First Appeal to APCOA - detail/points to focus on

Ads2704

Hi,

I'm brand new here & looking for help on appealing a fine/invoice from APCOA re: an alleged contravention at Birmingham Airport. A relative has received a notice claiming that their car dropped off or picked up outside designated areas.

The notice shows 4 photographs (2 of which are exactly the same including the exact time) of someone entering/exiting the vehicle - the photographs are 13 seconds apart. From what I have read would I be right in thinking that the initial appeal to APCOA should be fairly brief, with more detail required if an appeal to POPLA is needed? Also in terms of what the appeal should focus on - the relative is the keeper of the vehicle but wasn't driving it, the driver is not shown & did not exit the vehicle. Should the appeal focus on this? Or should other elements be included such as the amount of the charge in relation to the alleged offence etc?

I have done quite a bit of reading on this but am still quite confused by things such as 'relevant land' and 'implied contracts' etc.

Can anyone offer any simple guidance please or link to a similar appeal to give an idea of how much to write & what to focus on?

Thanks in advance.

traceynob

I just helped a friend win an appeal at POPLA against APCOA, based on information that I got from this forum by doing a search for 'APCOA' and 'bye-laws'. I put several appeal points forward but the only ones that seemed to be considered by the assessor was that of relevant land & keeper liability. From reading the forum this seems to be a slam dunk win at POPLA, especially in a case like yours where the keeper definitely wasn't the driver.

I would advise to do a bit of research and then prepare an appeal in your own words, I found that helped me understand the issues better rather than just copying & pasting other people's appeals, which may have a different background to yours. Saying that my two 'winning' appeal points were as below......

1 Not relevant land due to by-laws
APCOA state that the land is private land subject to statutory control of railway by-laws. In this case it is not relevant land according to the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012. By obtaining the personal details of the keeper from the DVLA with no reasonable cause, APCOA are therefore in breach of POFA. The land is either subject to by-laws or subject to the terms and conditions of the parking company, how is a motorist expected to know which ‘rules’ apply? Also referring to byelaws could be interpreted as falling foul of Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice;
Within this it states as follows:
"14.3 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.

2 No keeper liability

The Notice to keeper was received more than 14 days after the parking event and therefore did not comply with the requirements of POFA (2012). APCOA also state in writing that they do not issue notices using POFA. The keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of POFA which APCOA have not. APCOA have stated in writing that they do not know who the driver was.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper was the driver. POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”