show a baffling amount of signage and diversions etc , so much so that if I spent 10 minutes looking at them sat here on my chair I still would not know what to do when confronted by them all, or where I can go or why, never mind what is prohibited (which idiot thought that providing 21 signs in quick succession to drivers is a good idea ?)

    they mention criminal laws and yet they are not using the bylaws at all, yet they bleed them over onto this civil parking charge notice, its like they just copy and paste from any source that suits them

    they quote the BPA CoP and yet when they fail it they seek to use the bylaws and signage to supercede those CoP rules

    on the "private road" that Beavis parked on he was able to stop and read the "numerous and prominent signs" for up to say 10 minutes before deciding if he should comply or leave, yet in this case ZERO time is given to stop and read and digest the numerous signs, so the 2 cases are poles apart and airport land subject to bylaws was not considered in the Beavis case

    I suppose its the best response we have seen so far because they usually throw in the towel before popla has ruled, but I cannot believe how they just chop and change at will, its like they have a stew where they just chuck any ingredient in, even if its a dodo or a martian :)

    if they are not using the bylaws then they should not be telling a keeper that they could be causing a criminal offence by falsifying information, they are not your lawyer and should not be advising on your defence position , this is popla , not even a civil court (not small claims court)

    they are stating that half of the BPA CoP does not apply because its on a road, so not parking, yet they seek £80 in parking charges, even though its not a parking event according to them , ludicrous !!

    with the responses above I too would put in a complaint to the BPA etc , plus those rebuttals above to popla , because I really want to see the assessor make a decision on the above, although I suspect they will centre on one easy option like POFA2012 and not decide the other issues raised , lol

    good luck to the OP, let us know the outcome as we really want this one to succeed, just for common sense to prevail
  • wowman
    wowman Posts: 19 Forumite
    edited 17 February 2016 at 11:12AM
    @Coupon-mad - Wow Thanks! That's fantastic! I literally get so lost when you start talking about the Bevis case. Morally I struggle to fathom why Law in general is so complex to understand and use, but binds us all and we are expected to use it should it be necessary. If I hadn't have found this site, I would have been another APCOA customer! More awareness needs to be raised about these types of scams. As far as I have understood so far, based off POFA & BPA CoP, APCOA are not sound in issuing so called 'PCNs' to vehicle keepers. They are a sly money grabbing parasite leeching off Luton Airport!

    I may add a sentence or two to your rebuttal to emphasis the unclear layout, roadworks ect. and send it off. If anyone has anything else they think would be good to add that would be great :) Just shout out!

    @dazster - Thanks for the English translation of all of these car-park 'contracts'.
    '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.'

    Haha that made me laugh! It really makes me wonder who works at these companies... Squeezing money out of people like opportunist thieves...

    @Coupon-mad & dazster's 2nd posts - So it was false of them to say that! I was wondering why it sounded so out-of-character based off what I have been reading in previous threads. I am infuriated they would use such terms and scaremongering tactics! I am fully prepared to make complaints to any/all bodies; anything that makes their life more difficult and impacts their profit/loss charts!

    Do you have any resources / threads / letter templates I could use for this? I'm not so good when it comes to drafting and don't want a good opportunity to hammer them go to waste!

    @IamEmanresu - I literally have no idea what you're talking about now haha. What exactly is the 'Borough of Luton (London Luton Airport) Traffic Management Order 2009'?
  • wowman
    wowman Posts: 19 Forumite
    @Redx - Thanks for the double confirmation! What I don't fully understand is... If this is the first time they are actually pursuing POPLA, why would they throw terminology such as 'criminal' and 'magistrates court' around!? Surely the POPLA assessors are better clued up than this (perhaps qualified legal staff?), all they do is risk is
    A) Looking like idiots
    B) having complaints filed against them

    I know I'm using so many different other grounds, but I wonder (for future Luton victims) if just, as you say,
    'they state numerous times that they dont use POFA2012 yet they try to force the KEEPER to be the appellant on the grounds that he/she did not disclose driver details, if POFA2012 does not apply , then it does not apply , period'

    If I win. Could I... 'ahem', the driver, go and stop there again and tell them once again to stuff it? It seems they fall short entirely on their legal grounding.

