BHX pelican crossing pick up

Coupon-mad

Yes but you can challenge anything now at POPLA stage and you do not have to 'know' what the bylaws state or whether roadways are covered by the bylaws. So there is no need to ask about anything. You just use the various examples of POPLA appeals to formulate yours now and you will see that the bylaws are certainly challenged.

And you will see that APCOA almost always give up and on the odd occasion they contested one, they lost.

sdk72

hi all (coupon-mad), apologies for the delay as i am just back from a wee holiday, i have put together the following this week based on a couple i found here. I would be grateful if you could cast your eyes over pls and see if there is anything i need to address further. many many thanks

Dear POPLA assessor,

Re: APCOA PCN, reference No. <Insert> and POPLA reference No. <Insert>

I am the keeper of the vehicle with registration number <insert>. On <date> I (registered keeper), received by Royal mail a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), demanding a Charge of £100 from APCOA, due they state, to contravention of dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area at Birmingham airport on <date> The letter from APCOA was dated <date>, some 18 days after the alleged contravention.

My original appeal, sent via email on <date> to the operator APCOA, was rejected by email on <date>, included in the email was a POPLA verification code.

I am not liable for the alleged Charge for the following reasons:

1) APCOA not using POFA 2012
2) Airport Act 1986
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
4) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
5) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
6) Misleading and unclear signage
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) 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.

2) Airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.
Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.
Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

3) Amount demanded is a penalty 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.

4) 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 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 <date>, and the notice to keeper dated the <date>, was received 21 days later on <date>.
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.

5) APCOA is registered as an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member with the British Parking Association (BPA). In the NTK APCOA have stated that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA Code Of Practice. This is not correct because paragraph 23 of the BPA Code of Practice states that an AOS member can ‘gain the right to recover unpaid charges from keepers only if particular conditions have been met’ as outlined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. However, the “Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges” states that Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 does not apply on land where byelaws exist. And byelaws apply on Birmingham airport; therefore APCOA cannot apply Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 so the failure of APCOA to meet the conditions to invoke Keeper Liability means there is no legal basis for the charge to be enforced against me as Keeper. 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.

6) 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."


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.
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.

Thanks in advance for your help with this.

sdk72

just wondering if there is anything i need to add or amend before i send on Friday ? thanks

sdk72

quick bump. before i send it off to POPLA, anybods?

Redx

9) should be "as per" , not par

check for any other spelling mistakes, check you used the correct PPC of APCOA and that its spelt that way too

check for recent popla threads where the wording about not transferring liability to the keeper has been mentioned

ie:- they have not correctly identified the driver and have not established that the keeper was the driver , putting them to strict proof on both counts

you will see examples listed in the POPLA DECISIONS thread near the end

sdk72

cheers redx, not quite sure what you mean here - "check you used the correct PPC of APCOA "
also, do you feel point 5 needs elaborating further about identifying the driver?

many thanks

sdk72

hi all, just wanted to say that i received an email from POPLA confirming that APCOA don't wish to contest the appeal. many many thanks for your help in fighting this fraud.

Umkomaas

Well done Steve, and thanks for posting about your win in the POPLA Decisions sticky. It's becoming clearer that APCOA won't fight a good POPLA appeal.

Seems the obvious strategy now in dealing with any APCOA charge - knock out a comprehensive POPLA appeal and get rid of the charge from your life.

Redx

I agree , well done

seems to be quite a lot of these at the moment for Luton and Brum , they chicken out each and every time they see a forum assisted detailed appeal, so clearly they have no reason to keep doing it , yet they do , must be that some people just pay up so it makes it worthwhile for APCOA even though they have no basis to ticket people , especially when byelaws apply, as its airport land so not relevant land

Umkomaas

clearly they have no reason to keep doing it , yet they do

No doubt built in to their business model.