Parking 'fine' letter for Blue Badge holder?

Fruitcake

It is not an offence.

An occupant of the car having a blue badge, or the vehicle being provided by Motability is irrelevant.

CRAPCOA are easy to beat, especially where railway byelaws apply.

Send the appeal template in blue text from the NEWBIES. Send it unaltered from The Keeper, save for a one liner stating that since railway byelaws apply, the keeper cannot be held liable so they should cancel the charge forthwith.

This assumes that both car parks are railway assets (usually belonging to Network Rail or the Train Operating Company (TOC)). A complaint should be sent to the landowner and the keeper's MP.

Half_way

Is this APCOA trying on the fake bye-law thing - quoting bye-law 14 ?

Redx

Easy to beat as long as the driver is not revealed , so follow the advice above , appealing as keeper ( no keeper liability )

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't use the template, but I would appeal as KEEPER (not ticking driver) saying:

This is an appeal from the keeper.  The vehicle is owned by Motability and the driver will not be identified.

APCOA cannot win this case at POPLA, because this is a railway station site and is not 'relevant land' and because you never use the POFA 2012 wording.  So I am not liable and you should cancel this PCN.  In addition, it is unfair due to the facts:

The driver merely entered the car park with the hope of finding a disabled parking place, found there was none and drove straight out again.   No contract was accepted and no parking event took place. The driver subsequently found disabled parking spaces in the second station car park.  They parked in a designated disabled space and obtained a required display ticket, displaying it along with the required Blue Badge.  .  

baward

Wow brilliant, I will make sure the driver knows.

Redx

baward said:

Wow brilliant, I will make sure the driver knows.

You mean Keeper , not Driver !!

It's the keeper that appeals , as keeper , don't blow it now !!

baward

Redx said:

baward said:

Wow brilliant, I will make sure the driver knows.

You mean Keeper , not Driver !!

It's the keeper that appeals , as keeper , don't blow it now !!

Will do (or rather, won't do ;-)

baward

I meant to ask, when it says 'So I am not liable...', did you mean 'So the keeper is not liable'? Thanks for clarifying.

KeithP

baward said:

I meant to ask, when it says 'So I am not liable...', did you mean 'So the keeper is not liable'? Thanks for clarifying.

That appears to be in response to @Coupon-mad's earlier reply in which the first line of that post makes it clear that the appeal should be from the keeper. The first sentence of her suggested letter also says "This is an appeal from the keeper".

baward

Sorry to ask questions that might be covered elsewhere, but is there an order of play that should follow (in terms of initial messages) - i.e. the complaint to APCOA, and to the relevant MP? Which should come first, or doesn't it matter?