APCOA Popla Station Draft Appeal Wording

Kite2010

Part 2

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws.

The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 do not apply on relevant land where Railway Byelaws are in effect. When entering a private car park, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking is subject to the payment of the correct parking fee as displayed on the tariff boar…Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice which may be issued either manually or by post…Failure to purchase a valid parking session via RingGo, rail ticket vending machine, ticket office or otherwise have authority to park…Charges for breach of these parking conditions £85.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 13:07 and exiting at 13:40 totalling a stay of 33 minutes spent at site.

The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was not registered against a payment. The penalty charge was issued as the vehicle was parked on this land for 33 minutes without a valid payment for their stay. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the penalty charge.

Railway land is not relevant land. They say that the operator is using Railway Byelaws to issue claims. The appellant refers to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and states that as the registered keeper they are not legally liable as the act does not apply on this land. They say that they ask the operator for proof of otherwise and evidence of documentary proof from the rail authorities that this land is not already covered by Byelaws.

They say that keeper liability under PoFA 2012 does not apply and as such they cannot pursue them as the keeper. They refer to another case made in 2016 by another POPLA assessor. They mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) F0013227 whereby the secretary of state for transport has stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Railway Byelaws came into effect. They say that any breach of Byelaws is a criminal offence not a breach of terms and conditions and say that if the driver breached the Byelaws, they would be required to pay the government not the operator. I can confirm that PoFA 2012 is only used by operators who are not enforcing parking on relevant land where Byelaws are in effect. PoFA 2012 is used when operators can legally transfer liability of the PCN from the driver of the vehicle if not identified, to the registered keeper.

On relevant land where Byelaws are in operation the operator can only pursue the vehicle owner for the PCN. As stated at the beginning of my assessment, there has been no indication from the appellant that they are not the owner of this vehicle, therefore the operator is pursuing them as the owner. This operator is not using PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. I am satisfied that the operator is acting accordingly.

They say that the appellant is not the individual liable. They say that the operator has not proved it is pursuing the driver liable for the charge and refers to another case decided by another POPLA assessor where the assessor was not confident that the driver has been identified. They say that under the Railway Byelaws the registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the owner. They say that it is their right to name the driver and they choose not to. I note the appellant’s comments that they may not be the individual liable, however as the appellant has not indicated that they are not the owner, the operator is correct in pursuing them as the owner. The operator is not using PoFA 2012 as stated to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, they are pursuing the vehicle owner.

The appellant in this instance has chosen not to name the driver, however this would not hold any bearing on the outcome since the operator is pursuing the owner of the vehicle for the penalty charge. I note they have mentioned another case heard by another POPLA assessor which has been successful, however POPLA assesses all appeals based on their own individual merits, as such will not be referring to other cases which hold no bearing on the parking undertaken on the date of the event. Non-compliant signage. They say that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. They say that entrance signs are not compliant with section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice.

They say that there was no contract or agreement listed with the signage, and the charge is out of proportion which was discussed in the case of Beavis v Parking Eye Ltd. They refer to another POPLA assessment made by another assessor where it was held that the charge was inadequate. I note that the appellant is referring to the BPA Code of Practice version 7 under section 18.2, which expired in January 2020. I will now refer to section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice of version 8 which is the new Code of Practice applicable. It states in relation to signage: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.

Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of” I have viewed a photograph of the sign displayed at the entry of the car park and am satisfied that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice 19.2 requirements. I must add that while an entrance sign plays an important part in establishing that a site is managed, there must be other signs around the site, bringing the specific terms and conditions to the motorist’s attention. It also states in section 19.3: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are.

Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided images of the signage in situ on this land. Having viewed the images of the signage on display I am satisfied that the signage was conspicuous, and easy to read and understand and prominent for motorists to view when entering and throughout the land when parking or manoeuvring. The contract lies with the terms and conditions displayed clearly on the signage, by parking a motorist is agreeing to these terms and conditions. The appellant mentions there was insufficient notice of the sum which heard in the case between Beavis v Parking Eye Ltd at the Supreme Court. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty.

The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner.

Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude that the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. Lack of standing/ authority from the landowner. They say that Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice mentions the requirements of landowner authority in section 7.1 and 7.3. they say that they do not believe that the operator’s agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters gives the firm any rights to sue in its own name. they say that this does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold them liable in law to pay APCOA. They say that the operator has no standing on this land and requires the operator to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, unredacted contract with the landowner.

