We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA appeal against APCOA Luton Airport
vw.andi
Posts: 16 Forumite
There is a draft of my POPLA appeal.
I am very grateful for any assistance given.
POPLA Ref x
APCOA Parking PCN no x
A notice to keeper was issued on 08 August 2019 and received by me, the registered keeper, for an alleged contravention of ‘Dropping Off or picking up outside designated areas’ at London Luton Airport on 13 July 2019. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. 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) 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) Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or formed.
5) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).
6) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
7) The operator makes contradictory claims about the parking location and the alleged contravention
8) The operator makes contradictory claims about their charges.
1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150) and Airport Act 1986.
Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as 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 I would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by byelaws and/or other statutory instruments.
Furthermore, in their own correspondence APCOA insist: “APCOA have not claimed to, and do not work, issue or seek payment under POFA as this land is covered by BYE-laws.”
As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘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. 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.’
Furthermore, 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.
2) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
In the alternative, if POPLA finds that this is indeed relevant land, APCOA as mentioned in the point 1 above, have admitted they do not follow POFA so they have no means of transferring liability from the driver (they don’t know who the driver is) to the Keeper.
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.
Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 13 July 2019 and the notice to keeper was issued 26 days later on 08 August 2019 and was delivered on 12 August 2019 that was 30 days after the alleged incident.
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 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 must 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 failed to meet the obligations of the documented legislation.
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).
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 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 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 I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
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 –
“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."
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 1 above.
4) Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or formed.
The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park. Signs are clearly displayed throughout the area'. It appears that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and, as such, are misleading, as they are unable to be seen and assimilated by a driver 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 safely read by a motorist without having to stop to look and read the signs. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face 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.
There appear to be no readable or even visible detailed Terms and Conditions parking signs (Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice), especially not from a moving vehicle. The Car Park Regulations section (section 1.8) of the ‘Car park booking and use terms and conditions’ displayed on the Luton Airport official web-site make no reference to picking-up or dropping-off regulations.
5) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).
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.’
Given the above points of ambiguous signage, not facing the driving direction, including mixed fonts and images, it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to read the entire signage whilst driving. Therefore, if a driver stops for a brief moment 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 constitute a fair grace period and therefore APCOA is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
6) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
The amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive and contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015. £80 is excessive given the very short period that the vehicle was stopped. 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. In 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.
7) The operator makes contradictory claims about the parking location and the alleged contravention.
The correspondence from APCOA makes contradictory claims about the location of the vehicle and the alleged contravention.
The black overlay boxes in the upper right hand corner of the photographs all state "No GPS signal", and the only location given in the APCOA paperwork is a very vague "at London Luton Central Terminal Area". APCOA should state clearly, where the vehicle was at the time of the alleged contravention.
On the one hand, they state that the contravention was for "Dropping off or picking up outside designated areas" and "picking up outside of a designated parking area, having failed to enter the designated pickup and drop off zone or short term car park." This clearly means outside of any car park.
However, they then state: "The alleged contravention is a breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park", and also claim: "If a motorist is unhappy with the contract terms, they should not remain in car park. By choosing to leave your vehicle in the car park you agreed to the terms and conditions and as such agreed to abide by the condition set out on clear signs at the entrance and throughout the car park."
They cannot claim that any alleged contravention occurred outside any car park and then also claim that the vehicle was left in a car park and attempt to apply the terms and conditions of the car park.
8) The operator makes contradictory claims about their parking charges.
In the appeal rejection letter APCOA claim: “This parking charge is fair and reasonable at £80 reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days”, but further down the text on the same page they insist: “Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted price of £48 within 14 days.”
The operator’s misleading statements do not make any sense at all.
In summary, these points demonstrate that the claim by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is invalid and I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
I am very grateful for any assistance given.
POPLA Ref x
APCOA Parking PCN no x
A notice to keeper was issued on 08 August 2019 and received by me, the registered keeper, for an alleged contravention of ‘Dropping Off or picking up outside designated areas’ at London Luton Airport on 13 July 2019. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. 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) 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) Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or formed.
5) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).
6) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
7) The operator makes contradictory claims about the parking location and the alleged contravention
8) The operator makes contradictory claims about their charges.
1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150) and Airport Act 1986.
Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as 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 I would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by byelaws and/or other statutory instruments.
Furthermore, in their own correspondence APCOA insist: “APCOA have not claimed to, and do not work, issue or seek payment under POFA as this land is covered by BYE-laws.”
As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘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. 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.’
Furthermore, 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.
2) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
In the alternative, if POPLA finds that this is indeed relevant land, APCOA as mentioned in the point 1 above, have admitted they do not follow POFA so they have no means of transferring liability from the driver (they don’t know who the driver is) to the Keeper.
