Birmigham Airport APCOA (split thread)

halwise

Hi,
as suggested to the poster above, I replied to APCOA using the blue template form, filling it in exactly as advised.
I've received the reply to my appeal advising me it "has been unsuccesful on this occasion".
I'm keen to "tailor" the appeal that the OP has posted above. My query is this.
The vehicle had not pulled into the layby, but rather had stopped,opposite it whilst still on the road, APCOA have referred to this as "parked on a red route" Their images are taken over a period of 14 seconds.
I'd be obliged if anyone could suggest how this should be referred to in the example above. I've read another thread, which says "stopping" is not something that they should be accessing DVLA records for?
I'm a little bit confused by some of the "light hearted" comments above about the usefulness of rewriting War an Peace. If I knew I could end this with just a simple:-
"Dear Popla,

I refer etc., as you have stated that you are not relying on POFA, I respectfully suggest that you address your concerns to the driver of the vehicle."



I would!!!

Any advice greatfully received,
Thanks.

Redx

make your popla appeal like posts #2 and amended as in #6 but ensure that you amend any details that are different, but never admitting who the driver was or is , due to POFA2012 not applying or airport land, so doesnt really matter where it was "stopped" as long as you dont refer to the wrong thing , so amend it acccordingly (there is no template that is one size fits all scenario)

also search the forum using the forum search box and suitable search words like APCOA POPLA APPEAL to find recent similar apcoa threads and popla appeal examples you can pinch stuff from

it wont take you long to amend an existing appeal , then post it for checking before submission to popla

halwise

Thanks Redx, I've seen other threads and your advice about "relevant land" so will take on board what is pointed out elsewhere, and post it for (hopeful) approval.
Thanks,

Mac

Redx

2 minutes using the search box found loads of threads, like these 2 for example (using BHX APCOA POPLA as search terms)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5470754

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5439689

its not difficult because there are dozens you can look at for Brum and Luton

halwise

Thanks for that Redx,

I'm grateful for all your advice. I don't want to take up all your time, but there is one point I'd like to raise.
The response I received today has my name and address at the top
then the date and starts with the salutation

Dear Driver,

That really worried me when I first viewed it because I know my 'blue template' definitely made no reference to myself other than being the "registered keeper".

At the end of the letter, they state:-

"Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable, for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided."

Which, gave me some comfort.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the underhand tactics this shower use. I noticed that most of the previous rejection letters posted on this site appeared to be addressed to the individual rather than Dear Driver, (from what I can tell from the redacted copies available). Is this a new form of coercion they attempt to place on the individual?

Brgds,

Mac

Redx

I suspect its nothing more than using templates and inexperienced cheap staff who dont know nor can spell "due diligence"

add it to the popla appeal as a point of contention , where they have failed to aadhere to POFA2012 and have not identified the driver, plus have failed to transfer liability onto the keeper , because the keeper has appealed, not the driver

DO NOT IDENTIFY THE DRIVER, DO NOT HELP THEM

they will cancel as soon as they see an MSE type popla appeal

Coupon-mad

halwise wrote: »

Thanks for that Redx,

I'm grateful for all your advice. I don't want to take up all your time, but there is one point I'd like to raise.
The response I received today has my name and address at the top
then the date and starts with the salutation

Dear Driver,

That really worried me when I first viewed it because I know my 'blue template' definitely made no reference to myself other than being the "registered keeper".

At the end of the letter, they state:-

"Please note as the registered keeper of this vehicle, you are liable, for this ticket, unless details of the driver are provided."

Which, gave me some comfort.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the underhand tactics this shower use. I noticed that most of the previous rejection letters posted on this site appeared to be addressed to the individual rather than Dear Driver, (from what I can tell from the redacted copies available). Is this a new form of coercion they attempt to place on the individual?

Brgds,

Mac

Hi Mac,

You do need to start your own thread please. Cases are often similar but never exactly the same. We want to help you in your individual case, to win this, so please start a new thread with your POPLA appeal draft once you have perfected it.

'War and Peace' forum-style appeals often beat APCOA within a week...

Crabman

I've split the above posts into a new thread.

halwise

Hi due to work commitments I've been unable to work on this case until now. I know the 28 days for case submission to Popla expire on Tuesday 5th July.
I would be obliged if the very helpful posters, who have previously offered advice could comment on the appeal I have "borrowed" from extensively from others.


POPLA Ref xxx
APCOA Parking PCN no xxx
A notice to keeper was issued on 16th May 2016 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration ) on 20th May 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) 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 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 5th April , and the notice to keeper was received 41 days later on 16th May 2016.
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) 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.
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."

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.
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.
1. 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 xxxl 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).
2. 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 for your help in advance

Mac

Redx

loos ok to me but as you have time before the appeal deadline wait for any other members advice or critique before submitting it as a pdf on the popla website

Coupon-mad

Looks enough to scare APCOA off, they often throw in the towel at POPLA when they see this sort of appeal!