The BPA Code of Practice states in section 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.” The operator in its evidence pack has provided a copy of the contract with the landowner Southern Western Railway. This contract grants the operator permission to enforce parking on this land. Having reviewed the agreement I am satisfied that it was granted authority to enforce parking on the date of the event. The contract began on 20 September 2018 and is a four-year agreement which ends on 19 September 2022.

The contract gives the operator authority to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, and the authority to erect and maintain signage. The bays are poorly or ambiguously marked. They say that the spaces are poorly marked and in some cases the markings have all but disappeared which was the case on the date in question as it was wet weather which further exacerbated the situation. Whilst I appreciate that there may be issues with the markings of the bays on this land, this is something that the appellant would need to discuss directly with the operator or landowner directly. If the driver was unable to park clearly within the bay markings, I would have expected them to locate another bay where the boundaries of it were clearly marked or exited the site. Further, the markings of the bay would not hold any bearing on the motorist’s ability to ensure that they paid for their stay. No planning permission granted for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras/ signage.

They require a full copy of the planning permission document from Test Valley Council for the ANPR cameras as well as signage granting permission to have both erected on this land. The operator in this instance does not have to provide any form of planning permission from the Council in order to show it was granted authority to erect ANPR cameras or signage. The land is privately owned by Southern Western Railway and not council owned and the contract between Southern Western Railway and the operator details the rights for the operator to display signage on this land and would also apply to the ANPR cameras. As such the operator would not have authorisation from the council due to the land being privately owned, to which I am satisfied the contract confirms. The Railway Byelaws state in section 14, (3): “No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.” The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states in section 20.3: “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.” Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. On this occasion the vehicle was parked for 33 minutes and a valid payment was not made for this time. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the vehicle was parked without a valid payment, these terms and conditions were not met. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the penalty charge has been issued correctly. I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the penalty charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

(Added paragraphs to what was orignally on the POPLA website to make it easier to read)

I guess it's a waiting game for a letter to come going "Ha ha ha, we won, pay us money"

KeithP

Kite2010 said:

Part 1

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for reason: ‘Use of Private Car Park without making a valid payment.’

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • Railway land is not relevant land. They say that the operator is using Railway Byelaws to issue claims. The appellant refers to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and states that as the registered keeper they are not legally liable as the act does not apply on this land. They say that they ask the operator for proof of otherwise and evidence of documentary proof from the rail authorities that this land is not already covered by Byelaws. They say that keeper liability under PoFA 2012 does not apply and as such they cannot pursue them as the keeper. They refer to another case made in 2016 by another POPLA assessor. They mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) F0013227 where by the secretary of state for transport has stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Railway Byelaws came into effect. They say that any breach of Byelaws is a criminal offence not a breach of terms and conditions and say that if the driver breached the Byelaws they would be required to pay the government not the operator. • They say that the appellant is not the individual liable. They say that the operator has not proved it is pursuing the driver liable for the charge and refers to another case decided by another POPLA assessor where the assessor was not confident that the driver as been identified. They say that under the Railway Byelaws the registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the owner. They say that it is their right to name the driver and they choose not to. • Non-compliant signage. They say that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. They say that entrance signs are not compliant with section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say that there was no contract or agreement listed with the signage, and the charge is out of proportion which was discussed in the case of Beavis v Parking Eye Ltd. They refer to another POPLA assessment made by another assessor where it was held that the charge was inadequate. • Lack of standing/ authority from the landowner. They say that Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice mentions the requirements of landowner authority in section 7.1 and 7.3. they say that they do not believe that the operator’s agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters gives the firm any rights to sue in its own name. they say that this does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold them liable in law to pay APCOA. They say that the operator has no standing on this land and requires the operator to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, unredacted contract with the landowner. • The bays are poorly or ambiguously marked. They say that the spaces are poorly marked and in some cases the markings have all but disappeared which was the case on the date in question as it was wet weather which further exacerbated the situation. • No planning permission granted for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras/ signage. They require a full copy of the planning permission document from Test Valley Council for the ANPR cameras as well as signage granting permission to have both erected on this land. [/quote]

(Yes it was in that format on the website, very hard to actually read)

  

Kite2010 said:

