APCOA Heathrow drop off PCN

Coupon-mad

Every single APCOA case can be appealed and won 100% based on the fact they don't use POFA wording. This is as easy as pie.

But ONLY if the keeper appeals, not ticking 'driver' and not adding any words to our template (except maybe 'the £5 was paid; see attached proof').

DonutMonster

Thanks @Coupon-mad - I've read most of the Newbies post and there's a LOT to digest!

But can you please confirm the generic template can be used for my case:



TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING:



Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.


Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes that's the template but you know from this thread - and the hundred or so others about this scam site - to swap in a different paragraph about the fact the keeper can't be held liable.

DonutMonster

Thank you. I will check that out and insert paragraph about the keeper. I'm going to appeal it online so hopefully straight forward.

Coupon-mad

It is but DO NOT tick 'driver'.

ozwak

Just to Update, i have appealed on two PCN's i've received and as following was the response. 

"The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal however, I will be focusing on their grounds relating to the charge being an unenforceable penalty, as this is what has persuaded me to allow this appeal. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is a contractual penalty and therefore it is unenforceable. 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: “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. The evidence shows that the sum of the charge is in very small text compared to the rest of the sign, and it does not stand out. Taking into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage, I consider that the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and is therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot conclude that the appellant was adequately informed of the charge, or that they agreed to it when entering and using the site. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I acknowledge the further grounds provided however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, these do not require further consideration."

Following was my submission and should apply to most in any appeal.

PARTICULARS OF APPEAL STATEMENT

 

 

 

1.    The Claimant has issued two (2) separate claims n regards to the same location and alleged breach of contract.

 

 

 

1) lack of good faith and intention

2) APCOA not using POFA 2012

3) Airport Act 1986

4) Amount demanded is a penalty

5) Parking charge is punitive

6) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

7) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

8) Misleading and unclear signage

9) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

 

1) APOCA has placed and constructed an environment which points to the lack of good faith and the intention to charge the alleged contract breach and not the actual aim to enter into a fair and just contract.

i) As you drive into the terminal there is one way road and there is a one way road,

one driven at 30mph, with many intersections and cars, buses and other traffic,

this requires any driver to be fully

focused on the road ahead and conditions, signage is at a point in which there is no

way to exit and or decide (time or physical place) if the driver wish to enter the

contract or not and or pay for such

entry.

ii) Taking as an example Luton airport operator who when establishing a fee for

drop off and is dealing with similar one way type of driving has created a barrier in

which cars cannot exit the drop-off zone

which is under fee and do not allow cars to exit the one way road without paying,

thus clearly establish its intentions are to charge the fee and not create an

environment of entrapment. APCOA clearly has

different intentions or lacks the will to establish similar system and or the will to

make such investment while attempting to enforce breaches of contracts.

 

2) From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport bylaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which bylaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

 

3) Airport bylaws 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

 

 

4) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterized by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

 

APCOA is also in breach of paragraph 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice - "13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant* on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

 

5) I further add that the £80 parking charge is an unenforceable penalty and an unfair contract term because the Supreme Court decision in the Beavis case only applies to car parks that provide time limited free parking.

 

6) 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 ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

 

7) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

‘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.

 

8) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'use of drop off zone without making a valid payment'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading – the terms of which are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read and assimilated 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 read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it." The terms of payment require an online portal to be used. This is not made clear on any signage that a driver could read without stopping. This clearly does not comply with the report.

 

The £80 parking charge is not properly notified to motorists until they have already entered the drop off zone, i.e. after the parking contract has been concluded, and do not have the opportunity to leave the drop off zone without parking. Therefore, the contract includes a commitment to pay £5 but it does not include a commitment to pay the £80 parking charge or the discounted £40 parking charge under the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] QB 163.

 

9) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

 

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

 

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

 

* The misspelling "dependant" is in the Code

 

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

------------------------

Do take note that in the response they have (cause by now they have template one for this) they bring proof that they have signage and have the permission form the airport operator to enforce. I suggest the focus on the arguments is where the appeal decision was made in which case, focus on the fact the fine is punitive and there is a clear lack of attempt from APOCA to charge the fee stated of 5 pounds but rather to litigate and issue a PCN. Evidance is the investment another operator has made to Luton airport, i believe this has made the difference, thus clearly demonstrating the intention of APOCA. 

I truly feel sorry for all who have simply paid such fine, these guys have a really bad practice and we need to assure as many people can raise a claim and succeed. 

Good Luck. 

Coupon-mad

That's a good Heathrow Drop off APCOA POPLA appeal, thanks.  That will help people.

Someone lost one last month with a different assessor. Even though it looks as if only one sign of the twenty or so on approach and in the 'zone' even mentions the £80 sum!  Most of the signs (big or small, overhead included) do not quantify any sum of money, even on the odd sign where a Parking Charge is vaguely referenced (not good enough for contract law).

Obviously, they didn't pay and are now ignoring APCOA.

I'm doing a formal complaint to the BPA about this place this month.  Can you show us the POPLA evidence pack and photos of the signs please, or can you no longer open the evidence pack?

Redact any VRM or personal info!

Stewieyan

THANKS! Successfully appealed the Heathrow charge using
TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING:
of the Newbies post.
Added the following at the end too: "In addition, the PCN fails to meet the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012"

Coupon-mad

Easy when you know how v APCOA!

B789

Any chance we can see the actual POPLA decision and on which point they accepted the appeal?