POPLa seeing sense?

twhitehousescat

as reported on pepipoo

a railway job ,

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case: The motorist did not make a valid payment.
Assessor summary of your case: The land is not relevant land, no keeper liability, notice to keeper (NTK) not compliant, no land owner authority and poor signage at the site.


Assessor supporting rational for decision:

In this instance, it is evident that the operator has issued a notice to the driver informing him 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 you have not accepted you 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)© 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 you have denied being the driver and the operator is unable to transfer the liability for the charge, I must allow the appeal.

twhitehousescat

and a APCOA at birmingham airport ,

they stated that they consider this to be a misrepresentation of authority in accordance with Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within this, it states as follows: “14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority. 14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.” Having considered the use of the phrase “enforcement charge”, it is my belief that motorists could mistakenly believe that the parking operator is carrying out enforcement work “under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority”.

In short APCOA have been fraudulently sending drivers pcns at BIA for stopping.

DoaM

Sorry but your signature irks me every time I see it.

insight

twhitehousescat

but got your attention , hard work typing with paw

edited now

Umkomaas

There does seem to be a general upping in the quality of decisions of late. But the poor saps who fire off long (here's my story) appeals based entirely on mitigation still have no chance, even though with the right form of forum-style words, their success rate would climb considerably.

The_Deep

It could not be clearer, keeper liability under POFA on railway land is a dead parrot.

It follows therefore that any request to the DVLA for RK details in order to attempt to get the RK to pay is an offence under the DPA. Is there a date for that decision?

Is it time to sell Apcoa shares?

twhitehousescat

The_Deep wrote: »

It could not be clearer, keeper liability under POFA on railway land is a dead parrot.

It follows therefore that any request to the DVLA for RK details in order to attempt to get the RK to pay is an offence under the DPA. Is there a date for that decision?

Is it time to sell Apcoa shares?

as new as 28/01/2017