Parking fine Victoria Train Station Manchester

Leesh93

Hi Guys,

Any help would be appreciated with the following:

1. The driver did not park within a bay, however the signage was very small - there was no one being blocked
2. NTK was received after 40 days - ticket was placed on the car
3. There was no records available to ever pay the parking fine or view the images online. There is still no online information avaible
4. Driver has an image of another car parked in the exact same position who was there before me and left after however no ticket was issued

nosferatu1001

Well first off you havent read other threads.
DO NOT ID THE DRIVER

EDIT your post. Call the driver "the driver" and NOTHING more.

Was a ticket placed on the car? If so then 40 days is fine. If not, it is way to late
Theyre not obliged to provide you with anything at all apart from teh Notice to Keeper. So 3 is irrelevant.

4) is irrelevant as well. No legitimate expectation that i know of on private land. You also dont know that a ticket wasnt issued - someone could have taken it off the windscreen.

Leesh93

Thankyou for your response. I just want to ensure the following is an appropriate response as I have made a slight adjustment:


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 in the surrounding are as presented on the images provided by yourself.
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. I would also like to add that since there are relevant bylaws that apply at this location, it is non relevant land as defined by the POFA 2012, therefore there is no liability towards the keeper.
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.

(My name and address)

Quentin

That template appeal has been designed to ensure you get a POPLA code.


You adjust it at your own risk!

Leesh93

Hi,

As the keeper of the car I used the required appeal template without the changes. As expected it was rejected.

Redx

draft a popla appeal then , based on similar railway station appeals from this year only

try INDIGO threads

Leesh93

Hi,

As the keeper of the car I used the required appeal template without the changes. As expected it was rejected and POPLA code was received

Images were taken of the signage within the car park in question which were insufficient at the time have since been replaced. Will this have any effect on the appeal?

Also the time in question on the NTK does not match the original PCN will this have any effect?

I just wanted to run these questions by you guys before drafting the appeal

Coupon-mad

Images were taken of the signage within the car park in question which were insufficient at the time have since been replaced. Will this have any effect on the appeal?

No, not really.

Also the time in question on the NTK does not match the original PCN will this have any effect?

Yes, that's worth including!

The_Deep

Never mind Beavis, signs etc., it's APCOA, it's bye laws, it's a slam dunk win at PoPLA, the PPC will not contest the appeal. Here is one I made earlier.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

post 2659

If they involve debt collectors they may have used your DVLA data inappropriately and, could be open to a claim under the DPA. Awards of up to £750 are being handed down by the courts. Read this

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

Leesh93

Thank you,

I have constructed the following POPLA appeal using the template. I have added the additional points regarding signage, however, if you think it will not help the case then I shall remove it. Any help would be appreciated.

*with reference to the signs shall I use the entire template given?

I will add the necessary imagery and save this as a PDF when all feedback has been received. Thank you all.

I believe the PCN was issued wrongly and unlawfully for the following reasons:
1. No Breach of Byelaws
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
3. Insufficient signs

1. No Breach of Byelaws
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 2012 (PoFA), under which it states the charge has not been issued.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA it states that:
“(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)…(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
The DVLAs KADOE contract is the enabling mechanism for the DVLA to release data to private parking companies. It states that they can only use the data released to seek recovery from the driver, or the keeper if the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is used, which as previously stated by APCOA in their correspondence it is not.
As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this PoFA Act does not apply under Byelaws. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details, as they cannot infer the keeper has any liability.
3. Insufficient Signs
The car park in question has a lack of clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. (Please see attached images)

Additionally the timings at which the car was seen conflict on the NTK and PCN as stated by APCOA. Finally, the amount the PPC think they are owed by someone, be it driver, keeper, or owner is confusing. It started at £50/85, and later came back to £50, rising to £85 if not paid. Do they not know how much they want? There is no consistency within their documentation.

Yours Sincerely,

Redx

seems too short and not enough "meat" to me

try basing it on this winning one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5644410

remove anything irrelevant , like hire car etc (if not applicable)

add any additional points that you wish to make that arent in it

ie:- adapt it