    Indeed, I don't know why they decided it would be a good idea to attach MORE photos of the vehicle and the area. If anything, it shows what a mess it was and how unthoughtful it was to attempt to 'enforce' their invoice.

    I don't understand the Bevis case fully (though I have seen it elsewhere), but I will include it as coupon-mad recommends. I will maybe try and include some of the more hard-lined points that you raise, for example:
    'they are stating that half of the BPA CoP does not apply because its on a road, so not parking, yet they seek £80 in parking charges, even though its not a parking event according to them , ludicrous !!'

    I will definitely keep the community informed of the outcome! I will start searching for templates or previous posts to form a complaint to the BPA & DVLA, this has got to stop!

    Ultimately... If Luton Airport just made their drop-off zone bigger (with all of the excess space wasted around the roundabout) and free, this wouldn't happen!
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 17 February 2016 at 11:34AM
    in simple terms they have been honing their popla appeal evidence packs for over 3 years, same as all the rest have done , so its no surprise that post Beavis they would try to add it into their packs and also try to improve on previous failures

    its not their first time at popla, its the first one I have seen where they really tried to give it a go, post Beavis (I never said it was their first time at popla)
    I suppose its the best response we have seen so far because they usually throw in the towel before popla has ruled,
    we all understand your basic points about bigger dropoff zones etc , but the bigger picture is they are employed to manage the car parks and roads, but they fail on the roads bit, we rarely see car park issues for airports , just roadway issues like stopping on a roadway etc

    apcoa also "manage Birmingham airport" , its no different there either

    VCS "manage" JLA at Liverpool and RHA at Doncaster, its no different there either, although its a different PPC

    and there is Humberside "managed" by UKPPO , no difference there either

    this isnt even about parking, its always about roadways and stopping on a roadway , on non relevant land (land where POFA2012 does not apply) - so NO KEEPER LIABILITY
  • dazster
    dazster Posts: 502 Forumite
    wowman wrote: »
    @Redx - Thanks for the double confirmation! What I don't fully understand is... If this is the first time they are actually pursuing POPLA, why would they throw terminology such as 'criminal' and 'magistrates court' around!? Surely the POPLA assessors are better clued up than this (perhaps qualified legal staff?), all they do is risk is
    A) Looking like idiots
    B) having complaints filed against them

    Despite being the very large and grandly-titled Airport Parking Company of America they are spectacularly stupid.
    wowman wrote: »
    I know I'm using so many different other grounds, but I wonder (for future Luton victims) if just, as you say,



    If I win. Could I... 'ahem', the driver, go and stop there again and tell them once again to stuff it? It seems they fall short entirely on their legal grounding.

    Yes, no keeper liability should win every time.
    wowman wrote: »
    Indeed, I don't know why they decided it would be a good idea to attach MORE photos of the vehicle and the area. If anything, it shows what a mess it was and how unthoughtful it was to attempt to 'enforce' their invoice.

    See above, spectacularly stupid.
    wowman wrote: »
    Ultimately... If Luton Airport just made their drop-off zone bigger (with all of the excess space wasted around the roundabout) and free, this wouldn't happen!

    But the entire point of the exercise is to rip people off in the drop-off area. Airports hate people who they dismissively term "kiss and fly" passengers who simply turn up, don't use the car parks, don't buy anything in the airport, and simply get on a 'plane. So, they dreamed up this wheeze of charging when they get dropped off (or picked up).

    They will claim the no-stopping rule is for security reasons, but you only have to look at the signs to see how untrue that is: you're not supposed to stop to pick up or drop off, but there's no prohibition on stopping to fire a shoulder-launched missile at a 'plane!
  • trisontana
    trisontana Posts: 9,472 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Adding to the above, I am sure many terrorists have been stopped in their tracks by the thought of receiving a "parking charge notice" in the post a couple of weeks after the event. Talk about scary letters!
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,455 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 17 February 2016 at 6:06PM
    I may add a sentence or two to your rebuttal to emphasis the unclear layout, roadworks ect. and send it off.

