Apcoa pcn

stormhunter

I received a PCN for the reasons below. i spoke to GWR about this on the phone strongly and they kept referring to someone but said there were no managers available, they said to appeal as they could do nothing about it. they then told me to email details to them and someone should look into it. email below.

i am in england. i am looking for help for the relevant disability laws they have broken aand have not recived a NTK yet.

thank you in advance.
Dear Sir
REF phone call 16/08/2017.!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! PCN: GW60110020
!!! !!! !!! On 14th Aug we arrived at Kemble station for the 1550 to Cheltenham. My Wife is severely disabled with secondary progressive Multiple Sclerosis and needs help to get on the train.
! On arriving at the Swindon to Chetenham side of the station (Platform 2) there were no parking spaces available, even though they are not wide enough to open a door fully to get out,and there are no disabled parking slots marked, even in the new 333 slot car park, which is to far to walk from anyway.
Due to the nature of my wifes disability she can not walk far and requires help to get on the train so we parked next to the building on some faded yellow lines. we went in and i put my wife on the train and came straight back to the car. was no longer than 6 mins.
I Found a PCN on the windscreen with a £100 pound fine from APCOA for parking in a restricted area, There were 2 taxis parked in a separate yellowed box area that did not have tickets on. There are no signs saying do not park here or taxis only and the only disabled parking spaces are on the other side of the station, the only way across the lines to the other station platform are stone steps to go over a footbridge. This is not any use to disabled people.
Because there are not any disabled parking spaces on platform 2 side of the station This is a failing in Great Western Railway who are responsible for the private land and enforcing the disabilities act to ensure they are catered for. This is allowing APCOA to take advantage of the situation and are targeting disabled people who need to park close to the entrance.
On talking to customer support they said it is nothing to do with GWR and to appeal against it. GWR Are responcible as they are the company that employs APCOA to run there car parks. I want GWR to cancel this PCN as it is a ridiculous amount of money and to paint disabled parking slots on platform 2 side of the station to stop APCOA from taking advantage of that fact and for causing all the agro and grief and stress to people who already have enough to worry about with there illness.
I await your reply.

nosferatu1001

Equality Act 2010 is what you need, and the requirement to make reasonable adjustments.
Secondly the vehicle was not parked, it was engaged in assisted boarding / alighting
Thirdly Railway land is NOT relevant land for POFA2012 as it is controlled by byelaws, and as such Keeper liability is not possible. As long as the DRIVER of the vehicle is not identified - so edit your post! - they can only hold the driver liable, who they dont know. Call the driver "the driver"
Fourthly, pretty sure APCOA are terrified of court, and just dont try it.

Umkomaas

As well as tackling GWR on the Equality Act front, you need to be following the advice in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 in terms of appealing to APCOA.

You should delay sending your appeal to APCOA (as this is a byelaws case) until day 26 if they want the appeal via their appeal portal or by email, or if they only accept postal appeals, send that around day 23, with a free certificate of posting (not 'signed for/registered mail') from your post office counter clerk. Use the method of appeal as detailed by APCOA, which should be shown somewhere on the windscreen ticket you received.

stormhunter

Thank you. I have been reading the newbies sticky so will be following it if i receive a NTK.

Coupon-mad

This is the style of complaint I suggest (needs adapting to suit your case):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72881223#Comment_72881223

HTH

stormhunter

Hi Coupon-Mad, Is this complaint sent to the parking company as the appeal after receiving the NTK which we have not had yet, and does a copy go to the railway company who owns the land.

Fruitcake

stormhunter wrote: »

Hi Coupon-Mad, Is this complaint sent to the parking company as the appeal after receiving the NTK which we have not had yet, and does a copy go to the railway company who owns the land.

You send this as the appeal to the PPC around day 26. Don't wait for the NTK. The idea is to appeal and make them forget to send one at all.

Just to correct an earlier comment, it is normally the vehicle Owner that can be held liable for a Railway Byelaw breach, not The Driver or The Keeper. Generally only the TOC or Network Rail can pursue a byelaw breach for trespass in the magistrates court, not a PPC in the small claims court for an alleged parking infringement. If the TOC/NR pursued this, the PPC would get no money, so they won't tell you the truth about this where byelaws apply.
It is however advised never to admit to the driver's identity as good practice, but is not fatal where railway byelaws apply.

Normally you wouldn't want the railway company to know about a PCN because you don't want to get done for trespass, even though it is unlikely. However, since this is an issue covered by failure to comply with the EA 2010, it won't hurt to remind them of their obligations and liability in accordance with that Act.