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.
Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 13 July 2019 and the notice to keeper was issued 26 days later on 08 August 2019 and was delivered on 12 August 2019 that was 30 days after the alleged incident.
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 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 must 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 failed to meet the obligations of the documented legislation.
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).
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 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 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 I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
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 –
“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."
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 1 above.
4) Misleading and unclear signage and not seen so no contract entered into or formed.
The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park. Signs are clearly displayed throughout the area'. It appears that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and, as such, are misleading, as they are unable to be seen and assimilated by a driver 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 safely read by a motorist without having to stop to look and read the signs. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face 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.
There appear to be no readable or even visible detailed Terms and Conditions parking signs (Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice), especially not from a moving vehicle. The Car Park Regulations section (section 1.8) of the ‘Car park booking and use terms and conditions’ displayed on the Luton Airport official web-site make no reference to picking-up or dropping-off regulations.
5) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice).
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.’
Given the above points of ambiguous signage, not facing the driving direction, including mixed fonts and images, it is unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to read the entire signage whilst driving. Therefore, if a driver stops for a brief moment 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 constitute a fair grace period and therefore APCOA is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
6) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Parking Charge.
The amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive and contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015. £80 is excessive given the very short period that the vehicle was stopped. 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. In 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.
7) The operator makes contradictory claims about the parking location and the alleged contravention.
The correspondence from APCOA makes contradictory claims about the location of the vehicle and the alleged contravention.
The black overlay boxes in the upper right hand corner of the photographs all state "No GPS signal", and the only location given in the APCOA paperwork is a very vague "at London Luton Central Terminal Area". APCOA should state clearly, where the vehicle was at the time of the alleged contravention.
On the one hand, they state that the contravention was for "Dropping off or picking up outside designated areas" and "picking up outside of a designated parking area, having failed to enter the designated pickup and drop off zone or short term car park." This clearly means outside of any car park.
However, they then state: "The alleged contravention is a breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park", and also claim: "If a motorist is unhappy with the contract terms, they should not remain in car park. By choosing to leave your vehicle in the car park you agreed to the terms and conditions and as such agreed to abide by the condition set out on clear signs at the entrance and throughout the car park."
They cannot claim that any alleged contravention occurred outside any car park and then also claim that the vehicle was left in a car park and attempt to apply the terms and conditions of the car park.
8) The operator makes contradictory claims about their parking charges.
In the appeal rejection letter APCOA claim: “This parking charge is fair and reasonable at £80 reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days”, but further down the text on the same page they insist: “Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted price of £48 within 14 days.”
The operator’s misleading statements do not make any sense at all.
In summary, these points demonstrate that the claim by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is invalid and I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
0
Comments
-
No mileage in 5, 7 or 10 - get rid of them.
In terms of 6, the HMRC v VCS case is complicated, not least by the fact that VCS appealed the original decision - and won. Unless you know the detail, and it’s implications for your case, I’d leave it out. In any event, POPLA has, to my knowledge, not gone anywhere near to assessing any appeal where the HMRC v VCS has been pivotal.
Whatever, I suspect APCOA will scurry away and not oppose this at POPLA.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
I agree with Umkomaas. You'll win as long as the driver was never identified.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you, Umkomaas for the guidance,
I edited my draft in post #1
Any more comments regarding my POPLA appeal draft before I send it?0 -
I would make the contradictory parking location and the contradictory charges separate points.
However, you only need one point to win and I don't expect the assessor will get down that far to make a decision.
You could make a complaint to the BPA about the two contradictions.
You could also complain to the BPA and DVLA that since stopping isn't parking (see the Jopson vs Homeguard case) the scammers have unlawfully obtained the keeper's personal data by breaching their KADOE contract with the DVLA.
Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Thank you. Fruitcake.
I made some changes to my draft in post #10 -
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra work.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
PLEASE HELP!
Tried to submit my appeal on POPLA website and got confused .
Should I ignore all boxes and only tick:
"Other grounds for appeal
Appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful"
Or should I tick the other boxes as well:
"I was not improperly parked"
"I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking"
"The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct" ???
Should I attach the original PCN and Rejection Letter as separate files or I need to embed them to my appeal PDF file?0 -
Appeal choosing other , nothing else
Attach all documents before submission , even if you amalgamate them0 -
But the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you how...search it for '2000 characters'.
Embed everything into ONE document like a storybook, so it's easy for the Assessor.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Great news!
Received an email from the POPLA:
"APCOA Parking - EW 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
POPLA Team "
Big thanks to this great forum for all the help and support!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards