We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Luton Airport POPLA Appeal October 2017
scooter72
Posts: 27 Forumite
Hi
Firstly, a great thanks to all those that post their experiences and appeals - and even more thanks to those that donate time to review them!
Now its my turn, and I hope I may contribute, even a little.
We received a letter recently from APCOA regarding an alleged contravention of dropping off/picking up zones - vehicle photographed just outside of the barriers of the mid term car park.
I had appealed to APCOA as a result of their letter, and as may be expected, received the usual autonomous 'appeal rejected' letter.
I have drawn up the letter below - might I ask for those experienced reviewers to pass comment?
I have omitted two further factors which I am not sure are applicable now:
1) As per the LLA letter to APCOA they are contracted for 'parking control and enforcement work as er contract with LLA'. The alleged contravention was for a stop of approximately ten seconds - so it was not parking by definition. Presumably this may be determined in what is in the contract between LLA and APCOA?
2) As for any 'Parking Charge Notice' (invoice?!), there needs to be a contract - (offer/acceptance/consideration). The 'Warning - No Stopping' sign offers no opportunity for such a contract. Should I also include this?
Your comments appreciated.....its a long one.....!! (but taken from a multitude of other appeals)
"POPLA Ref :
APCOA Parking PCN no :
A notice to keeper was issued on 18 September 2017 and received by me, the Registered Keeper of vehicle
on 08 September 2017 for an alleged contravention of “BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE of the Airport Road’’ at Luton Airport. I am writing to you as the Registered Keeper. I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
1) APCOA did not give my appeal to them due consideration
2) APCOA not using POFA 2012
3) Airport Bye-Laws and Airport Act 1986
4) Misleading and unclear signage exacerbated by extensive roadworks
5) Airport land is not 'relevant land'
6) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
7) Authenticity of APCOA photographs
8) Grace Period (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)
1) APCOA did not give my appeal to them due consideration.
It appears to me that my appeal (26 September 2017 - APCOA Appeal.doc) to APCOA was not suitably reviewed where the received reply from APCOA (11 October 2017) was a standardised "appeal declined response letter". This letter lacks consistency, has mistakes and contains contradicting statements.
It claims that the alleged contravention was "dropping off outside a designated area" yet later on in the same letter, it states that the "vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the car park".
There is reference to a Parking Charge Notice being issued to the Registered Keeper on the first page, yet on the third page there is reference to ‘a ticket’.
Furthermore the letter states that "vehicle failed to enter the designated pickup and drop off zone"- this statement is untrue and may be easily verified by examining the car park CCTV evidence. The car first entered the "Mid Term car park" approximately twenty minutes prior to the alleged contravention. The passengers who were to be picked up from the airport were not yet present due to flight delay to landing at the airport, so the driver exited the airport and later returned towards the "Mid Term Car Park".
Their letter also advised that there was free parking available for up to 30 minutes within the mid term car park. At the entrance to this specific car park, signage indicates that car park has a 15 minute free parking allowance.
Frankly I do not understand what the alleged contravention is supposed to have been.
2) APCOA not using POFA 2012
The letter received from APCOA states:
“If the registered keeper fails to provide us with the drivers details, then the registered keeper therefore maintains liability for the issue of the Notice as the Airport is covered by Bye-laws”
APCOA have confirmed in their response letter that they are not following POFA 2012 It is my understanding that unless unless certain conditions, established in POFA 2012, are fully adhered to by the Operator seeking compensation, then only the Driver may be held responsible for the Parking Charge Notice and liability cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper.
Where a charge is aimed only at a Driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no information given regarding the identity of the driver, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice To Keeper.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with POFA Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
I would suggest that APCOA address all future correspondence to pursue compensation to the Driver at the time of the alleged contravention and to stop contacting me, the Registered Keeper.
