Parking ticket from APCOA at Luton Airport

Yoooz

I will go with 2 then. Thanks.

Yoooz

It looks like they trying to get people to admit who was driving as you get another list to pick from at the next stage. I will go with 9 though.

I will post the list, which could be useful for anyone appealing on their site.

First you're met with a intro and then the list.

''Whilst there are no specific legal grounds which you believe make this notice invalid, nevertheless you believe that it was either unfair or unreasonable to issue the notice and would like the Company to cancel it. You will need to provide very good supporting evidence for this. Some possible reasons that this might be considered are given below, this is not an exhaustive list and you must provide supporting evidence to strengthen your appeal''.

1. The vehicle was not parked where stated on the PCN/ECN
2. I was still within the time paid for
3. I did not overstay the free period allowed in the Car park
4. My car parking ticket was clearly displayed
5. My permit was clearly displayed
6. The terms and conditions of the car park were not clearly signposted
7. I was parked in an area in which I was free to park
8. I complied with the signage at the car park
9. Other

Yoooz

Hi everyone,

I just received a letter from APCOA to say the appeal has been rejected. I've been given the POPLA reference number.

https://ibb.co/bX0e4S

https://ibb.co/mTDGjS

This is a draft I found at the forum that seems relevant and I will appeal to POPLA as registered keeper. The points I want to remove are 1, 4 and 5. Could anyone advice if that is correct please?
Another point I'm going to add to it is the fact the driver of the vehicle was queuing in a stationery traffic and therefore have not stopped or parked purposely to let passengers off the car. APCOA also says ''the area where you have stopped is also clearly marked as a bus stop'' - that is a lie as the bus stop lay bay is next to the road on which the car was queuing. Also in that sentence they making a false accusation that I, the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Many thanks for any advice/help.

POPLA Ref ...................
APCOA Parking PCN no .......................

A notice to keeper was issued on 13th April 2018 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on 16th April 2018 for an alleged contravention of !!!8216;'BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE!!!8217;!!!8217; at Luton Airport. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) APCOA not using POFA 2012
2) Airport Act 1986
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
4) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
5) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
6) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
7) Misleading and unclear signage
8) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
9) Photo evidence appears doctored
10) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)


1) From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

2) Airport byelaws 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.

Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

3) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

4) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 2nd September 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 21 days later on 23rd September 2016.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the !!!8216;reasonable cause!!!8217; 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.

5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217; for the purposes of POFA 2012.
!!!8216;As the site is not located on !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217;, 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.!!!8217;

6) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

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 admission regarding who was driving, 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 NTK.

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 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. They cannot.

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

!!!8220;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 !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

7) 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'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, 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."

8) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd!!!8217;s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOAParking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

9) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle !!!8211; 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).

10) 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'. 90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Coupon-mad

The points I want to remove are 1, 4 and 5. Could anyone advice if that is correct please?

Why? I am not sure why you want to remove points.

Umkomaas

This is a draft I found at the forum that seems relevant and I will appeal to POPLA as registered keeper. The points I want to remove are 1, 4 and 5. Could anyone advice if that is correct please?

1, 4 and 5 can be the killer points - can you explain why you want to remove them?

Another point I'm going to add to it is the face the driver of the vehicle

'Face'? Not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean the 'face of the driver'?

ANPR cameras don't photograph 'faces' (although sometimes you can see a 'face', but not accurate enough to 100% identify anyone). But if you can explain more specifically the point you are trying to make, maybe I can get a better understanding and advise accordingly.

Yoooz

I've had some advice that POFA is not relevant in this case earlier. I'm a bit confused now. I read it again and still can get my head round this. I wanted to remove points 1, 4 & 5 as they refer to POFA, which I was advised is irrelevant with this PCN. Can I use it then? Sorry but I don't quite understand that.

Redx wrote: »

its not relevant land so POFA2012 does not apply and never did apply

Quentin wrote: »

As you been advised Pofa is irrelevant here

See #6

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Quentin is correct, but.....................

they want to use POFA to pass liability onto the keeper (even though it is not land covered by POFA), but play them at their game saying the driver has not been established and the only way the registered keeper could be liable under POFA is if they stuck to the POFA timescales. They have failed to do that, so you, as keeper, can not be held liable and you are not able to identify the driver.

Yoooz

Umkomaas wrote: »

1, 4 and 5 can be the killer points - can you explain why you want to remove them?


'Face'? Not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean the 'face of the driver'?

ANPR cameras don't photograph 'faces' (although sometimes you can see a 'face', but not accurate enough to 100% identify anyone). But if you can explain more specifically the point you are trying to make, maybe I can get a better understanding and advise accordingly.

Sorry it's a spelling mistake. It meant to say fact:). Last letter meant to be 't' not 'e'. I've changed it.

Redx

it appears you do not understand this sc@m

its an airport so bylaws apply , meaning that POFA2012 does not apply and neither does a parking charge notice

APCOA cannot use a parking charge notice to "police" the roads , nor a county court to pursue bylaws tickets

the AIRPORT could issue a penalty charge notice and deal with it under the bylaws by taking the driver to magistrates court (but not apcoa)

so it is correct that POFA2012 does not apply on that land , hence why it is used as an appeal point for a PARKING charge notice brought by apcoa on non-relevant land, it bolsters your case that they have made a mistake in bringing this charge to a keeper (so it is more protection for the keeper)

so it isnt relevant land but its a relevant point in a bylaws case , same as apcoa cannot ticket a vehicle on a motorway or council maintained road

if you fail to understand these issues, just use the same points as hundreds of others have done , including those points you wanted to remove , plus adding the details about THE DRIVER by only saying it as if telling a story that somebody told you , so in the third person (THE DRIVER blah blah)

once APCOA see the popla appeal they will fold anyway, they always do (to save themselves the popla fee once they know the game is up and they have been rumbled)

there are millions or words to explain this on here, for ports , railway stations and airports so study those at your leisure after submitting your popla appeal

APCOA can manage parking on private land , that isnt subject to bylaws, but not roads covered using bylaws or public roads with national laws

so just adapt any recent popla appeal like the one you posted , and upload it as a pdf on the popla website using OTHER

APCOA WILL FOLD WITHIN A FEW DAYS

Coupon-mad

Because the POFA does not apply on this land (and because APCOA do not use POFA-worded PCNs anyway) your appeal DOES HAVE TO USE THE POFA to say:

''POPLA look, it's a non POFA PCN, on non-relevant land, so I can't be held liable''.

Do you see why that wins?

We know what we are doing, stop trying to re-write it.

So you leave everything in, this works, just submit the full version.

Nothing about faces please! I can just imagine someone completely blowing the entire appeal by saying 'APCOA haven't got a picture of MY face as driver' or something silly.

Yoooz

Thanks Redx & Coupon-mad. That's very clear now. Like I said earlier it was a spelling mistake: meant to read fact and not face. I corrected it now. So the only thing I'll add is the line with the stationery traffic and driver queuing in it and neither stopping nor parking as the car is stuck in a traffic.

Thanks again

I will post the appeal when I get it ready as I'm currently painting the house and haven't got much time to do it:(