Birmingham Airport APCOA PCN

Disco1972

6) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."
The photographic evidence of the signage supplied by APCOA appears to be located within a car park next to a building and is therefore deficient in demonstrating compliance with the above requirements.
I contend that in order for a motorist to read and understand the content of the signage they would need to stop to study it. Any attempt to read and understand the signage whilst driving at the prevailing speed limit would compromise their ability to drive safely. It is clearly unreasonable for a motorist to have to breach the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure in order to acquaint themselves with those terms and conditions.
Furthermore, I contend that APCOA’s assertion that no stopping is allowed at any time on a red route is inconsistent with motorists’ obligations under the Highway Code. There are numerous circumstances in which a motorist would be obliged to stop; for example following a road traffic accident, break down, obstructions or pedestrians crossing. The photographic evidence shows that the vehicle in question had stopped but does not offer factual proof of the reason.



7) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinizes it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.



8) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).



9) The amount demanded doesn’t represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount demanded doesn’t represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term nor does it reflect any material damage to Birmingham airport or APCOA. The fact that the charge is none-itemized and given as a round figure to the maximum amount allowed (also with the minimum amount of discount offered for payment within 14 days) under the AOS Code of Practice (Schedule 5) means that this charge can only be interpreted as quite literally no-more than a disguised penalty. Which has been issued in the form of a misleading un-solicited invoice with the aim of maximizing revenue for APCOA.
If the charge is an attempt at gaining compensation for a loss to the businesses then it is not commercially justified and has no basis in law to be claimed. The first 10 minutes in the Birmingham Airport pick up / drop off car park is £1; the alleged contravention appeared to last seconds and APCOA are demanding payment of £100 for what would have been a charge of £1. Therefore there has been no significant loss to the business.

Therefore the parking charge is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. I wish to see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note: the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting an IAS defense. Also losses must not include normal overheads costs incurred by APCOA in the running the business or the manning of the airport premises.

Furthermore APCOA have already previously lost appeals on this point ‘APCOA v Bycroft’ & ‘APCOA v Oughton’. Both cases were at Birmingham airport and both were for stopping momentarily as with this allegation and yet again APCOA have failed to provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore on this point alone there can be no justification for rejection of this appeal.

10) The appeal against this PCN was issued via email on 27th June 2017 to birminghamappeals@apcoa.co as directed on the PCN document. A receipt was then received stating that APCOA would consider and respond within 35 days. APCOA failed to respond within 35 days issuing a letter rejecting the appeal dated 03rd August 2017 and received on 05th August 2017.



I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Redx

Disco1972 wrote: »

Finally received the appeal rejection letter from APCOA (late). I've got my POPLA appeal ready but notice APCOA state on the letter that "APCOA have not claimed to and do not work, issue or seek payment under POFA as this land is covered by Bye-laws".


POFA is listed as part of my appeal quite a bit, can this still be used?

good , add it to your appeal and upload a copy as evidence when you submit the appeal as a pdf to popla , after choosing OTHER

by confirming this they arew proving your appeal is correct, that they are trying to hold the keeper liable and yet they are not following POFA2012, the only law that actually can make a keeper liable

effectively, they are trying to hold the keeper responsible, yet not following the only law that does so

so its more ammunition for you to say to popla , "look , here is the proof that they should never have written to me in the first place, they do not have the authority and confirm they are not following the only law that might allow them to write to me in the first place"

this is why I said , do not reveal the driver or the owner" , as umkomaas pointed out that its admissions like those that caould cause you issues

on a skim read , the appeal looks fine , so just add a paragraph stating that APCOA THEMSELVES HAVE SAID "blah blah" and a copy is attached

Disco1972

Sorry it's so long, read more is better somewhere!

Umkomaas

You variously use byelaws and bylaws. Use the one spelling consistently through your appeal. There's no conclusive determination that I can find as to which spelling is correct, so either will do, but the same one right the way through.

There are some formatting errors, where one word attaches to the next with no space between. It may be that it's just a software issue with copying and pasting here.

Ditch appeal point #9. GPEOL was undermined at PE v Beavis. Don't be a hostage to fortune because it seems if a POPLA assessor, particularly an inexperienced one, sees it in an appeal, they have a ready made template to deal with it, invariably with a rejection of your appeal.

Appeal point #10 is not something POPLA adjudicate on. No need to remove, it's not doing you any harm, but it's not a showstopper, but does give APCOA something to explain.

Redx

as above ^^^^^^^^^^

add the paragraph that says they agree with you that POFA2012 is not being followed due to bylaws existing , so as keeper you require POPLA to uphold your appeal, evidence is attached

(apcoa are covering their own backside in response to your blue text appeal , nothing more)

then upload as a pdf using OTHER, attach your scan of their communication and wait for them to tell popla that they are not pursuing the claim

Disco1972

Thanks both, great advise again! I'll amend as per your suggestions and submit to POPLA. Will update with the outcome.

Disco1972

On the popla apeal page it's asking why I'm appealing, is this where I select "other grounds for appeal" or "I was not improperly parked" ?

Umkomaas

Select 'Other'.

Redx

Disco1972 wrote: »

On the popla apeal page it's asking why I'm appealing, is this where I select "other grounds for appeal" or "I was not improperly parked" ?

definitely OTHER, ignore all the other options , attach your pdf and also the proof apcoa sent you that pofa2012 is not being used

Disco1972

RESULT..! Submitted my appeal to POPLA yesterday and this morning POPLA emailed saying APCOA don't want to contest the appeal so the appeal is successful and no charge needs to be paid!

The entire process went exactly how you all advised it would, fantastic!

In the end for me it was about beating APCOA than paying £100. The more you learn about what they're doing and creaming money off motorists the more angry it makes you! Can't believe BHX are allowing this to happen to their customers.

Massive thanks to Umkomass, Redx, Coupon-mad and others that took the time to help me. I read so much of the information you have posted over the years helping others, really appreciate your efforts.. Keep the good work up.

Anyone thinking of paying a PCN then STOP! read, learn and ask ��