3) Airport Bye-Laws and Airport Act 1986
Within APCOA’s response to my appeal, it is claimed the charge is liable due to an infraction of airport bye-laws - specifically Part 3, 3.6 (c) of London Luton Airport Bye-laws November 2015. Their letter (quite poorly) quoted 3.6(c) as “vehicles should not be parked on roadways that are on Airport Land’
The true wording of this Bye-law (extracted from London Luton Airport Bye-laws 2015) is:
3.6 No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait in, leave or park a vehicle:
(a) in excess of the published waiting time limit in any area where waiting is restricted by notice erected by LLAOL,
(b) in any area reserved by LLAOL for the use of a particular person or group of persons, or
(c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles.
I would like to highlight the letter sent by APCOA omitted the heading of this section 3.6:
“Part 3
This Part of these byelaws extends only to the parts of the airport to which the road traffic enactments do not apply.”
According to the Airport Act 1986, Airport bye-laws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.
Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.
Accordingly, despite APCOA’s accusation, there has been no infraction of the Luton Airport Bye-laws because the road in which the alleged contravention occurred is accessible by the public, and therefore subject to road traffic enactments. Bye-laws do not apply in this instance.
It seems to me that these statements within the letter from APCOA are intentionally misleading and incorrect.
4) Misleading and unclear signage exacerbated by extensive roadworks
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'. APCOA also make reference to ParkingEye v Beavis - a case characterised by clear and ample signage in a car park where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not.
I would suggest that ParkingEye vs. Beavis case cannot be used as a supporting evidence to support their PCN where
A) this alleged contravention did not take place in a car park but on airport land with bye-laws
the ‘No Stopping’ warning signage at Luton Airport is not easily read, understood or accepted from a moving vehicle and the charge was applied the instant the vehicle was stopped
C) The signage wording does not allow for a contract to be offered, established or agreed
The ‘No Stopping’ warning signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unlit and are unable to be seen by a driver in acommand of a moving vehicle and certainly could not be read without stopping especially in the dark, 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."
As can be seen in the attached photograph taken 25 September, the sign has no lumination and is orientated parallel to the flow of traffic. There is no possibility for a driver to read this sign without stopping.
Furthermore at the time of the alleged contravention meteorological conditions in the Luton area were poor: it was dark with rainfall and reduced visibility. (Please see the pictures provided by APCOA on their PCN - attachment 3)
Extensive roadworks and temporary lighting were in effect at the time of the contravention - and have been so for many months. These contribute to the overall airport chaos and confusion. The combination of unlit, unreadable, unclear signage and roadworks "clutter" (redirections, barriers, cones, diversions etc.) is overwhelming for drivers visiting the airport.
I understand it could be said that there is sufficient signage in the area of Luton Airport - but the quantity of different signs in the area make it difficult for a driver to establish what is applicable and what is not, from a moving vehicle.
5) Airport land is not 'relevant land'
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’
6) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
The BPA code of practice point 20.14 says: - when you serve a "Notice to Keeper", you must also include information telling the keeper the "reasonable cause you had for asking the DVLA for their details." The PCN does not provide this information - this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.
As I, as the Registered Keeper and not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, have no liability in this matter, I request that you remove my details from your records to avoid further anxiety and distress.
Please take this as a request under the DPA and confirm that this has been done within 21 days, as required. I do not expect to hear from you on this matter again.
7) Authenticity of APCOA photographs
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) and that suitable calibration methods have been applied to ensure correct date/time/position data shown on the photographs is accurate.
8) Grace Period
APCOA claim that no Grace Period may be allowed in this instance because the alleged contravention occurred outside of a car park. Would this infer only Bye-laws apply and POFA and BPA do not?
If POFA and BPA do apply (and should the regulations therein be followed) then as per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: “You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. I would argue that the time period of the alleged contravention (less than ten seconds) is not a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
Conclusion
Throughout the whole period of this allegation, APCOA have made it confusing in where their responsibilities and authorities truly lie when enforcing this Parking Charge Notice. They have also made it confusing to what specific bye-laws may have been contravened by mis-quoting / misconstruing legal documents and using statements that that appear to have no foundation.
In using what I perceive as threatening correspondence, APCOA have pursued me, as the registered keeper, to reveal the identity of the driver or - if I do not - to take acceptance for liability of this alleged contravention. I do not believe that this is an acceptable process.
