We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
Parking ticket Luton Airport POPLA Appeal
Options

Nixon
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi I'm new to all this, and as an OAP quite new to technology too. Anyway I had a PCN from APCOA at Luton Airport for Dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area. I appealed and lost so now I'm trying to put together an appeal to POPLA.
After looking at other appeal this is what I have put together, but I'm not that confident with it, I found some of the points hard to understand, so any feedback would be good before I send it off.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I am the keeper of the vehicle with registration number ...... I received by Royal mail a Parking charge Notice (PCN), demanding a charge of £80 from APCOA, due they state, to contravention of dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area at Luton airport on 22/06/2016 at 15:01:00. The letter from APCOA was dated 19/07/2016, some 27 days after the alleged contravention.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The original appeal, sent via email on 25/07/2016 to the operator APCOA was rejected by letter on 08/08/2016, included in the letter was a POPLA verification code.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As registered keeper, I am not liable for this PCN and so I wish to appeal on the grounds numbered 1-6 as outline below:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. APCOA have failed to establish keeper liability. APCOA have failed to fulfil the requirements necessary under statue (the POFA 2012) to allow them to attempt recover of any charge from the keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sites designated as Airports by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If APCOA argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the Airport is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon APCOA to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4. 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 which is unclear, misleading and ambiguous, 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 BOPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]5. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6. The BPA code of practice says '20.14 says 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]
After looking at other appeal this is what I have put together, but I'm not that confident with it, I found some of the points hard to understand, so any feedback would be good before I send it off.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I am the keeper of the vehicle with registration number ...... I received by Royal mail a Parking charge Notice (PCN), demanding a charge of £80 from APCOA, due they state, to contravention of dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area at Luton airport on 22/06/2016 at 15:01:00. The letter from APCOA was dated 19/07/2016, some 27 days after the alleged contravention.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The original appeal, sent via email on 25/07/2016 to the operator APCOA was rejected by letter on 08/08/2016, included in the letter was a POPLA verification code.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As registered keeper, I am not liable for this PCN and so I wish to appeal on the grounds numbered 1-6 as outline below:[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Not relevant Land under POFA 2012: no registered keeper liability[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Creditor not identified[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Misleading and unclear signage[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. APCOA have failed to establish keeper liability. APCOA have failed to fulfil the requirements necessary under statue (the POFA 2012) to allow them to attempt recover of any charge from the keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sites designated as Airports by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050. The driver has not been identified, therefore as registered keeper I cannot lawfully be held liable for this charge. If APCOA argue otherwise then they must produce the byelaws and maps to show that this part of the Airport is somehow exempt from statutory control. The onus falls upon APCOA to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4. 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 which is unclear, misleading and ambiguous, 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 BOPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]5. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6. The BPA code of practice says '20.14 says 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]
0
Comments
-
no , sorry , too old since the Beavis case and not a gpeol wont work
better to adapt this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5478628 and alter it to suit your own case, like the airport (if different) and also the documentation timeline etc (NTK timings etc)
that one was recently approved so easily adapted in 10 minutes for yourself to use and submit0 -
Hi Redx, thanks so much for replying, I really appreciated it.
I have compiled a new appeal, do you think this one is OK. I'm not sure about ParkingEye v Beavis which is mentioned in 3) but have left it in. I have taken out number 4) as this didn't happen in a car park so though it wouldn't apply. Also have taken out 8) as I didn't think photo evidence appeared doctored (or should I leave this in)? And taken out 9) as I don't think this applies.
POPLA Ref
APCOA Parking PCN no
A notice to keeper was issued on 22nd June 2016 and received by me (the registered keeper of vehicle registration ) on 25th June 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) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
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) 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.
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."
6) 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.
I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.0 -
3) leave it in as the idea is to show that some of the Beavis judgment applies , but in your favour
some of 4) should remain , as APCOA do not rely on POFA2012 and always fail it , even if it is only in the NTK flaws and timescale (to arrive by day 15)
8) always query photographs (if any) , putting them to proof of their evidence to popla (or a court) that the details are genuine and above board
9) ALWAYS applies , if they had applied the grace period of up to 10 minutes before the event and 11 or more minutes after an event then this contravention could not occur, could it ? no , definitely could not
I said use the appeal but alter the parts to do with NTK timelines etc , not remove whole swathes of it , lol
I would also add the name of the airport in the opening paragraphs, so the assessor can see its an airport , where byelaws apply and not parking rules0 -
Hi Redx, Thank you so very much for all your help, I don't think I would have managed very well without it.
I have amended my appeal according to your comments and will email it to POPLA tomorrow.
I'll post the outcome when I hear.0 -
you are welcome
please post it up so other newbies can see it as Luton and Brum come up a lot on here0 -
Appeal successful!! I had an email from POPLA saying 'APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge'.
Thank you so much Redx for all your help.
I have posted my appeal below:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
POPLA Ref ............
APCOA Parking PCN no ...........
A notice to keeper was issued on 22nd June 2016 and received by me, the registered keeper of (vehicle registration number), on 19th July 2016 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Luton Airport. 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[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]8) Photo evidence appears doctored[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]9) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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 place 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 22nd June, and the notice to keeper was received 27 days later on 19th July 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."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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 right 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).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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.' 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'. 90 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]0 -
well done and thanks for the appeal details
APCOA tend to fold when faced with a proper forum appeal because they are chancers who hope the foolish and ignorant and uninformed people will just pay up when the pcn arrives on the doormat0 -
Well done to Nixon and to Redx for their help. :T
I've been part of MSE for many years but have sadly watched (in my opinion) it decline
It's threads like this that keep me returning :T0 -
Just want to say thank you to everyone who contributes to these posts here at MSE. I received a PCN for a drop off/pickup at Luton airport which I initially was going to pay. However I didnt think it was fair and found this forum with lots of useful templates. I used the above template only replacing it with my details and my appeal was successful within 2 hours at POPLA! Thanks again.0
-
APCOA really don't like it up 'em!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 THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K 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