by laws

pullingteeth987

How do I find out If Dorridge station car park run by Apcoa is covered by railway bye-laws?
Qdr say

Please be aware that the parking site in question is not being managed under the Railway Bylaws, as in that case you would have received a Penalty Notice instead of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).



As your vehicle entered and remained at the site in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions, these PCNs have been issued.



While we appreciate you are disputing these PCNs, we confirm our only instruction is to close these upon payment of their due balances. It must however be noted that our clients are happy the correct process has been followed in issuing these PCNs and sending all relevant correspondence to the keeper’s address.



Our clients are not obliged to identify the driver, as they have no cause of action against them at this stage.



The above files will remain on hold for 14 days.

Thank you

Quentin

Assuming you have posted a letter from a debt collector, then stop contacting them

See the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum for advice on why you should be ignoring debt collectors See post#4 in the FAQ

pullingteeth987

Yes I agree . However I have entered this site a bit late . So want to know where I can go from here And if if the car park is covered by bye laws ??

Handbags-at-dawn

QDR say it’s not being managed under Byelaws. That just means they’ve elected to pursue the driver for breach of contract rather than breach of byelaws.

Dorridge Station is operated by Chiltern Railways. They use APCOA to manage their car parks for them. So it’s a “railway asset” and subject to the Byelaws. In which case, as you know, there is no keeper liability under POFA and POPLA should allow your appeal provided you don’t disclose who was driving.

In case you’re unsure, write to Chiltern Railways and ask for a copy of the Byelaws which apply to the station car park.

pullingteeth987

They are going after the keeper instructed by zzps ltd on behalf of Apcoa Use of private ar park without valid payment.

it wasn't responded to so appeal chances have passed. NTK arrived 22days after alleged offense.

Apcoa claim they follow BPA guidelines so the 14day rule doesnt apply

Is there a way of ending this before we get to the letter before claim bit ?
Thanks for all your advice

Quentin

Only way to end it is pay them! ,(Not s recommendation)

Coupon-mad

Is there a way of ending this before we get to the letter before claim bit ?

LOL, it's only APCOA! You'd be the first ever!

Ignore them. You could have won 100% at POPLA due to 'no keeper liability' but if no appeal was made then you have to put up with the threatograms until they get bored & give up.

This is no different to how life was before POPLA existed. I ignored PPCs then and so did loads of people on parking forums and we collected threatograms for fun!

pullingteeth987

Thanks coupon mad qdr state their client zzps will recommend court. do Qdr have to be instructed by Apcoa before they can send a letter before claim and is it worth sitting it out they are claiming 5 tickets (Yikes) £835 they said


While we appreciate you are disputing these PCNs, we confirm our only instruction is to close these upon payment of their due balances. It must however be noted that our clients are happy the correct process has been followed in issuing these PCNs and sending all relevant correspondence to the keeper’s address.



Our clients are not obliged to identify the driver, as they have no cause of action against them at this stage.

Coupon-mad

Our clients are not obliged to identify the driver, as they have no cause of action against them at this stage.

Errrm...What?

QDR have admitted their client have no cause of action v the driver!

Yet we know APCOA don't use POFA wording on any NTK, and so have no cause of action against any keeper either!

They are stuffed. You are perfectly safe against APCOA.

Of course you ignore them and if they choose you for APCOA's first court claim we've ever seen, you are untouchable due to no liability.

nosferatu1001

You can respond, thanking them for confirming they have "no cause of action" against the driver.
As they have confirmed they are following a civil breach of contract, without a cause of action against the driver they have no cause of action against anyone. Of course you are also aware that there is no keeper liability anyway - if they disagree, you require them to state their full chain of cause pof action against a vehicle keeper.

Their only option is to cancel this ticket, as they have confirmed there is no cause of action against the driver, and there can be no cause of action against the keeper in any case.

Handbags-at-dawn

Just posted this below and seen Nosferatu has picked up on the same point and beaten me to it - sorry! His suggestion for what to say is better.

pullingteeth987 wrote: »

Our clients are not obliged to identify the driver, as they have no cause of action against them at this stage.

They are talking utter nonsense. Only a party to a contract can be liable for it’s breach, so the driver is the only person against whom they have a cause of action.

As solicitors (!) QDR will know this basic rule of contract law. This bit of bamboozlement appears to be a clumsy attempt to cover up the fact they can’t prove who the driver was. I suggest you ask them to explain precisely what they mean.