In my understanding, the Registered Keeper is only liable if POFA is applied correctly and liability may then be transferred from the Driver. Neither POFA has been followed nor the Driver been identified otherwise. The Driver remains liable for this alleged contravention. The Registered Keeper must not.
In my opinion, APCOA must act more professionally in their line of business - they must surely have an understanding and appreciation of the business of parking management that such efforts to regain compensation from those that are not responsible for such alleged contraventions should not even be initiated.
I therefore request that POPLA review my appeal to have APCOA rescind this PCN.
Yours faithfully
Princess
Firstly, a great thanks to all those that post their experiences and appeals - and even more thanks to those that donate time to review them!
Now its my turn, and I hope I may contribute, even a little.
We received a letter recently from APCOA regarding an alleged contravention of dropping off/picking up zones - vehicle photographed just outside of the barriers of the mid term car park.
I had appealed to APCOA as a result of their letter, and as may be expected, received the usual autonomous 'appeal rejected' letter.
I have drawn up the letter below - might I ask for those experienced reviewers to pass comment?
I have omitted two further factors which I am not sure are applicable now:
1) As per the LLA letter to APCOA they are contracted for 'parking control and enforcement work as er contract with LLA'. The alleged contravention was for a stop of approximately ten seconds - so it was not parking by definition. Presumably this may be determined in what is in the contract between LLA and APCOA?
2) As for any 'Parking Charge Notice' (invoice?!), there needs to be a contract - (offer/acceptance/consideration). The 'Warning - No Stopping' sign offers no opportunity for such a contract. Should I also include this?
Your comments appreciated.....its a long one.....!! (but taken from a multitude of other appeals)
"POPLA Ref :
APCOA Parking PCN no :
A notice to keeper was issued on 18 September 2017 and received by me, the Registered Keeper of vehicle
on 08 September 2017 for an alleged contravention of “BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE of the Airport Road’’ at Luton Airport. I am writing to you as the Registered Keeper. I would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
1) APCOA did not give my appeal to them due consideration
2) APCOA not using POFA 2012
3) Airport Bye-Laws and Airport Act 1986
4) Misleading and unclear signage exacerbated by extensive roadworks
5) Airport land is not 'relevant land'
6) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
7) Authenticity of APCOA photographs
8) Grace Period (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)
1) APCOA did not give my appeal to them due consideration.
It appears to me that my appeal (26 September 2017 - APCOA Appeal.doc) to APCOA was not suitably reviewed where the received reply from APCOA (11 October 2017) was a standardised "appeal declined response letter". This letter lacks consistency, has mistakes and contains contradicting statements.
It claims that the alleged contravention was "dropping off outside a designated area" yet later on in the same letter, it states that the "vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions of the car park".
There is reference to a Parking Charge Notice being issued to the Registered Keeper on the first page, yet on the third page there is reference to ‘a ticket’.
Furthermore the letter states that "vehicle failed to enter the designated pickup and drop off zone"- this statement is untrue and may be easily verified by examining the car park CCTV evidence. The car first entered the "Mid Term car park" approximately twenty minutes prior to the alleged contravention. The passengers who were to be picked up from the airport were not yet present due to flight delay to landing at the airport, so the driver exited the airport and later returned towards the "Mid Term Car Park".
Their letter also advised that there was free parking available for up to 30 minutes within the mid term car park. At the entrance to this specific car park, signage indicates that car park has a 15 minute free parking allowance.
Frankly I do not understand what the alleged contravention is supposed to have been.
2) APCOA not using POFA 2012
The letter received from APCOA states:
“If the registered keeper fails to provide us with the drivers details, then the registered keeper therefore maintains liability for the issue of the Notice as the Airport is covered by Bye-laws”
APCOA have confirmed in their response letter that they are not following POFA 2012 It is my understanding that unless unless certain conditions, established in POFA 2012, are fully adhered to by the Operator seeking compensation, then only the Driver may be held responsible for the Parking Charge Notice and liability cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper.
Where a charge is aimed only at a Driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no information given regarding the identity of the driver, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice To Keeper.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with POFA Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
I would suggest that APCOA address all future correspondence to pursue compensation to the Driver at the time of the alleged contravention and to stop contacting me, the Registered Keeper.
3) Airport Bye-Laws and Airport Act 1986
Within APCOA’s response to my appeal, it is claimed the charge is liable due to an infraction of airport bye-laws - specifically Part 3, 3.6 (c) of London Luton Airport Bye-laws November 2015. Their letter (quite poorly) quoted 3.6(c) as “vehicles should not be parked on roadways that are on Airport Land’
The true wording of this Bye-law (extracted from London Luton Airport Bye-laws 2015) is:
3.6 No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait in, leave or park a vehicle:
(a) in excess of the published waiting time limit in any area where waiting is restricted by notice erected by LLAOL,
(b) in any area reserved by LLAOL for the use of a particular person or group of persons, or
(c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles.
I would like to highlight the letter sent by APCOA omitted the heading of this section 3.6:
“Part 3
This Part of these byelaws extends only to the parts of the airport to which the road traffic enactments do not apply.”
According to the Airport Act 1986, Airport bye-laws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.
Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.
Accordingly, despite APCOA’s accusation, there has been no infraction of the Luton Airport Bye-laws because the road in which the alleged contravention occurred is accessible by the public, and therefore subject to road traffic enactments. Bye-laws do not apply in this instance.
It seems to me that these statements within the letter from APCOA are intentionally misleading and incorrect.
4) Misleading and unclear signage exacerbated by extensive roadworks
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'. APCOA also make reference to ParkingEye v Beavis - a case characterised by clear and ample signage in a car park where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not.
I would suggest that ParkingEye vs. Beavis case cannot be used as a supporting evidence to support their PCN where
A) this alleged contravention did not take place in a car park but on airport land with bye-laws
the ‘No Stopping’ warning signage at Luton Airport is not easily read, understood or accepted from a moving vehicle and the charge was applied the instant the vehicle was stoppedC) The signage wording does not allow for a contract to be offered, established or agreed
The ‘No Stopping’ warning signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unlit and are unable to be seen by a driver in acommand of a moving vehicle and certainly could not be read without stopping especially in the dark, 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."
As can be seen in the attached photograph taken 25 September, the sign has no lumination and is orientated parallel to the flow of traffic. There is no possibility for a driver to read this sign without stopping.
Furthermore at the time of the alleged contravention meteorological conditions in the Luton area were poor: it was dark with rainfall and reduced visibility. (Please see the pictures provided by APCOA on their PCN - attachment 3)
Extensive roadworks and temporary lighting were in effect at the time of the contravention - and have been so for many months. These contribute to the overall airport chaos and confusion. The combination of unlit, unreadable, unclear signage and roadworks "clutter" (redirections, barriers, cones, diversions etc.) is overwhelming for drivers visiting the airport.
I understand it could be said that there is sufficient signage in the area of Luton Airport - but the quantity of different signs in the area make it difficult for a driver to establish what is applicable and what is not, from a moving vehicle.
5) Airport land is not 'relevant land'
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’
6) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
The BPA code of practice point 20.14 says: - when you serve a "Notice to Keeper", you must also include information telling the keeper the "reasonable cause you had for asking the DVLA for their details." The PCN does not provide this information - this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.
As I, as the Registered Keeper and not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, have no liability in this matter, I request that you remove my details from your records to avoid further anxiety and distress.
Please take this as a request under the DPA and confirm that this has been done within 21 days, as required. I do not expect to hear from you on this matter again.
7) Authenticity of APCOA photographs
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) and that suitable calibration methods have been applied to ensure correct date/time/position data shown on the photographs is accurate.
8) Grace Period
APCOA claim that no Grace Period may be allowed in this instance because the alleged contravention occurred outside of a car park. Would this infer only Bye-laws apply and POFA and BPA do not?
If POFA and BPA do apply (and should the regulations therein be followed) then as per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: “You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. I would argue that the time period of the alleged contravention (less than ten seconds) is not a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
Conclusion
Throughout the whole period of this allegation, APCOA have made it confusing in where their responsibilities and authorities truly lie when enforcing this Parking Charge Notice. They have also made it confusing to what specific bye-laws may have been contravened by mis-quoting / misconstruing legal documents and using statements that that appear to have no foundation.
In using what I perceive as threatening correspondence, APCOA have pursued me, as the registered keeper, to reveal the identity of the driver or - if I do not - to take acceptance for liability of this alleged contravention. I do not believe that this is an acceptable process.
In my understanding, the Registered Keeper is only liable if POFA is applied correctly and liability may then be transferred from the Driver. Neither POFA has been followed nor the Driver been identified otherwise. The Driver remains liable for this alleged contravention. The Registered Keeper must not.
In my opinion, APCOA must act more professionally in their line of business - they must surely have an understanding and appreciation of the business of parking management that such efforts to regain compensation from those that are not responsible for such alleged contraventions should not even be initiated.
I therefore request that POPLA review my appeal to have APCOA rescind this PCN.
Yours faithfully
Princess
0
Comments
-
URGENT :
REMOVE THE POPLA CODE NOW
3) Airport Bye-Laws and Airport Act 1986
so sit back and bide your time , the PPC cannot start county court action , this must be done in a magistrates court by the airport within 6 mths , they will not do this
expect lots of threatening letters and threats , play ping pong and let it time out
POPLa are refusing to act on railway land , dont know there attitude on airport land yet , chances are that the PPC will not give you a POPLa code or back down at the last minute ,
second thoughts are that the POPLa appeal method may be best as it will waste timeSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
if you have a popla code , use it , because apcoa tend to discontinue when they see a decent popla appeal , meaning popla dont usually rule at all
but do not put that code or any other personal details on here
edit post #1 asap
0 -
Hi pappa/Redx
Thanks for the quick replies.
PPC has issued a POPLA code already- I appealed following receipt of their PCN (stating they weren't using POFA). - the above is what I intend to send to POPLA (along with copy of Luton airport bye-laws; map of Luton airport and the correspondence between APCOA and I so far..)
I cannot fathom how such companies are able to follow through with relying on a revenue like this, using regulations that are so full of holes - pure reliance upon intimidation in making general public pay them money. Its a form of extortion.0 -
On a second note - I was going to wait until near the end of the 28 day period before submitting to POPLA.0
-
Welcome to our world , the one where we fight these injustices every day. Once you’ve sorted your PCN out, do come and join the battle.I cannot fathom how such companies are able to follow through with relying on a revenue like this, using regulations that are so full of holes - pure reliance upon intimidation in making general public pay them money. Its a form of extortion.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
I would be delighted.......nice to get the bit between the teeth every now and then!0
-
Hi all
Well, I submitted the letter and attached all the documents that I thought were necessary (Luton ByeLaws, POFA 2012 etc) to POPLA within the 28 Days allowable period - sent 09 November.
It is now at "Operator Information and Evidence" stage - and has been since 11 November.
Is there a maximum time given to the operator for this stage to review and produce evidence?
I have seen other appeals of the same nature where APCOA have thrown the towel in within a few days? It seems unusual that it is taking longer than others.
Thanks
Scooter720 -
Phone POPLA and ask for an update.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Good day all
I had called POPLA (twice) and both occasions they informed me that the appeal was still processing - they wouldn't give any further information.
I had read somewhere, however, that the operator, too, has 28 days in which to supply evidence.
Either way - we received an email from POPLA, yesterday, that our appeal was a success - APCOA did not wish to contest the appeal.
Thanks to all for their input.
Brgds
Scooter720 -
Hi we have written to complain and state we had not parked on pausing briefly to pick up passenger who was flagging us down.
At no time had we entered a car park or entered into any contract with Luton airport of Apcoa.
Poplar have turned down our appeal and we are left with a private company issuing us with a fine and threatening us with court.
Help, help, help0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards