I want revenge

Half_way

Whilst a fair amount of anger should be directed at the PPCs the big corporations such as the supermarkets rail company's, gyms etc should also be in the firing line.
The only exception to the landowner guilty as well would be the small one man band type operation, where the owner will have been equally conned by the ppcs tactics.

DoaM

What about harassment as another cause of action? Surely all the DCA letters (particularly when an appeal is ongoing) amount to that?

Loadsofchildren123

DOAM, I was toying with suggesting that too - I think on its own it's a bit weak, but like a trespass claim I'd bung it in if I was making a DPA claim.

discat11

Was the 'PCN' a genuine PCN or issue under railway bylaws?

An aside but I wouldn't necessarily infer anything from a PPC not pursuing a case or by them automatically accepting a serious appeal and not perusing it further -this may well be their standard business practice.
i.e. They know what profitability they have in the normal punters who pay up, they know how much it costs them to take 'appealers' to court and how many might win and their own costs in sending staff /legal fees/day out of the office etc.
Perhaps it's just they're happy to take the easy money & cut their potential losses when they have to -I know I would if running parking like this.

pappa_golf

discat11 wrote: »

Was the 'PCN' a genuine PCN or issue under railway bylaws?

An aside but I wouldn't necessarily infer anything from a PPC not pursuing a case or by them automatically accepting a serious appeal and not perusing it further -this may well be their standard business practice.
i.e. They know what profitability they have in the normal punters who pay up, they know how much it costs them to take 'appealers' to court and how many might win and their own costs in sending staff /legal fees/day out of the office etc.
Perhaps it's just they're happy to take the easy money & cut their potential losses when they have to -I know I would if running parking like this.

if it was bylaws , the chances where that the "offence" was failing to display a ticket , that is NOT a bylaw offence , so therefore trying to obtain monies by ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The_Deep

The original NTK/O made no mention of Bye-Laws or POFA. The rejection of the initial appeal states that the land is under the statutory control of Railway Byelaws and not issued under POFA. No mention is made on any sign of Railway Bye-Laws

It seems to me that they are wanting to have their cake and eat it, giving the initial impression that this is a breach of a contract, and now trying to say that the offence falls under criminal law.

They are too late to have GWR bring charges, and I expect them to not to want to content PoPLA appeal.

I attach the draft appeal which goes off next week.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]POPLA APPEAL - Bye-Laws Land – No Keeper Liability[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an appeal concerning a Parking Charge Notice issued by the operator for an alleged breach of the the company's terms and conditions of parking in in a railway station car park. The operator confirms that this land is covered by Railway Bye- laws and therefore it is not scheduled land for the purposes of the registered keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act., which it says the charge has not been issued under. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The operator does not know who the driver was, or the owner, and it would appear that they have made an assumption that I, the registered keeper was the driver. If so, they must prove, on the balance of probabilities that that is the case. The car insurance names two drivers and others drive it from time to time. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If they are relying on Elliot v Loake they must be aware that several recent court cases have failed on this assumption. Ellott v Loake was a criminal prosecution where the verdict relied on overwhelming forensic evidence. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If they are relying on CPS v AJH Films that too has been found wanting in the courts as the defendants were employer and employee. Several County Court Judges have recently dismissed these arguments as having no relevance in Contract Law.. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If Apcoa are relying on the outcome of Beavis v Parking Eye in the Supreme Court the circumstances bear no resemblance. Beavis took place in a free car park in a shopping centre where there was no opportunity to purchase extra time, and overstayed by almost an hour. As the PPC were paying £52,000 a year to manage this car park and PCNs of this nature were their only source of income, it was deemed that the charge of £85 was reasonable as they had a commercial interest in this site as there was a necessity to ensure a high turnover of traffic and to discourage abuse from railway commuters. Furthermore, Mr Beavis failed to engage with the parking company up until they embarked on court proceedings.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In the present instance the full parking fee was paid, there was clearly no obstruction, and this therefore amounts to an unlawful penalty. It appears therefore that the operator is attempting to obtain monies from the Registered Keeper to which it has no entitlement. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Only the land owner, in this case the Train Operating company, Great Western Railway, can take action, and only against the driver or owner, in a Magistrates Court, within six months of the date of the alleged offence, that date has now passed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nevertheless, Popla should also be aware that several spaces had been requisitioned by Network Rail for engineering works and the storage of materiel for the electrification of the line. Parking spaces for members of the public at this busy railway station have been severely curtailed. Common sense dictates that GWR should have instructed the operator to exercise lenience instead of allowing them to penalise travellers who were forced to park in unmarked bays without causing an obstruction. Provision should have been made to make good this loss, but, instead of managing parking sensibly. Apcoa sought to maximise their profits. .[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even so, those spaces which exist were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put Apcoa to strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The signs are difficult to read, being up to eight feet in height, in letters of as small as 5mm in height, in white on a pale blue background. It is impossible to see how they are sufficiently prominent to form a contract. I would refer you to Excel v Martin Cutts where the judge disallowed the claim due to poor signs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The PCN was incorrectly issued by the wrong company under wrong law. The time has now passed for the alleged offence to be prosecuted in a criminal court, and I request that this charge is therefore cancelled. Furthermore, it was issued eight months ago and appealed in time. It has only now, some seven months later that, making no mention of the appeal last year , the operator has been rejected it, and PoPLA Code issued. In the meantime I have been subjected to a barrage of threats, begging letters, lies and inducements by debt collection agencies.. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Apcoa should be made aware of their blatant misbehaviours of this incompetence. Once this appeal has been dealt with, I will be taking action through the courts concerning their unreasonable behaviour and Data Protection Act breaches. . [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone. be it driver, keeper, owner, Uncle Tom Cobley, is confusing. It started at £60/100, went up to £160, was then reduced to £75, and later came back to £60, rising to £100 if not paid. They do not seem to know how much they think they are owed.[/FONT]

Son in Law

I know that some of the above may be of no interest to PoPLA, but I am preparing the ground for a claim against Apcoa if son in law is willing.

DoaM

5 cm? Is that a typo? Did you mean 5 mm?

5 cm is quite large and easily readable on a sign 8' up.

Not a "classic" style PoPLA appeal, but I still like it.

The_Deep

Indeed, this new furrin stuff confuses one.

Fruitcake

Good effort Mr Deep. I hope you succeed.

As for the measurements, I was taught many decades ago not to mix units, so 8ft and 5mm should not be used in the same description.

This new vurrin stuff has been taught in UK schools since 1965.

Umkomaas

@TD. Just a few proofreading suggestions for you.

The operator confirms that this land is covered by Railway Bye- laws and therefore it is not scheduled land for the purposes of the registered keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act., which it says the charge has not been issued under.

Change to 'relevant'.

Even so, those spaces which exist were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put Apcoa to strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.

Plural or singular?

It has only now, some seven months later that, making no mention of the appeal last year , the operator has been rejected it, and PoPLA Code issued.

Need to rework the wording here.

Apcoa

APCOA - capitalise. (Airport Parking Company Of America).

HTH