Part 2

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws. The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 do not apply on relevant land where Railway Byelaws are in effect. When entering a private car park, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking is subject to the payment of the correct parking fee as displayed on the tariff boar…Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice which may be issued either manually or by post…Failure to purchase a valid parking session via RingGo, rail ticket vending machine, ticket office or otherwise have authority to park…Charges for breach of these parking conditions £85.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 13:07 and exiting at 13:40 totalling a stay of 33 minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was not registered against a payment. The penalty charge was issued as the vehicle was parked on this land for 33 minutes without a valid payment for their stay. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the penalty charge. Railway land is not relevant land. They say that the operator is using Railway Byelaws to issue claims. The appellant refers to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and states that as the registered keeper they are not legally liable as the act does not apply on this land. They say that they ask the operator for proof of otherwise and evidence of documentary proof from the rail authorities that this land is not already covered by Byelaws. They say that keeper liability under PoFA 2012 does not apply and as such they cannot pursue them as the keeper. They refer to another case made in 2016 by another POPLA assessor. They mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) F0013227 whereby the secretary of state for transport has stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Railway Byelaws came into effect. They say that any breach of Byelaws is a criminal offence not a breach of terms and conditions and say that if the driver breached the Byelaws, they would be required to pay the government not the operator. I can confirm that PoFA 2012 is only used by operators who are not enforcing parking on relevant land where Byelaws are in effect. PoFA 2012 is used when operators can legally transfer liability of the PCN from the driver of the vehicle if not identified, to the registered keeper. On relevant land where Byelaws are in operation the operator can only pursue the vehicle owner for the PCN. As stated at the beginning of my assessment, there has been no indication from the appellant that they are not the owner of this vehicle, therefore the operator is pursuing them as the owner. This operator is not using PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. I am satisfied that the operator is acting accordingly. They say that the appellant is not the individual liable. They say that the operator has not proved it is pursuing the driver liable for the charge and refers to another case decided by another POPLA assessor where the assessor was not confident that the driver has been identified. They say that under the Railway Byelaws the registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the owner. They say that it is their right to name the driver and they choose not to. I note the appellant’s comments that they may not be the individual liable, however as the appellant has not indicated that they are not the owner, the operator is correct in pursuing them as the owner. The operator is not using PoFA 2012 as stated to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, they are pursuing the vehicle owner. The appellant in this instance has chosen not to name the driver, however this would not hold any bearing on the outcome since the operator is pursuing the owner of the vehicle for the penalty charge. I note they have mentioned another case heard by another POPLA assessor which has been successful, however POPLA assesses all appeals based on their own individual merits, as such will not be referring to other cases which hold no bearing on the parking undertaken on the date of the event. Non-compliant signage. They say that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. They say that entrance signs are not compliant with section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say that there was no contract or agreement listed with the signage, and the charge is out of proportion which was discussed in the case of Beavis v Parking Eye Ltd. They refer to another POPLA assessment made by another assessor where it was held that the charge was inadequate. I note that the appellant is referring to the BPA Code of Practice version 7 under section 18.2, which expired in January 2020. I will now refer to section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice of version 8 which is the new Code of Practice applicable. It states in relation to signage: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of” I have viewed a photograph of the sign displayed at the entry of the car park and am satisfied that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice 19.2 requirements. I must add that while an entrance sign plays an important part in establishing that a site is managed, there must be other signs around the site, bringing the specific terms and conditions to the motorist’s attention. It also states in section 19.3: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided images of the signage in situ on this land. Having viewed the images of the signage on display I am satisfied that the signage was conspicuous, and easy to read and understand and prominent for motorists to view when entering and throughout the land when parking or manoeuvring. The contract lies with the terms and conditions displayed clearly on the signage, by parking a motorist is agreeing to these terms and conditions. The appellant mentions there was insufficient notice of the sum which heard in the case between Beavis v Parking Eye Ltd at the Supreme Court. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude that the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. Lack of standing/ authority from the landowner. They say that Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice mentions the requirements of landowner authority in section 7.1 and 7.3. they say that they do not believe that the operator’s agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters gives the firm any rights to sue in its own name. they say that this does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold them liable in law to pay APCOA. They say that the operator has no standing on this land and requires the operator to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, unredacted contract with the landowner. The BPA Code of Practice states in section 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.” The operator in its evidence pack has provided a copy of the contract with the landowner Southern Western Railway. This contract grants the operator permission to enforce parking on this land. Having reviewed the agreement I am satisfied that it was granted authority to enforce parking on the date of the event. The contract began on 20 September 2018 and is a four-year agreement which ends on 19 September 2022. The contract gives the operator authority to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, and the authority to erect and maintain signage. The bays are poorly or ambiguously marked. They say that the spaces are poorly marked and in some cases the markings have all but disappeared which was the case on the date in question as it was wet weather which further exacerbated the situation. Whilst I appreciate that there may be issues with the markings of the bays on this land, this is something that the appellant would need to discuss directly with the operator or landowner directly. If the driver was unable to park clearly within the bay markings, I would have expected them to locate another bay where the boundaries of it were clearly marked or exited the site. Further, the markings of the bay would not hold any bearing on the motorist’s ability to ensure that they paid for their stay. No planning permission granted for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras/ signage. They require a full copy of the planning permission document from Test Valley Council for the ANPR cameras as well as signage granting permission to have both erected on this land. The operator in this instance does not have to provide any form of planning permission from the Council in order to show it was granted authority to erect ANPR cameras or signage. The land is privately owned by Southern Western Railway and not council owned and the contract between Southern Western Railway and the operator details the rights for the operator to display signage on this land and would also apply to the ANPR cameras. As such the operator would not have authorisation from the council due to the land being privately owned, to which I am satisfied the contract confirms. The Railway Byelaws state in section 14, (3): “No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.” The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states in section 20.3: “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.” Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. On this occasion the vehicle was parked for 33 minutes and a valid payment was not made for this time. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the vehicle was parked without a valid payment, these terms and conditions were not met. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the penalty charge has been issued correctly. I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the penalty charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

