PCN for Birmingham International Airport (APCOA)

harj1185

Hi all,

Received a penalty charge notice for BHX from APCOA, it has 4 pics of the car and it is due to "dropping off a passenger outside of a designated parking area".

I've had a look at the following thread: which I think is most relevant.

One thing which is interesting though is that the date of the "offence" is 01/03/16, but the the date of the notice is 17/03/16 - should this not have been dated within 14 days of the offence?

I'm thinking of writing the following - please can someone advise?

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation.

Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, paragraph 9 states:
(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

This notice was received 17 days after the offence.

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.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


Not sure if I can put the paragraph about POFA 2012 as the PCN doesn't mention it at all, also it talks about parking so it that only to do with car parks?

Any help would be much appreciated!

It says I can also email - is this recommended if I PDF a copy - or should I send a letter? Today is 14 days after so if I lose - hopefully I can just pay the reduced amount?!

Thanks,

Harj

Redx

an online appeal is preferable as its unlikely to go missing

APCOA dont rely on POFA2012 , and should not be targeting the keeper, but the driver, but they dont know who was driving so target the keeper , in the hope that the keeper makes a mistake or tells them who was driving

the NTK probably does not mention POFA2012

you still go through the motions, as keeper, your main appeal point is POFA2012 , no keeper liability

airport land is not relevant land for POFA2012, but APCOA still go though this silly process

its not a penalty charge, its a parking charge notice, a pcn

follow the same procedures as all the other recent apcoa and BHX or Luton airport charges and you should win at popla, or APCOA will thrown in the towel at some point

remember, no revealing who was driving

nobody loses as long as they follow the advice here and does not reveal who was driving

another thread to look at is this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5403738

harj1185

Just received the following reply - advice on next steps much appreciated!

Dear xxx

RE: Parking Charge Notice Number: xxx

POPLA Verification Number: xxx

Thank you for your letter of appeal received 31/03/2016 against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us to you on 01/03/2016. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise your appeal has been unsuccessful on this occasion.

Your vehicle was observed parked on a red route; red routes are in operation around the airport site in order to maintain the safety of our passengers, visitors and staff. Drivers are prohibited to stop, unload or park on the red routes, which are clearly marked around the airport roads via signage and double red road markings. A vehicle monitoring and enforcement operation is in place, with an enforcement charge of £100. Please note nobody is allowed to enter/exit the vehicle in any circumstance on the airport roads or red route.

As per the images below your vehicle would have had to pass a no stopping at any time sign, there are over 20 signs around the Birmingham International Airport advising drivers that this is a no stopping area.

In response to your comment made in your letter, please note notices only need to be issued within 14 days if the notice issued mentions “under Protection of Freedoms Act”. According to British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more than 28 days after receiving keeper data from DVLA which takes no more than 35 days.
Once we receive the registered keeper information we issue a notice to the customer, and no more than six months after the unauthorized parking event. It is our understanding that as we have not referred to this act in our documentation, we are able to work in accordance with the BPA code of practise (June 2013) which states that we have up to 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention.

All the enforcement is carried out according to British parking association (BPA) guidelines and APCOA being an approved operator of BPA is authorized to manage and enforce the property on behalf of Birmingham International Airport. Any vehicles in contravention of the T&C of the Birmingham International Airport are sent out to DVLA for registered owner’s information under BPA guidelines.

If the registered keeper fails to provide us with the driver’s details then the registered keeper therefore maintains liability for the issue of this notice as the Airport is covered by Bye-laws.

Bye-laws are conditions set in a Magistrates Court. It is a criminal offence to provide inaccurate information, or to withhold information where required.
As mentioned above, APCOA have not claimed to, and do not work, issue or seek payment under POFA as this land is covered by Bye-laws.

As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the car park 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 Parking Charge Notice at the discounted price of £50.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will increase to £100.00.

You can pay by the following methods;

Xx

2. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure, to make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days of this letter by completing the online appeal form at https://www.popla.co.uk quoting the verification reference number xxx. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the Parking Charge Notice will be considered at the full amount of £100.00 If you require a hard copy of the POPLA form please contact our customer service centre on 0345 301 1151 where one of our customer services agents will be happy to assist you.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (https://www.ombudsman-services.org/ ) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish 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 monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

Yours Faithfully

APCOA Appeals Department

Coupon-mad

As it says in the NEWBIES thread under 'POPLA'. Now is the time to search the forum for 'APCOA Airport POPLA' as your keywords and cobble together a draft based on other very recent ones.

APCOA often then give up without even supplying an evidence pack to POPLA.

hoohoo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As it says in the NEWBIES thread under 'POPLA'. Now is the time to search the forum for 'APCOA Airport POPLA' as your keywords and cobble together a draft based on other very recent ones.

APCOA often then give up without even supplying an evidence pack to POPLA.

Such as this one

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70564224&postcount=2149

The_Deep

Is this not the red lined lay by beyween the Ibis and the Atap. According to a sign on Google Earth Street View it allows hotel drop offs. What is its purpose if it does not?

harj1185

It was actually just ahead of it as that layby was full, but yes you're right!

harj1185

Have come up with the following draft, appreciate any advice! (apologies for formatting!)

POPLA Ref xxxxx
APCOA Parking PCN no xxxxx
A notice to keeper was issued on 17th March 2016 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxx) on 22nd March 2016 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’. 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
8) Photo Evidence appears doctored
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 1st March 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 22 days later on 22nd March 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.

...

harj1185

part 2:

5) 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 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, the pictures in the notice from APCOA show signs that say “Hotel drop off only” in the same area as the signs that APCOA say show a restricted zone, which is a clear conflict.

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.

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 "DailyMail link" for more information).
I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types 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).

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.’ 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’. 60 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.

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

Coupon-mad

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 1st March 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 22 days later on 22nd March 2016.

Looks good enough to see off APCOA and you should win on the issue above even if they try to contest this appeal. Very often they give up.

hoohoo

APCOA have not claimed to, and do not work, issue or seek payment under POFA as this land is covered by Bye-laws.

So it seems APCOA are claiming this under the bye-laws. I think an extra section is therefore needed.

x. From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.