Heathrow T5 Drop off Zone APCOA Parking

TRIO74

Coupon-mad said:

Ok.  What makes you believe they are sending a new POPLA Code?   That's rare.

Codes last 33 days so you could have used it up until this Weds.  

they told me they would send a new one as they have not sent me anything. i only knew today when the demand came through the post.

TRIO74

Coupon-mad said:

Ok.  What makes you believe they are sending a new POPLA Code?   That's rare.

Codes last 33 days so you could have used it up until this Weds.  

I have received a new letter dated today from them, which then gives me a new 28 day period according to their letter with a new POPLA code.

Thoughts

Fruitcake

Use the PoPLA code to make an appeal in the next 32 days. 
Construct a draft appeal using all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES, plus points mentioned on this thread including the fact that since airport byelaws are in force, the keeper cannot be held liable.
Post it here for checking before you submit it.

Umkomaas

TRIO74 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Ok.  What makes you believe they are sending a new POPLA Code?   That's rare.

Codes last 33 days so you could have used it up until this Weds.  

I have received a new letter dated today from them, which then gives me a new 28 day period according to their letter with a new POPLA code.

Thoughts

You can check whether that code is still current, here:

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

Coupon-mad

And there's a winning APCOA POPLA appeal on the forum next to your thread right now (no link needed).

Bob__M

Hi

Appeal Success – T5 Drop Off Zone - POPLA ACPOA

First time post on MSE but want to share my blissful happiness after defeating an £80 PCN from ACPOA regarding the Heathrow T5 Drop-off zone in the hope that it helps others avoid ACPOA's gouging practices.

Scenario: mistakenly drove through Drop-off Zone (DOZ) whilst attempting to find Meet & Greet (MnG) hand-over point.

Phase 1: Issued with £40 PCN which I appealed on grounds of 1) didn't make a drop-off as we drove straight through 2) I had MnG booked and offered to provide  proof  3) I suggest that ACPOA review their ANPR timestamps to see that I could not possibly have dropped anyone from the car in the time difference between entry and exit 4) no safe or legal alternative in T5 1-way system.

Phase 2: ACPOA summarily reject my appeal.  They ignore my comments on timestamp data and they claim that they had requested proof of MnG and that I had not responded.

Phase 3: I appeal to POPLA on grounds of:

1) The name “Drop-off Zone” implies fee is charged for dropping off but does not say what happens if you drive straight through.  All signs talk about Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) but when you drive through you don’t ever stop so the driver is a) unable to read the detailed Ts&Cs posted along the DOZ (according to ACPOA)  and  2) never enters into a contract to park.

2) ACPOA had ignored my request for timestamp data

3) No safe or legal alternative in 1-way system if you miss the turn

4) I supplied proof of MnG booking which, as far as I was concerned, ACPOA had not requested.

Phase 4: ACPOA respond to POPLA request for their evidence.

Over a 31 page document (!!!) ACPOA mostly just repeat everything that had gone before with 2 exceptions:

1) They show images of some of their road signs

2) they offer timestamp data that is rounded to the nearest minute and shows an interval of 2 minutes e.g. 07:40 and 07:42.

Phase 5: I offer comments on ACPOA’s evidence.

1) Signage offered as evidence is all about “PCNs” and “parking”. ACPOA have not shown signs of “DOZ” which, as name implies, is all about dropping-off, not driving straight through.  Since I did not “park” or “drop-off” then the signs were incomplete and misleading in respect of charges.

2) Time stamp data is misleading and incomplete. I calculated that driving through the 450 mt long drop off zone at an avg. speed of 15mph (there's a 20 mph limit with multiple raised pedestrian crossings) will take over a minute (1’ 7”).  I also showed that the shortest possible interval between the 2 timestamps (rounded to the nearest minute) was 1 minute 1 second.  So proving that I could not have “dropped-off”.

3) ACPOA offered no proof of sending or delivery of their request to me for proof of MnG booking

4) I asked the open questions:… why would I use DOZ why I had MnG booked and was early for flight?  And why would I ignore a request for proof of MnG booking if it was crucial for my appeal?

Phase 6  I win my appeal on grounds of incomplete/misleading signage and on timestamp calculations proving I did not stop.  POPLA did not comment on other points as case decided by the first points.

Hope this helps.

 

 

Coupon-mad

Glad it worked and I'm sure your post will help the OP.

I'd suggest you also post it in POPLA DECISIONS (top of this board) as that stays pinned to the top for posterity and more new posters see your success.

The point that the car didn't stop and can't have 'dropped off' is an interesting approach, as long as the driver is not named nor implied by your careful wording!

Similar to one I wrote for a friend re APCOA's little 'taxis only' trap at Brighton station recently.  I included a similar argument about lack of lit signs, and no evidence the car stopped.  APCOA gave up without even trying POPLA but I suspect that's because I ended it with something like:

Cancel the PCN or send me a POPLA code, but if you try POPLA, you are bound to lose due to lack of keeper liability.  The driver won't be named, so I urge you to take a pragmatic approach and move onto a weaker victim.'

TRIO74

Hi. I am appealing through POPLA with my new number and i am using the following template.

Is this okay and do i need to add anything else.

I did note that this is too long for their 2000 words, so i saved it as an attachment word document and referred to this in this
in the box.

1) Not using POFA 2012
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
3) You have not shown that the individual who you are pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

1) The notice was not issued under POFA 2012 and therefore the Keeper Liability provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 are not applicable on this occasion.

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' sub-section 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 APCOA to strict proof otherwise if you disagree with this point and would require you to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws and/or other statutory instruments.

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. 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.’

3) 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 NTK.

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 (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

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 2 above.

Coupon-mad

That's only one of the template POPLA points.  You need to add the others.

TRIO74

okay. i just copied this from a previous thread which said this is what they used.