PCN even though I paid for parking

drunknmunky

Hello all,

We have today received a PCN through the post from APCOA. We actually paid for parking at Manchester Victoria station & have a screenshot of the online banking statement to prove it (http://imgur.com/a/kQpgX). We didn't overrun our time so don't really understand why we have received it.

I have read the sticky thread for beginners & as APCOA are a member of the BPA & understand I should draft the following letter:

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,
(Keeper's name & address)

Is the bit in bold necessary considering it's not relevant to my case as I have proof that parking was paid for on that day? I was thinking of just attaching a screenshot of my bank statement instead & making reference to it instead of what's written in the bolded section, or should I stick with the signage paragraph & add the bank statement bit on to the end of the letter?

Many thanks!

Guys_Dad

At some point you will have to determine what so-called contravention you have enacted. I suggest you do that asap.

There is no point in appealing on one point (signage) if you don't know what you have supposedly done.

What date of offence and date on PCN/NtK?

Fruitcake

All of it is relevant. Don't edit it. Just copy and paste and send.

The car park is probably covered by byelaws, so you could carefully add that as the car park is covered by byelaws, this is non relevant land in accordance with the POFA 2012 and therefore the scammers have no chance of success at PoPLA. Just make sure you don't inadvertently give away the driver's details.

Loadsofchildren123

Am I missing something?
Why not just say you paid and produce evidence of that?
Or are you nervous they won't accept this so want to put in a belt and braces attack? Or is it the case that you "play the game" with the appeal and keep it up your sleeve for defending proceedings?

I just don't want you to detract from the killer point which is that the parking was paid for and there is an absolute defence.

Redx

the point here is that THIS IS RAILWAY LAND and so the TOC has to issue a pcn for bylaw contraventions as bylaws apply (it is leased from Network Rail)

also the OP would be very , VERY foolish to even hint at who the driver was

so APCOA cannot enforce a private pcn on railway land , so any issues about the parking are between the owner of the vehicle and the TOC

so because APCOA are so stupid that they issue pcn,s on railway land as if they are an authority (which they are not) then any appeal is based on this fact, although the blue text template is what the OP needs to use for the initial appeal , then the usual appeals to popla are used which in this case will be similar to the BHX and LUTON airport appeals

the OP needs to learn what the actual facts and rules are here , which is that any parking cannot be enforced by apcoa because apcoa cannot enforce charges on railway land (similar issues in manchester occur with METROLINK - the tram system , and CARE parking (ANCHOR)) - the BPA CoP mentions this caveat and its come up a lot recently

the OP has not even indicated what the contravention actually is, so it would be fooflish to assume that just because the driver paid for a ticket that no contravention occurred

guys dad was quite correct when he talked about knowing what the actual contravention was (which may have been nothing to do with paying for a valid ticket)

APCOA like to muddy the waters in this field , on both railway land and on airport land, its a common misconception for all these parking companies regarding airports , ports and railway stations

there is no keeper liability on railway land , so apcoa should not be contacting the keeper and should not have obtained their details from the dvla either (hence why popla recently ruled in favour of all apellants in this particular topic)

I suggest the OP reads and understands the issues regarding railway land and bylaws , then follows the same procedures as birmingham and luton airports , albeit this is about a train station , but the mode of transport is irrelevant - bylaws are bylaws , and one of three train companies leases that station from Network Rail

on a side note, the manchester councils are looking at buying or leasing these railway stations as soon as the government decides to release the contracts in the near future , so perhaps the government might be looking at methods of the land becoming "relevant land" in the near future, plus the ability to build houses , shops , cinemas and businesses on "railway land" too (its in our local paper this week) , so maybe this land will become "relevant land" , or maybe the council rules will apply in the future ? who knows ?

ps:- APCOA never accept appeals, neither do the vast majority sent to the other parking companies , so nobody should expect to get a charge cancelled at the initial appeal stage (I would say less than half of one per cent are cancelled at the first appeal and I dont think I have ever seen apcoa cancel one at this stage)

drunknmunky

Thanks for the replies all, especially Redx for such an in depth response. :beer:

To answer your question as to why I have received the PCN, it's due to:

"The alleged contravention of Use of Private Car Park without making a vaild payment at Manchester Victoria on date at time

I paid for the parking using a Pay by Phone service. The only reason I can think possibly think as to why they have issued it is because I may have accidentally used the number plate of our family car rather than the one I was driving that evening. It's not beyond the realms of possibility as I have done it once before many years ago although I genuinely don't remember if I did it on this occasion.

