APCOA - Slough Station

amirza

Ok so for my first case. POPLA have received the counter challenge from APOCA and they are giving me now 7 days to respond to the challenge made.

the other Notices I have received the rejections from APOCA and I now need to challenge them with POPLA.

If someone could have a look at their challenge letter or advise me what my next step is.I would be grateful.

twhitehousescat

It would not matter if you just wrote "merry xmas" , providing you clesarly mark the appeal as a railway bylaw case Popla will NOT do an appeal!

without an independent appeal system , its dead! , POFa states that you MUST have a appeal system rum by the ATA of the company involved

amirza

APOCA have said in their counter challenge

The appeal has still not been supported with any evidence of a payment being made.
2) This notice has not been issued, nor is it reliant under PoFA. This site is Private land subject to the statutory control of the railway Bye-Laws. Parking Charge Notices are therefore not issued under PoFA

Fruitcake

amirza wrote: »

APOCA have said in their counter challenge

The appeal has still not been supported with any evidence of a payment being made.
2) This notice has not been issued, nor is it reliant under PoFA. This site is Private land subject to the statutory control of the railway Bye-Laws. Parking Charge Notices are therefore not issued under PoFA

So they can only lawfully pursue the driver, who you aren't going to name.

It matters not to your PoPLA appeal. You still put non POFA 2012 complaint NTK in as one of your appeal points.

Your signage appeal point is too short. You should use the long template appeal point from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Your first point is still that this is non-relevant land. Make sure the word Byelaw is in the title.

amirza

FYI this was there full argument to POPLA

1) The appeal has still not been supported with any evidence of a payment being made.
2) This notice has not been issued, nor is it reliant under PoFA. This site is Private land subject to the statutory control of the railway Bye-Laws. Parking Charge Notices are therefore not issued under PoFA

The instructions have been issued by APCOA Parking, having been appointed Great Western railways (The Land Owner) to manage the car park in question as the Operator).


The given instructions and conditions of entry, are displayed upon all entry exit routes; and have been provided in our evidence.
As can be seen from this, the Charge for parking otherwise than in strict accordance with those terms is clearly on display. The Parking Charge Notice a notice that such sums are due and payable in respect of the parking session undertaken by the driver, having failed to make a valid payment for use of this car park.
3) This car park is private land owned by Great Western railway, where APCOA have been appointed (as the Operator) by the Land Owner to enforce their terms on their behalf. Please find a letter of authority attached
4) A grace period of 15 minutes is given to all drivers upon entry to this site to make a payment as instructed. This driver failed to make a payment upon entry or at any time thereafter.
5) The ANPR system at this site has accurately recorded this vehicle entering and exiting the vehicle; and that a valid payment was not made for the day in question. Again, no evidence has been submitted to suggest otherwise.
6) Signage, term and conditions and the requirement to pay in this Pay & Display car park are placed upon entry to, within and along all exit routes of this car park. Signage is placed and in line with the BPAs requirements, of whom APCOA are an approved Operator. When parking on Private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to source and familiarise themselves with the terms of the site at which the vehicle is being parked.
Considering that this driver’s initial grounds of appeal to APCOA were that he is registered for Auto Pay, evidence the fact that this driver is aware of the requirement to purchase parking.
Considering all the above, APCOA are therefore satisfied that this notice has been issued correctly and should stand.
The driver entered onto private land freely and in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. A tariff and terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted.
It is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle to ensure that the terms of parking are sourced and understood, a payment is made as instructed, and the vehicle is parked in accordance to the terms and conditions of that site. The driver breached these terms by leaving the vehicle parked without making a valid payment.

twhitehousescat

Fruitcake wrote: »

So they can only lawfully pursue the driver, who you aren't going to name.

It matters not to your PoPLA appeal. You still put non POFA 2012 complaint NTK in as one of your appeal points.

Your signage appeal point is too short. You should use the long template appeal point from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Your first point is still that this is non-relevant land. Make sure the word Byelaw is in the title.

NO , the private parking Co can pursue NOBODY !!!! only the TOC and thre magistrates court

Coupon-mad

So simply comment on the evidence and say to POPLA that the driver has never been identified, nor has the owner of the vehicle, and as such, there can be no liability for a keeper appellant (the keeper cannot be assumed to be either driver or owner). Also, state that you notice that APCOA are suggesting that the PCN was issued under byelaws - and yet POPLA have publicly stated that all byelaws cases will be upheld in favour of the appellant now (John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator).

So you look forward to hearing the PCN has been ordered to be cancelled.

amirza

Hi Guys just to let you know I won my first appeal - Thank you all. now I have to do the others

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The operators case is that the motorist made us of private car park without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellants case is 1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 2) No Landowner Authority 3) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance 4) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator 5) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this instance, it is evident that the operator has issued a notice to the owner/keeper informing him/her that there has been a breach of the terms and conditions in effect at the location. Based on the evidence provided, it is clear that that the appellant has not accepted that they were the driver on the date of the alleged parking offence. When it comes to parking, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for parking their vehicle and the driver is the individual who enters into a contract with a parking operator at the location. However, there are provisions in place for a parking operator to transfer the liability for a charge to the keeper of the vehicle, so long as certain requirements are met. These provisions and the requirements for their application are found within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). At the beginning of PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, it states as follows: “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; and b. those charges have not been paid in full.” Later within the act (Paragraph 3 of POFA 2012 Schedule 4), it defines what “relevant land” is by stating as follows: “In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— a. a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); b. a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; c. any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.” When considering the above, I would note that the most relevant aspect to this particular location is whether it qualifies as “subject to statutory control”. This is later clarified within the act when it is defined as: “(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.” In this instance, I am satisfied that byelaws apply at this location and further, they impose a liability for parking on the land. As such, I am of the view that the land is deemed to be “subject to statutory control” and therefore not “relevant land”. As it is not “relevant land”, the operator is unable to use PoFA 2012 and unable to transfer liability to the keeper. As the appellant has denied being the driver and the operator is unable to transfer the liability for the charge, I must allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Hooray, one down!

Here is the decision in sentences, made on 'not relevant land' (and I had to amend the POPLA 'rational' typo, I can't copy it as they show it, makes me itch to put it right!):

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

In this instance, it is evident that the operator has issued a notice to the owner/keeper informing him/her that there has been a breach of the terms and conditions in effect at the location.

Based on the evidence provided, it is clear that that the appellant has not accepted that they were the driver on the date of the alleged parking offence. When it comes to parking, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for parking their vehicle and the driver is the individual who enters into a contract with a parking operator at the location.

However, there are provisions in place for a parking operator to transfer the liability for a charge to the keeper of the vehicle, so long as certain requirements are met. These provisions and the requirements for their application are found within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).

At the beginning of PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, it states as follows: “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; and b. those charges have not been paid in full.”

Later within the act (Paragraph 3 of POFA 2012 Schedule 4), it defines what “relevant land” is by stating as follows: “In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— a. a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); b. a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; c. any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

When considering the above, I would note that the most relevant aspect to this particular location is whether it qualifies as “subject to statutory control”. This is later clarified within the act when it is defined as: “(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.”

In this instance, I am satisfied that byelaws apply at this location and further, they impose a liability for parking on the land. As such, I am of the view that the land is deemed to be “subject to statutory control” and therefore not “relevant land”. As it is not “relevant land”, the operator is unable to use PoFA 2012 and unable to transfer liability to the keeper.

As the appellant has denied being the driver and the operator is unable to transfer the liability for the charge, I must allow the appeal.

:T