Popla

D_P_Dance

Complain to your MP. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

APCOA don't issue penalty notices, nor do they issue charges under byelaws so that has nothing to do with your case. APCOA issue parking charge notices like any other.

Only CP Plus and Indigo issue railway fake 'penalty 'charges'.

Copy any APCOA POPLA appeal you see, and they will fold.

KingCesc04

Thanks Coupon-mad - shall just go ahead with it then - sorry was trying to find anything else that could have helped. I have used the ever helpful forums to find the most relevant POPLA appeal - at quick glance, is there anything glaring obviously wrong? There is one line I have bold and underlined - should I remove this as I named the driver?

Summary of appeal:

1. The driver did purchase a ticket for the period of stay
2. A charge of £85 for a trivial VRN error is excessive, disproportionate and there has been no loss of income to APCOA or the landowner
3. APCOA are using Railway Bye law for claims
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority
5. Signage - The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time
6. APCOA has not shown evidence that the current ANPR system is reliable, accurate or maintained and there appears to be no human oversight / quality check over ANPR PCN issuance


1) The driver did purchase a ticket for the period of stay

A parking ticket was purchased from the machine on the 13th February 2019 to commence on the 14th February 2019 and evidence of this was provided to APCOA by means of a personal bank statement. A request was made to APCOA for either the registration plate entered into the machine for the specific transaction reference / credit card, both of which were provided to them, or a list of registrations entered that day to compare this against. If they have been in receipt of payment for a car registration against those payment references which was incorrectly entered, they will be able to tell from their ANPR records that that car did not use the parking facilities that day.

2) A charge of £85 for a trivial VRN error is excessive, disproportionate and there has been no loss of income to APCOA or the landowner

There has been no loss of income to APCOA/the land owner, no abuse of a parking space, evidence of improper parking, nor any overstay and no breach of contract.

An £85 charge is excessive and APCOA cannot argue that a legitimate interest exists to punish drivers for accidently inputting a wrong digit or registration on a Vehicle Registration Number, on a single occasion, yet using the car park for exactly the purpose intended and for no more than the paid-for time.

It is certainly likely that the courts would say it is undoubtedly 'unconscionable' to penalise a customer who has proved they paid, at the same level as (for example) a trespasser, who parked all day across two bays without paying any tariff.

In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would, when parking in a place where they had paid the correct tariff for the privilege, also accept a further unknown liability in the case of a VRN error (that they were not informed was vital nor ran the risk of a huge fine).

I would suggest that a court would not accept that £85 was a reasonable amount given these specific circumstances.







3) APCOA are using Railway Byelaw for claims

By claiming the charge is liable to them, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim this under railway byelaws. I reject this and put to them strictly to prove on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

I also refer to Freedom of Information Act Request F0013227 whereby the Department for the Secretary of State for Transport has categorically stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Railways Act 1993 came into force, which empower any person or body other than the courts to impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), (2) or (3) made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 (as amended) and made operational on 7 July 2005.

Therefore, any breach of byelaws is a criminal offence, not a breach of any contract APCOA may say the driver entered in to. If the driver is found to have breached byelaws 14 (1-3), the resulting penalty is paid to the government, not to APCOA or the railway. Further, byelaw offences are decided by the court, not by APCOA; the parking company or railway can only allege the breach.


4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As APCOA does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what APCOA is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance.

Section 7.1 states:
If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

A) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.

Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation.

C) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement.

D) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs.

E) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


I do not believe that APCOA’s mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a Train Operating Company (TOC) gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay APCOA (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and APCOA cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the TOC or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). APCOA have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for APCOA merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put APCOA to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements


5) Signage - The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time

APCOA signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

Entrance signs which are mandatory under the code are not visible and do not follow paragraph 18.2 of the code.

There was neither contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party must have known of it and agreed terms.

I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the fine; that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

I put APCOA to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering.

So, for this appeal, I put APCOA to strict proof of where the car drove into the car park and from photos taken in the same lighting conditions, how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require APCOA to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. It is rather interesting in APCOA’s response that the pictures that came with the notice had no site entrance photos and very little can be seen other than car headlights.


6) APCOA has not shown evidence that the current ANPR system is reliable, accurate or maintained and there appears to be no human oversight / quality check over ANPR PCN issuance

APCOA have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Additionally, under section 21 of the CoP, before operators issue a parking charge notice they must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.

I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' as a ticket was bought for DA65 JVG so the PCN should not have been created in the first place / or cancelled.

There appears not to be any human intervention in this case or cross reference to tickets purchased in the day in question.

APCOA has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.



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

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Remove #2 which is terrible, and #3 which isn't true. Can you not find a better one? #2 and #3 were terrible and not the sort of good wording I've seen before.

I'd hate to see people use that particular one as their base for APCOA POPLA appeals.

KingCesc04

Thank you forum! Especially those involved her and with the feedback.

“APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.“

Coupon_mad, is it worth me removing those points now so that other people do not copy this? I was directed to this example appeal elsewhere but I am happy to update it.

