why not just ignore

Mr_Wal

My Popla draft appeal, if anyone would be kind enough to cast their eyes over it and let me know if I have missed anything obvious or included things that would be best left out please let me know. Thanks for your help.

Dear POPLA assessor,

Re

I am the keeper of the vehicle with registration number On xx a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), demanding a Charge of £100 from APCOA was received by Royal mail, due they state, to contravention of dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area at Birmingham airport on xx The letter from APCOA was datedxxsome 21 days after the alleged contravention.

My original appeal, sent via email on 19/08/16 to the operator APCOA, was rejected by email on 31/08/16, 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) 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 15/07/16, and the notice to keeper was received 28 days later on 12/08/16.
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. Therefore 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 signage on the specific area on the site is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed.
The British Parking Associations’ Code Of Practice (BPA’s CoP) at Section 18 sets out the strict requirements for entrance signage:

“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read
If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

Upon arrival to the specific site, APCOA have failed to make it adequately clear that stopping in this area is subject to parking management.

The signs provided by APCOA are not on the entrance around the island at which you enter Birmingham Airport. The first sign seen are the sign saying FREE drop off car park 5 provided by Birmingham airport. It is not until you have gone around the island further until the APCOA sign is seen. Thus this would be after any sign saying you can drop off in car park 5. I dropped off after this sign. The APCOA Sign is not visible until coming back to the island and even then is only visible if the car is to stop. There is no possibility of a driver reading the print on the sign(s) while focusing on the road. I content therefore that it is reasonable to assume the driver pulled into the roadside, got out of the vehicle to read the sign (which is not adjacent to driver side of vehicle and therefore could not be read whilst seated in the vehicle) and immediately left the area after realising it was restricted.

The PCN is issued as a parking / dropping off event, which did not happen; BPA CoP also refer to a “grace period” which clearly was not considered by APCOA as the period the vehicle is shown in photos provided is only 3 seconds, therefore this cannot be considered a parking / dropping off event.

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 . 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. 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’. 3 seconds 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

Urgent!

Remove your POPLA code from the above and the VRN! Anyone could use/abuse that POPLA code, edit now!

Mr_Wal

Oops thanks for that, edited now, sorry about that!

Coupon-mad

Only skim-read it but a long POPLA appeal with points like that, usually results in APCOA throwing in the towel in a week!

Mr_Wal

That's great. Thanks for that. Fingers crossed then!

Mr_Wal

I have come to submit the appeal. When I go online to do it, I ask specific questions and doesn't give a place to upload a letter. Is there a way of just sending the letter in?

Umkomaas

You click on 'Other' as reason for appeal.

You convert your appeal to a .pdf file and attach it. You enter in the appeal window (which is restricted to 2,000 words) 'Please find attached .pdf file for POPLA appeal ref number xxxx, PCN ref number xxxx, vehicle VRM xxxx.

You should get a small icon on the page to confirm the file is attached. Take a screen shot before you press the 'Submit' button.

Fruitcake

There are some formatting errors in your appeal that may need to be addressed before submitting.

Missing full-stop in the first line, and a few spurious exclamation marks near the end.

pappa_golf

POPLA has decided to adjourn all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws. This is following complaints to POPLA and ISPA that POPLA has no authority to look at these appeals. We are considering our position and will make a further statement in due course. We do not anticipate the cases to be adjourned for more than two months from 1 September 2016. Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned. During this period, motorists must still submit their appeal within 28 days of the date of the POPLA code if they want POPLA to consider their appeal. If you have already submitted your appeal you do not need to take further action.


https://popla.co.uk/