With this in mind is my best option still to follow Redx's advice & follow the same procedures as birmingham and luton airports?

Edited to add the alleged offence took place on 10/3/17 & the date on the PCN is 22/3/17

Redx

best to assume that an incorrect VRM was used and this has led to this speculative NTK

so yes , use the blue text template as keeper and then in the subsequent popla appeal use a recent airport appeal but amend it for both location and change any references from airport to railway , starting with the fact its a bylaws appeal in the main (meaning that as the land is railway land then neither POFA2012 , keeper liability apply and that bylaws apply between the TOC and the owner , so not the keeper

the issue of the payment made is at this stage not relevant because the TOC are not taking anyone to the magistrates court (the TOC have 6 months to do so, but none of them do)

its no different to any recent METROLINK tram and station threads really, so have a look at any of those over the last 15 months too , plus any other train station ones that crop up on here regularly , especially INDIGO ones

the BPA and POPLA are fully aware of the issues surrounding this topic , so the fact that PPC`s are still misrepresenting the issues and sending out a pcn is ludicrous , apcoa will fold as soon as they see a valid popla appeal , they always do

so remember , this is not the same issue as using the wrong VRM on the Excel controlled pay and display car park over at the Peel Centre in Stockport (which is relevant land)

so anyone focussing on this payment issue has failed to take in the bigger picture

Coupon-mad

Just use the template for now. You will win at POPLA by not implying who was driving.

Loadsofchildren123

Thanks for that Redx, I haven't really focused on the byelaws (nor the appeals) side of things because the PCN I'm dealing with was ignored at the appeal stage (and byelaws don't apply). It's good to have an understanding of these issues, thank you for such a clear explanation.

Redx

no problem, its what I thought having read your other posts and knowing it wasnt applicable in your case (which is why its not discussed in your thread or the other threads you participate in , lol)

I am not saying my explanation is legally perfect as I have no legal training , but it is my understanding of the situation and here in Manchester we have a tram system called Metrolink that uses railway stations so has similar issues albeit under Care parking (Anchor)

so I have been advising people on this topic for several years , especially when they have not had a knee jerk reaction and foolishly named the driver

yesterday I was reading this local article in the MEN about the proposed changes to railway land and stations to allow expansion, so it made me think about what happens if the councils sign the leases and if the government were to change the "use" of this railway land (they are apparently pondering it at the moment , like the DCLG are still pondering the survey from 2 years ago) -

ie:- would POFA become relevant ? would bylaws no longer apply ? would CARE parking and INDIGO or APCOA be able to patrol these parking lots and actually issue a pcn with the correct authority (which they dont have now)

clearly POPLA realised its was a big issue when they allowed ALL bylaw appeals on railway land a couple of months ago and threw it back at the BPA and the government to sort out

we see INDIGO threads daily on here, and those "newbies" have not even considered the validity of the pcn they were issued with , nor the laws that may or may not apply, nor the fact that the TOC could take them to magistrates court within 6 months for a bylaws infringement (or for trespassing)

its a topic in itself , and complicated too

it would seem even GWR dont have a clue about it if you look at another saga which is on here and ongoing

Loadsofchildren123

I don't know if byelaws automatically end when the land ceases to be railway land. I assume the byelaws are not specific to each bit of railway land, but they are generic and state something like "these byelaws are applicable to all railway land", and so it's the ownership of the land that makes the byelaws applicable. Or there may be something else in the definition of "railway land" (eg its use) which may take the land out of the definition.


So if land ceases to be railway land (either by being sold or by some other method defined in the byelaws) it ceases to be caught by the byelaws. And that makes sense if the purpose of it is to free the land from the byelaws for things like development.