    Yes, as long as those sentences are about the driver in the third person or talk objectively about the signs. No 'me/myelf/I'

    That black and organge illuminated one with an arrow actually inviting a driver to drop off beyond that point, seems to me the only readable one in the dark among the cones the driver's eyes would have been on.

    IamEmanresu is pointing out that those roads are subject to a statutory Traffic Order, meaning (if that Order is not revoked) it's not private land at all. Where a Traffic Order covers highways, only the Council can issue a 'real' PCN (or Police an FPN).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    IamEmanresu is pointing out that those roads are subject to a statutory Traffic Order, meaning (if that Order is not revoked) it's not private land at all. Where a Traffic Order covers highways, only the Council can issue a 'real' PCN (or Police an FPN).

    which is what actually happens at mcr airport , where the police patrol the "public" roads and private companies operate the "private" car parks
  • dazster
    dazster Posts: 502 Forumite
    edited 17 February 2016 at 6:36PM
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    That black and organge illuminated one with an arrow actually inviting a driver to drop off beyond that point, seems to me the only readable one in the dark among the cones the driver's eyes would have been on.

    I love how they've provided daylight photos of loads of signs amidst such a forest of clutter they have to draw red circles to show which signs they are referring to. And then they show night-time photos of the car to emphasise how very unlikely it is that a driver could see signs which, by their own evidence, are hard enough to discern in daylight!

    What's more, all the photos of signs they have provided are in the one-way system (the longabout), so driving past them can't bind anyone into a contract because you've actually got no choice! There are (hard to read) signs earlier, but they haven't provided any evidence of those!

    Spectacularly stupid.
  • wowman
    wowman Posts: 19 Forumite
    Well to no one's surprise - I was successful :) Thanks again for all of your help!

    I have included below the POPLA assessment and decision details for viewing pleasure. As Red thought - they pick the easiest one (No Keeper Liability) and use that without thinking about anything else. I wonder what would have happened if I haven't used that...
    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name
    - Blanked Out here-

    Assessor summary of operator case:
    the operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for dropping off/picking up outside of a designated area.

    Assessor summary of your case:
    The appellant’s case is that the amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 and furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. The appellant states that there is no registered keeper liability, and airport land is not ‘relevant land’ and is covered under bylaws and so is excluded from keeper liability under PoFA 2012. The appellant states that the signage is misleading and unclear, 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. There is no landowner contract and no reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA. The appellant states that photographic evidence appears doctored, and there was no grace period given.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision:
    The operator states that it issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area. The appellant states that there is no registered keeper liability, and airport land is not ‘relevant land’ and is covered under bylaws and so is excluded from keeper liability under PoFA 2012. The operator states that it does not work, seek payment, or issue notices under PoFA 212 as this site is covered by Byelaws and states that any vehicles in breach of the Byelaws of this site are seen to be committing a criminal offence. 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 my reading of these sections of 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. I have sought information on relevant Byelaws that may be applicable, based on the information provided to me by the operator to the effect that statutory control is in place on the land by the way of Byelaws, as conferred upon it by the London Luton Air. It states in part 3 of London Luton Airport Byelaws November 2005: “3.6 No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait in, leave or park a vehicle: (c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles”. Furthermore, it states: “7.2 Any person contravening any of the byelaws in Parts 2, 3, 4, and 6 except the byelaws referred to in byelaws 7.1 and 7.3 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 (£1000) on the standard scale”. In reviewing the case, I accept that the contravention took place on land controlled by Airport Byelaws. While the London Luton Airport Byelaws November 2005 confirms that motorists should comply with all notices, it does not detail the operator’s rights in terms of transferring liability of a parking charge from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle. In this case, the appellant has confirmed they are the keeper of the vehicle, but has not confirmed who the driver was, therefore the operator needs to demonstrate the right to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. As the operator is not relying on PoFA 2012, the Airport Byelaws must give the operator this right. Having reviewed the Byelaws, I cannot find any such right given. Therefore, in reviewing the Airport Byelaws, I find the operator has not demonstrated that it has the right to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, therefore I consider it has not issued the PCN correctly. Given that I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have disregarded any further points raised by the appellant.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.