(again that is how it was written on the website, hasn't Popla heard of paragraphs).

 As you say, very hard to read. I didn't bother.

If you want others to comment on it you'll have to make it easier to read.
Why didn't you improve the format?

Redx

All you needed to do was paragraph it on here before hitting the submit button , I suggest you go back and edit both posts

Castle

Actually one simple comment is that POPLA has determined that it is a Penalty Notice and not a Parking Charge Notice; so it will time out after 6 months. (I bet APOCA are equally surprised at that decision).

Redx

They also made the assumption that the registered keeper was the owner , very strange to make that assumption when many vehicles are owned by a lease company or motability or a bank or finance house

I doubt that Barclays Bank or Toyota finance would agree with them , plus it clearly states on every V5C that this document is not proof of ownership !!

I am surprised that Popla think that a parking charge notice can be a penalty notice , because I thought that private companies could not issue penalty notices

The 6 month rule does indeed apply to Penalty notices

Apcoa are not known for litigation either

Umkomaas

POPLA's death throes!

Castle

Redx said:

They also made the assumption that the registered keeper was the owner , very strange to make that assumption when many vehicles are owned by a lease company or motability or a bank or finance house

I doubt that Barclays Bank or Toyota finance would agree with them , plus it clearly states on every V5C that this document is not proof of ownership !!

I am surprised that Popla think  that a parking charge notice can be a penalty notice , because I thought that private companies could not issue penalty notices

The 6 month rule does indeed apply to Penalty notices

Apcoa are not known for litigation either

No they can't; but it used to be the old "pay us £85 or whatever", and we won't pass your details onto the Train Operating Company so that they can prosecute.

Kite2010

Redx said:

All you needed to do was paragraph it on here before hitting the submit button , I suggest you go back and edit both posts

Is that any better now I've added paragraphs?

Seems POPLA doesn't believe that parking companies must have planning permission to put up their cameras.  I guess it's a waiting game to see what sort of letter APCOA send.

Umkomaas

Kite2010 said:

Redx said:

All you needed to do was paragraph it on here before hitting the submit button , I suggest you go back and edit both posts

Is that any better now I've added paragraphs?

Seems POPLA doesn't believe that parking companies must have planning permission to put up their cameras.  I guess it's a waiting game to see what sort of letter APCOA send.

I'm afraid it's an irrelevance that too many are fixated on. It's a local authority issue beyond the interests of POPLA. Little different to complaining that a VCS camera van broke the speed limit in racing to snap a stopping event. 

There's a difference between a camera placed on an existing building and one on a specifically erected pole - but, nonetheless, a LA issue. 

If you want to pursue that via the LA, go with your instincts, but I have to tell you that, from memory, only in one case was the LA mildly interested, but even then with an inconclusive outcome. 

However, if you've time on your hands and you're not quickly fobbed off or become easily demotivated  ......

Fruitcake

Councils don't seem to be interested in PPCs not having advertising consent for signs either, despite the fact that it is a criminal offence not to do so.

Para 12 (I think) of the PoFA 2012 covers signs and permissions, but even if included in a PoPLA appeal, I have never seen it make any difference.

I would like to think that these failures will have more effect at the appeals stage when the new mandatory CoP comes into effect. They should always be included in my opinion.