In addition to all of this, please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam, especially where a breach of the EA 2010 has occurred.

Coupon-mad

stormhunter wrote: »

Hi Coupon-Mad, Is this complaint sent to the parking company as the appeal after receiving the NTK which we have not had yet, and does a copy go to the railway company who owns the land.

Either or both - I did say adapt it to suit. It was the wording you need, use it how you like.

The_Deep

Here is a PoPLA appeal that won with APCOA/GWR recently.


POPLA APPEAL - Bye-Laws Land – No Keeper Liability

[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]. [/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 relevant.[/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]

stormhunter

I will send a letter to my local MP about this. Thank you

stormhunter

Here is my appeal to APCOA, can you please check it and tell me if anything needs changing, thanks.

Dear APCOA,!

I refer to your baseless 'parking charge notice' and I have complained to NETWORK RAIL, GWR, and my local MP, and need to put you on notice that APCOA,and NETWORK RAIL and GWR are jointly and severally liable for disability discrimination, should you refuse to cancel this PCN immediately.

Take note that APCOA has hereby been informed, by this Email, that an elderly passenger in the vehicle that day has Multiple Sclerosis, and is to all intents and purposes, very restricted in her movements with crutches.

I need not explain further, other than to point out the fact that a person with MS meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EA) and any delay was as a direct result of her condition, lack of mobility and her personal needs when using Public Transport.
Secondly the vehicle was not parked, it was engaged in assisted boarding / alighting!of Public Transport.

Should you fail to cancel the charge, APCOA - and the individual person making the decision to proceed with the matter to POPLA, whose name!must!appear on your Email of reply, along with their reasons for disregarding the EA - will be held corporately and personally liable for a failure to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person.!

I now require you to cease processing my data immediately after cancellation of the PCN and delete all records of my data from your systems. Failure to do so will result in a complaint to the Information Commissioner and a claim in the County Court.

I would like to draw your Legal Department's attention to a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 -!Blamires v LGO.!

This was a claim for damages including disability discrimination and a matter of a breach of the DPA, for which an award of five figures was granted as compensation for distress, which included a four figure sum claimed for discrimination, distress and harassment under the EA. As is now relatively well known, the DPA’s original drafting appeared to preclude compensation for distress alone, but the Court of Appeal, in!Vidal Hall & ors v Google![2015] EWCA Civ 311, it was held that this was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that, accordingly, there was a right under the DPA to claim compensation for “pure” distress.!

The award in!Blamires!was of!“Vidal Hall”!compensation, with the judge saying there was ''no doubt in my mind that the data breaches have caused distress to the claimant in their own rights as well as as a result of the consequences that flowed.'' The judge awarded a further £2,500 aggravated damages because of the manner in which the Defendant conducted its case, including the fact that, notwithstanding being told by the Claimant that its conduct/data was wrong, it took nearly two years for the Defendant to admit the mistake.

I expect APCOA to now cancel this 'parking charge' and admit its mistake in attempting to misuse my data and demand monies you are not entitled to claim, following your abject failure to allow for the needs of the disabled population at large. You may be unaware of the fact that as a service provider, you cannot absolve yourselves of the legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' by stating that you were unaware of an individual's circumstances. The legal duty is a proactive one, which requires you to make policy decisions in advance, to ensure your trading model includes a reasonable adjustment for disabled drivers/passengers ''at large''.!

To assist APCOA with this issue, to prevent further EA breaches in future, I would suggest:

A very simple and reasonable 'adjustment' policy might include APCOA providing Disabled Parking Areas on both sides of the station. Getting the warden on foot, as well as ANPR, to check for individual circumstances and avoid PCNs for disabled people altogether, or a method for NETWORK RAIL, GWR staff to proactively exempt the VRNs of customers who are clearly disabled. Certainly APCOA could easily put up a sign which clearly informs Blue Badge Holders about their right to more time than able-bodied users, transparently offering a method to exempt their vehicle on the spot, perhaps on the buildings walls and in the Car Parks.!

I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that the charge is cancelled. Should you fail to cancel this PCN and/or pursue a baseless claim without supplying any evidence of any breach of a relevant contract or relevant obligation, you may consider this adequate notice of my intention to sue APCOA, for the significant distress your actions have caused to this disabled person.

All Emails and any letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court. I reserve the right to include your client, NETWORK RAIL and GWR, in any claim made, since that party remains jointly and severally liable for the conduct of its agents on their land.!

yours faithfully,!

Squiggle