Help with ticket from APCOA Birmingham Airport Drop off

Redx

where has 2) gone ?


and yes it is on the right lines, so tweak if necessary

forgotmyname

You got a POPLA code from APCOA at Birmingham airport? HOW? WHY? I want one...

They sent me a ticket last year and i sent a short appeal. "not me wasnt the driver" and i heard nothing afterwards except one letter saying i had failed to appeal.

To me that classes as an appeal and all they are worth. I have an email from them thanking me for the online appeal so they were onto a massive loser.

Redx

if you cannot do what I advised you to do , which was to swap around points 1 and 2 in both the menu and the main appeal, then just copy and paste the appeal I linked, save it as a pdf, choose OTHER on the popla site and upload the saved pdf to the bin icon, in order to submit it "as is"


no deleting any of the points at all

nikkietoni

All ready to go hope it is okay thankyou

1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
and Airport Act 1986
2)Non compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3)The operator has not shown that the keeper is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
5) Photo evidence appears falsified

6)Amount demanded is a penalty

7)Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or formed

8)No grace period given (Clause 13 BPA Code of Practice)

9)The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub paragraph 9(2&5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

10)Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice Breached and

Reasonable Cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA

1) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is 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 so if they disagree with this point it would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not covered by bylaws.
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan 6062356150 September 2016 found that all 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./keeper
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.

APCOA state the byelaws prohibit parking but they themselves state the vehicle was NOT parked.






2) 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, the 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 the PCN issued so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

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 ‘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.


3) 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 , 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 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 Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and 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 I have not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.

The circumstance of full compliance with 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."

So no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from me 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 4 above.


4) 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, or a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking 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. Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinizes 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 APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


5) I would question the authenticity of the photos of the vehicle and time stamps and

location. he details are added as black box shapes on top of the photos in the right hand corners. Photo editing can be used to add these boxes and text.

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, for faking time stamps on tickets it has emerged (Independent.co.uk 27/04/2018)

l 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).

6) The amount

demanded is a penalty and is punitive and contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015.The Parking Eye and Beavis case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read and consider and also decide whether to accept or not. this case signage is neither clear nor ample and the motorist has not time to read the signage or consider it as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. Therefore the signage cannot be read safely

from a moving vehicle,

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 appear that signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading as they are unable to be seen by the driver and could not be read without stopping and so do not comply with BPA code of practice .APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary. In particular the No Stopping Zones section of the Chief Adjudicator's first annual report 2013 states "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 size as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look and read the signs .Signs which are on the red routes unlike the ones indicating most parking restrictions are usually positioned to face the oncoming traffic rather than parallel to it. The BPA code of Practice states drivers must be given time to read and understand and agree or disagree to a contract. Stopping to do this does not mean anyone has agreed to a contract.

8) No grace period given ..Clause 13 BPA Code of Practice as section 13 states "you should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if the person is going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace time to read your signs and leave before you enforce action.

.So 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 A few seconds I would say does not breach a fair grace period and therefore APCOA is in breach of the code.

9)The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:

• The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, APCOA PARKING. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, APCOA PARKING has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:

The notice must be given by—

warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Upon reviewing the NTK, APCOA PARKING have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.

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'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 scrutinizes 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 APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

10)To access the DVLA data ,parking companies sign up to the Kadoe contract which allows the parking company to retrieve keeper data electronically for the reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Kadoe contracts attach several conditions to the access including that the parking company seeks recovery from the driver or the keeper if the procedure in schedule 4 of the protection to freedoms act is used. The contract states data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of POFA .

Hence if the parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper with no evidence to suggest they were the driver then the data would have been misused, If the keeper will not name the driver in circumstances where POFA can no longer apply then they would be breaching the act if they continue to process their data .

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

Redx

yep, seems fine on a skim read

check it for any obvious errors, like different location on the airport (hotel or drop off or whatever)

if there are no obvious errors etc, add your popla code , pcn ref , name and address , email , etc , save as a pdf and upload the pdf to popla

apcoa will throw the towel in next week and tell popla they are not contesting your appeal, job done

Coupon-mad

Agreed, looks fine on a skim read, as long as you didn't add any random sentences of your own about who was driving. Because that's what wins it v APCOA, them not knowing.

They rarely bother to contest! Let us know.

nikkietoni

Success!!
Success!!!
Ticket cancelled!!
Rebecca Fryer
“In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed to show why it issued a parking charge notice to the appellant.”
Thanks guys

Umkomaas

nikkietoni wrote: »

Success!!
Success!!!
Ticket cancelled!!
Rebecca Fryer
“In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed to show why it issued a parking charge notice to the appellant.”
Thanks guys

They were happy to try to scam you in the hope you didn’t know enough, but were exposed for what they are - they had no legitimacy otherwise they would have contested your appeal.

They cave in at POPLA almost every time - and there must be a reason for that!