I want revenge

The_Deep

Many thanks, I have decided to shorten it, here is the revised version

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

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

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If they are relying on Elliot v Loake, this was a criminal conviction obtained from forensic evidence and has been rejected by many judges as not relevent.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If they 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 limited to two hours where there was no opportunity to purchase extra time, and overstayed by almost an hour. The PPC were paying £52,000 a year to manage this car park and PCNs were their only source of income. It was deemed that the charge of £85 was reasonable as there was a necessity to ensure a high turnover of traffic and to discourage abuse from railway commuters. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In the present case, the parking fee was paid, there was no obstruction, and this therefore amounts to an unlawful penalty. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Only the land owner, in this case the Train Operating Company, 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]Spaces were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put APCOA strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The signs are difficult to read, being up to three metres off the ground with letters as small as 5mm.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 to the wrong person.. 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Furthermore, it was issued eight months ago and appealed in time. It is only now, some seven months later have I been issued with a PoPLA code. In the meantime I have been subjected to a barrage of threats, begging letters, lies and inducements by debt collection agencies, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice... [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone. be it driver, keeper, or owner, 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. Do they not know how much they want?[/FONT]

Son in Law

Umkomaas

Still this one to sort TD. One photo, or multiple photos?

Spaces were poorly marked, in some cases there was no marking at all, I attach a photographs taken a few weeks later and put APCOA strict proof that the markings were regularly maintained.

DoaM

The_Deep wrote: »

The operator does not know who the driver was, or the owner, and it would appear that they have made an assumption that I was that person. If so, I put them to strict proof of this.

Missing word as above?

Timothea

I think the best cause of action would be for distress caused by misuse of the keeper's personal information.

APCOA is entitled to request registered keeper details from DVLA for the reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Data protection principles require that personal information is:

1. used fairly and lawfully
2. used for limited, specifically stated purposes
3. used in a way that is adequate, relevant and not excessive
4. accurate
5. kept for no longer than is absolutely necessary
6. etc.

If your son-in-law informed APCOA that he was not the driver and that he would not reveal who the driver was then APCOA would be in breach of principle 5 if it then kept his personal information. APCOA would also be in breach of principles 1 and 3 if it further processed his personal information. Ideally, your son-in-law should have instructed APCOA to cease and desist from processing his personal information (in a Section 10 Data Subject Notice or otherwise) to make this clear.

Failing the above, the strongest data protection claim against APCOA would be for sharing your son-in-law's personal information with debt collectors before the appeal process was completed. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and thus a breach of data protection principles 1 and 3.

Halliday -v- Creation Consumer Finance Limited [2013] supports a quantum of £750 for a single data protection breach resulting in some (unquantified) distress to the data subject. Why not put in a claim for at least that, using APCOA's correspondence and the debt collection letters as evidence of its clear aim to cause distress, which was successful?

Having checked the court fees, a claim for £500 would less risky but, personally, I would go for £1,500. I can't see APCOA wanting to have its dodgy business practices tested in court.

The_Deep

Unfortunately, (or fortunately) no distress caused, we are a hardy tribe. However, sending DCA letters while an appeal is pending is a naughty and that will probably be my first line of attack..

I think I may ask for £1500, it will make them sit up a bit, especially if I send them a watertight LBA. Thanks for the idea, but lets get a Popla decision first..

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Unfortunately, (or fortunately) no distress caused, we are a hardy tribe. However, sending DCA letters while an appeal is pending is a naughty and that will probably be my first line of attack..

I think I may ask for £1500, it will make them sit up a bit, especially if I send them a watertight LBA. Thanks for the idea, but lets get a Popla decision first..

£70 court fee for a claim £1,000.01 to £1,500.00. Just so you know, in case you need to start salting a few coppers away, TD!

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

Quentin

Umkomaas wrote: »

£70 court fee for a claim £1,000.01 to £1,500.00. Just so you know, in case you need to start salting a few coppers away, TD! ...]

That is just to get the claim sent to them.

Minimum court fees to include a hearing (in the unlikely event they not pay up on getting the claim) is £185.

A bit more than a bagatelle!

Timothea

The_Deep wrote: »

Unfortunately, (or fortunately) no distress caused, we are a hardy tribe. However, sending DCA letters while an appeal is pending is a naughty and that will probably be my first line of attack..

I think I may ask for £1500, it will make them sit up a bit, especially if I send them a watertight LBA. Thanks for the idea, but lets get a Popla decision first..

Yes, first get a POPLA decision. The LBA can demand any amount you like, as long as it's at least as much as the amount for which you eventually issue a money claim. For example, demand £1,500 in the LBA but issue a money claim for £500.

Apart from a DPA breach, I can't see any other cause of action that would hold up in court. In most cases, you would have to prove a quantifiable loss. Trespass is a non-starter because, at that time, APCOA had a reasonable belief that the vehicle was parked in a way that breached the terms of parking. Harassment sets a much higher bar than distress. Negligence is an interesting idea but where's the loss or harm?

The_Deep

I agree entirely. However the most likely outcome imo is that APCOA will withdraw from the PoPLA process, argueing, if pressed, that they had not maintained the bay markings.

We shall see, but whatever happens, I shall be a thorn in their side for ages. They chose the wrong marine.

The_Deep

I won, see PoPLA appeals.

The fightback begins, my opening volley

I note that you have withdrawn from the appeal process. This leads me to conclude that the charge was wrongly issued and that, by passing my details to debt collecting agencies, you breached my rights to privacy under the Data Protection Act..

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I am prepared to overlook this for the sum of £250 and an apology. I will not agree to a confidentiality clause. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If you are not amenable to this, please let me know and I will pursue the matter through the Courts, where I shall be claiming a minimum of £500. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Your are well aware that there is no keeper liability on railway land, yet you persist in pursuing these cases, no doubt in the hope that people will pay. I am not that easily gulled and would refer you to yesterday's case at Barnsley ([/FONT]D2QZ229J) [FONT=Times New Roman, serif] where Parking Awareness Services had to pay £400 for a similar offence. [/FONT]