Non Indigo Station/Byelaws PCN

vcarad66

Thank you for the significant resources collated here. I would be very grateful for input on the following.

Background: APCOA PCN issued by post re a Train Station Car Park. Ticket was purchased but "zero" entered instead of the "O" in the numberplate. 2 letters received - both with same PCN number and photos but with consecutive "Date of Issue of this notice" given.

1) I note that the NEWBIES template for the 1st round appeal does not refer to Bylaws etc which is understandable as they are specific to Railway etc land but should I add reference to Byelaws to the Blue text when I make my APCOA appeal? I've seen lots of very convincing and detailed wording on the following topics on other threads but is that now outdated/not recommended?

"Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
APCOA Using Railway Bye law for claims
Appellant not being the individual liable
Non-compliant signage
Lack of standing / authority from landowner"

2) Should I include reference to/evidence of the 0/O parking ticket purchased (whilst not identifing the driver of course). I have seen from other threads that APCOA do not generally accept this as a ground for appeal presumably it needs to be mentioned in order to then rely on it at the POPLA stage of appeal? It also shows that APCOA have suffered no actual loss as the correct amount of money was paid for a car to be parked in the car park for the time in question.

Thank you for any thoughts/comments.

KeithP

I'd be inclined to sent the blue text template as it is, without change, and save all that other stuff for PoPLA.

waamo

They won't cancel on the initial appeal so why bother constructing an appeal so early when one is done for you?

Redx

as above


1) , no , dont tip your hand yet, save it for POPLA where they will normally withdraw as "no contest"

2) NO , even popla dont accept these issues as valid, although a judge would

their loss or not is irrelevant, as its a bylaws issue only the TOC can issue a penalty notice that could go to a MAGS COURT within 6 months, which never happens

just string it out as long as possible , so appeal as KEEPER by day 25 in the manner they allow, using the blue text thread (as long as its not a hire/lease/company vehicle)

then appeal to popla using recent APCOA train station templates (or similar) based on POFA2012, no contract , not relevant land, not proving who the driver was, no keeper liability etc

The_Deep

This is a total waste of their time and yours. Complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Fruitcake

The bit about the "one size fits all" initial appeal in the NEWBIES is that it fits all appeal scenarios.

Please explain why you think your case is different and therefore requires a different appeal strategy.

vcarad66

Thanks All - in response to why I thought my case is different - as I said it involves Railways and an attempt to pay both of which I would want to raise with Popla and/or a Court if it got that far. I wanted to ensure that by not mentioning them now I wasn’t putting those points out of reach later. Thanks for the input - I’ll wait for the inevitable rejection from Apcoa and take it from there.

Redx

the attempt to pay is irrelevant at POPLA and may not be relevant in a magistrates court

the railways issue means the keeper appeals, takes it to popla and isnt liable because POFA2012 does not apply

nobody cares about what the driver did or didnt do, because for a keeper its irrelevant

MrWibble_2

I'm very confused by "keeper is irrelevant".
The POPLA guidance issued to operators in November tells them not to use POFA, not to mention keeper or driver liability and ...
"Be issued to the vehicle owner (Registered Keeper assumed to owner unless proved otherwise)"

Unless there is some easy way for a keeper to prove they are not the owner, I fail to see how the keeper is irrelevant.

I don't have the answer, but think the OP was right to question the one size fits all in light of this.

Fruitcake

The keeper is not liable for a parking charge where byelaws apply, so is irrelevant in that respect, but it will be the keeper who responds to the scammers, and appeals to PoPLA if it gets that far.

It cannot be assumed that the keeper is the owner no matter what the scammers associations say. They cannot mix or pick and choose from the BPA CoP, PoFA, and "real" Penalty Notices from Councils just to suit their paymasters, the PPC scammers.

Judges in the Small Claims Court have repeatedly thrown out any attempt by a PPC scammer to assume a keeper is the driver, and I think the same would apply should a TOC/Landowner try a parking charge in a Magistrates Court.

The onus would be on the claimant to prove the keeper is the owner, not for the defendant to prove the opposite.

Umkomaas

I'm very confused by "keeper is irrelevant".

Where is that stated please?

Unless there is some easy way for a keeper to prove they are not the owner, I fail to see how the keeper is irrelevant.

It is always for the claimant to prove his case.

In a civil case, the only law, to my knowledge, that can place liability on a Keeper is PoFA 2012. But keeper liability does not apply on 'not relevant land' - PoFA 2012!

The very nearest this will get to POPLA is for APCOA to withdraw when faced by a well researched POPLA appeal by the OP.