APCOA - Slough Station

amirza

Hi Newbie here.

So over xmas period I received a whole bunch of PCNs dates below
car park on: 28/11/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 29/11/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 30/11/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 02/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 06/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 14/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 15/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 19/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 24/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 20/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 24/01/2017 - past 14 days
car park on: 21/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - valid


based on the POFA 2012 - there is a 14 day limit
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(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.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

Can someone kindly confirm if I am correct in that if 14 days have passed these are no longer valid ?

And if so how should I proceed with these.

Much Appreciated.

twhitehousescat

what was the reason for the tickets

car park on: 21/12/2016 - Date of issue of this notice - 10/01/2017 - valid

incorrect , POFa does not relate to bylaw land

amirza

So to be clear - I was sent a letter PCN, No windscreen ticket.

reason:
Parked without a valid payment therefore it was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park.

inkwat

It looks like it would be worth challenging.

"A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered either

(Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or
(Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked"

"6. The Creditor or its agent must have made application to the DVLA for your name and address either

NOT EARLIER than 28 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was issued); or
NOT LATER than 14 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was not issued)"

It's also worth checking this link, as if the notice is missing any of the things listed here, it isn't valid: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

paulstevens64

Hi Amirza,
What TWC is trying to say is that none of them are vaild as the land is under railway byelaws,
and therefore POFA does not apply.

Under Byelaws only the land owner can pursue the "owner of the car" - not the keeper or the driver,
and even then only for trespass. They (land owner, not the APCOA) have 6 Months to take you to court.
Then the trespass allegation times out.
APCOA are pretending that they can charge you for breach of contract for not buying a ticket
(or whatever the aqctual NTK is for) but they do not have the authority to do anything.

So, what you need to do is appeal each one individually to APCOA, using the correct template from
the stickies thread for BMA PPC's.
Send each appeal in 25/6 days after the date received (check each NTK to confirm how long you
have to appeal).
As they reject each of you appeals, and give you a POLA code, you need to prepare a POLA appeal -
you can use the same one for all of them, one at a time. See the Sticky thread for example POLA appeals -
specifically APCOA ones.
In each case take the maximum time that you can to make you POLA appeal - up to 28 days.
You are trying to run the clock down on the 6 Month time limit.
Your POLA appeal will major on relevant land (the byelaws issue), and you can put in non POFA compliance,
Driver not identified, unclear signage, etc - you will find all of these in the Stickies POPLA appeals
section - make sure you look at the most recent ones - Dec 2016, and Jan 2017.
Good luck

amirza

Thank you very much for the advice.

i will prepare my case and let you know how I get on.

twhitehousescat

amirza wrote: »

Thank you very much for the advice.

i will prepare my case and let you know how I get on.

caseS


all seperate , all in different envelopes , and await 10 letters back , each containing a unique POPLa code that will cost them £27 each if they wish to proceed

amirza

This is the letter that I found similar to my situation that I am thinking about using for POPLA Appeal.

Please let me know if this will work. thanks

Dear Sirs,

Re: PCN No. xxxx

I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal, based on the points below.



1) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

2) No keeper liability

3) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver

4) Lack of standing / authority from landowner



1) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’



Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

“(1) This schedule applies where –
(a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.



Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA 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 ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and thereforeAPCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.





2) No keeper liability


Having re-checked the date on the Notice to Keeper issued by APCOA, the driver is not known in this case. POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, requires that, in order to make use of the provision to pursue the registered keeper, APCOA must send a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention. The alleged contravention happened at Bristol Parkway railway station on 19th February 2016. The Notice to Keeper was issued on 14th March 2016 and therefore presumed to have arrived on 16th March 2016, which is 26 days after the alleged contravention. APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd has therefore failed to issue a Notice to Keeper in the required timeframe, and therefore the registered keeper cannot be held liable in this instance for the alleged debt of the driver.



3) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver



The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required. The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, that entrance signage: “must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”



For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home “so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it” and agreed terms. I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the ‘fine’ that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The sign upon entering Bristol Parkway railway station car park does not even mention the amount of the parking charge at all, which is in breach of 2(3) of schedule 4 of the POFA and contrary to the BPA code of practice. Upon inspection of another sign elsewhere in the car park, the terms of the ‘fine’ are in very small typeface which therefore means that this sign is not clear or prominent enough to form any contract with a driver before parking. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.



4) Lack of standing / authority from landowner


Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states: “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a TOC gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay APCOA (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and APCOA cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). APCOA have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put APCOA to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.



I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.



Yours sincerely,

twhitehousescat

chill out , say anything , wish them a happy easter , just get a POPLA code


now read:


http://ispa.co.uk/hs-view/Minutes%20-%20IS...l%20version.pdf

page 4

2. POPLA and appeal process for Railway Land
There is a meeting on 27th January 2017 to discuss this issues. John Gallagher decided to
make a decision on the outstanding cases as they could not stay adjourned, he concluded
that he would allow them all. He has invited the Operators to withdraw them and will allow
the rest. He is meeting with with the DVLA, DCLG and the Railway Operators on the 27
January 2017 to agree the process including the appeals.
If you park in a railway car park it will be a criminal case and they will allow clamping, which
does not seem good practice.
One possibility is the DVLA to say that operators can continue to use POPLA but this means all
appeals will be dismissed. Currently they are bound by the decision where the appellant is
not. The alternative will be to take POPLA out of the equation and then it is pursued through
the criminal system


include the link and quote , and TELL them as they must cancel at POPLa stage or be cancelled they have NOT to pass your info to any 3rd party debt collector

amirza

Thanks for that info.

The PDF link is not working "Failed to Load PDF Document"

Out of all my tickets - I have only one POPLA code back and thats the one Im preparing the case for.

So based on what you are saying does that mean any current open appeals with POPLA will be dismissed ?
And if I raise new ones now after receiving the POPLA code they will be reviewed but they could reject me ?

Should I still submit the appeal with POPLA for the one with the POPLA code or should I just wait ?

twhitehousescat

http://ispa.co.uk/hs-view/Minutes%20-%20ISPA%2026%20January%202017%20Final%20version.pdf

any cases going to POPLa after 27 January 2017 will be disallowed , you NEED popla codes for every case you have enough time (28 days) from recept of invoices to make an appeal , get them done ASAP , and get codes , if they refuse complain to the BPA

edit link will not load , see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=111559