Redx

yes please, edit it to the final version that worked by editing it, to help others with a similar issue


and well done , APCOA arew always cancelling when they see a decent appeal in all its glory

KingCesc04

The one above is the one I submitted (and worked) so would you rather I left it as it is then?

It is worth being clear for anyone reading this thread later, that this was submitted after I had identified the driver as well.

Redx

yes , do all of that , post it below and make it clear that this was a driver appeal to popla, not a keeper appeal to popla , and a short version of the result too (they threw in the towel , as usual)


thanks

KingCesc04

Another successful appeal against APCOA through POPLA. A huge thank you to all in this forum for their guidance.

This appeal was submitted after identifying the driver. An important note that I found this forum after doing so and would not recommend anyone to do so copy this thread.

I do not have the initial failed appeal to APCOA but it was along the lines of "I cannot understand why I have this ticket, I paid for parking and here is a copy of my bank statement showing the payment." This was rejected by APCOA and so I opened a POPLA appeal with the following statement.

Summary of appeal:

1. The driver did purchase a ticket for the period of stay
2. A charge of £85 for a trivial VRN error is excessive, disproportionate and there has been no loss of income to APCOA or the landowner
3. APCOA are using Railway Bye law for claims
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority
5. Signage - The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time
6. APCOA has not shown evidence that the current ANPR system is reliable, accurate or maintained and there appears to be no human oversight / quality check over ANPR PCN issuance


1) The driver did purchase a ticket for the period of stay

A parking ticket was purchased from the machine on the 13th February 2019 to commence on the 14th February 2019 and evidence of this was provided to APCOA by means of a personal bank statement. A request was made to APCOA for either the registration plate entered into the machine for the specific transaction reference / credit card, both of which were provided to them, or a list of registrations entered that day to compare this against. If they have been in receipt of payment for a car registration against those payment references which was incorrectly entered, they will be able to tell from their ANPR records that that car did not use the parking facilities that day.

2) A charge of £85 for a trivial VRN error is excessive, disproportionate and there has been no loss of income to APCOA or the landowner

There has been no loss of income to APCOA/the land owner, no abuse of a parking space, evidence of improper parking, nor any overstay and no breach of contract.

An £85 charge is excessive and APCOA cannot argue that a legitimate interest exists to punish drivers for accidently inputting a wrong digit or registration on a Vehicle Registration Number, on a single occasion, yet using the car park for exactly the purpose intended and for no more than the paid-for time.

It is certainly likely that the courts would say it is undoubtedly 'unconscionable' to penalise a customer who has proved they paid, at the same level as (for example) a trespasser, who parked all day across two bays without paying any tariff.

In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would, when parking in a place where they had paid the correct tariff for the privilege, also accept a further unknown liability in the case of a VRN error (that they were not informed was vital nor ran the risk of a huge fine).

I would suggest that a court would not accept that £85 was a reasonable amount given these specific circumstances.







3) APCOA are using Railway Byelaw for claims

By claiming the charge is liable to them, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim this under railway byelaws. I reject this and put to them strictly to prove on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

I also refer to Freedom of Information Act Request F0013227 whereby the Department for the Secretary of State for Transport has categorically stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Railways Act 1993 came into force, which empower any person or body other than the courts to impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), (2) or (3) made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 (as amended) and made operational on 7 July 2005.

Therefore, any breach of byelaws is a criminal offence, not a breach of any contract APCOA may say the driver entered in to. If the driver is found to have breached byelaws 14 (1-3), the resulting penalty is paid to the government, not to APCOA or the railway. Further, byelaw offences are decided by the court, not by APCOA; the parking company or railway can only allege the breach.


4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

As APCOA does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what APCOA is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance.

Section 7.1 states:
If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

A) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.

Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation.

C) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement.

D) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs.

E) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


I do not believe that APCOA’s mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a Train Operating Company (TOC) gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay APCOA (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and APCOA cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the TOC or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). APCOA have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for APCOA merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put APCOA to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements


5) Signage - The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time

APCOA signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

Entrance signs which are mandatory under the code are not visible and do not follow paragraph 18.2 of the code.

There was neither contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party must have known of it and agreed terms.

I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the fine; that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

I put APCOA to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering.

So, for this appeal, I put APCOA to strict proof of where the car drove into the car park and from photos taken in the same lighting conditions, how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require APCOA to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. It is rather interesting in APCOA’s response that the pictures that came with the notice had no site entrance photos and very little can be seen other than car headlights.


6) APCOA has not shown evidence that the current ANPR system is reliable, accurate or maintained and there appears to be no human oversight / quality check over ANPR PCN issuance

APCOA have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Additionally, under section 21 of the CoP, before operators issue a parking charge notice they must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.

I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' as a ticket was bought for DA65 JVG so the PCN should not have been created in the first place / or cancelled.

There appears not to be any human intervention in this case or cross reference to tickets purchased in the day in question.

APCOA has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.



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

Yours faithfully

APCOA then informed POPLA they did not wish to pursue the appeal:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

Redx

typical APCOA withdrawal (wimps) , well done m8