APCOA railway station Penalty Notice on company van

KeithP

Are you the owner of the van?

@allaboutthedough told us it was a company van, but we don't know whether he, or his company owned the van.

Now, along comes a new poster, @basmatikid, who has taken over the thread.

allaboutthedough

Sorry, my daughter had previously signed in with her details but I didn't realise and just assumed I was signed in with mine. 

Apologies for that oversight.

I actually don't have this vehicle anymore as I was given a new company vehicle last week, but it was a company van and I do not know who the owner or even registered keeper is/was.

I have no idea what the company have done with the old vehicle, but I am right in thinking that APCOA have no way of finding out who the owner is, only the registered keeper by contacting DVLA but there is no keeper liability in this case so they won't/can't do this?

I will keep the comments to POPLA short, but something else that APCOA have done is mentioned "advertised terms and conditions of the car park".

The original Penalty Notice also mentioned that there was a contravention of the terms and conditions as well as breach of the Railway Byelaws.

At the end of their evidence, APCOA summarise that the "it is the individual's responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle to ensure that a valid payment has been made as per the terms and conditions, and that the vehicle has been parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. The individual breached the terms and conditions of Parking by leaving the vehicle parked, without a valid payment, therefore this Penalty Notice should stand." 

The original Penalty Notice is for "Parked in a restricted/unauthorised area", mentions nothing about no valid payment.

Should I mention something about the claim being either a Penalty Notice for breach of Railway Byelaws or a Parking Charge for breach of terms and conditions?

I am concerned because as you say there's a 6 month timeframe for a byelaws case, but them mentioning terms and conditions, means they can hound me for a lot longer if I lose at POPLA!

Many thanks

Umkomaas

but it was a company van and I do not know who the owner or even registered keeper is/was.

I would use that to turn their assertion that they have the right to pursue 'the owner' of the vehicle back on them by confirming it was a company vehicle (actual 'owner' unknown - you are not privy to that information), but you can categorically confirm that you were not the owner, and as such, have absolutely no liability whatsoever. That hopefully will halt them in their tracks. 

Coupon-mad

They can't.  They called it a 'Penalty' so they are absolutely stuck with six months.

You won't be able to quote that full APCOA paragraph, as you must cover all your comments and points in just 2000 characters ( NOT words).

Should I mention something about the claim being either a Penalty Notice for breach of Railway Byelaws or a Parking Charge for breach of terms and conditions?

Yes.  Say they've tried to conflate contract law t&cs with byelaw 14, which has nothing to do with parking within a bay and only relates to paying a tariff.

Quote the BPA CoP which I think says it is a byelaws case, operators must not rely on t&cs and confuse contract law with byelaws.

Mention what I said about the byelaws not being shown in any evidence, where they were (or were not) displayed so they could have bern read by the driver in this case, who says he/she saw no byelaws board either at the entrance nor visible (let alone legible) form where the car stopped.

And as you are not the owner or registered keeper, say so.

Presumably APCOA showed in evidence, the first NTK they sent to the registered keeper company* so point out this document in their own evidence proves you are not the owner or keeper.  Nor has the driver been identified and the byelaws are legally silent about te concept of hirer liability, which doesn't exist outside of POFA.


* unless you appealed to the windscreen PCN and there was never a NTK sent to the owner company?

allaboutthedough

Thank you for the help and information provided.

I included it all in the comments to POPLA and they have replied today stating they have refused the appeal.

I am not surprised but am still annoyed and am wondering if I did the appeal properly.

However, I know I have a further 3 months until the matter “expires”, but I would really appreciate clarification on something.

The POPLA assessor wrote:

“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. As the operator is not looking to transfer liability of the penalty charge it does not consider the provisions of PoFA 2012.”

Will APCOA now go to the DVLA to obtain registered keeper details who are likely my employer and try to get them to pay up or name me as the driver?

If they will do this, I better give my employer a heads up about the situation.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

No, APCOA won't now apply to the DVLA.  They will get a debt collector to send silly letters then it will time out.  You are the person in their sights because you replied to a windscreen PCN, so you are safe.

You are a Railway Engineer so there is no way APCOA can persuade the TOC to lay this before Magistrates in that time and if they did, APCOA would make no money.  

Did APCOA actually show a byelaws noticeboard at all in evidence?  (I am not talking about a t&cs notice). What did POPLA say about that?

allaboutthedough

Thank you for your reply.

That’s good to know as I didn’t want to bother my employer with this.

APCOA did not show a byelaws noticeboard in evidence.

In my comments to POPLA, I wrote that APCOA did not provide evidence of Railway Byelaws or where they were situated on site.

POPLA assessor states that “having reviewed the signage at the site I am also satisfied that the site is being operated under railway byelaws and not via a parking contract.”

I have no idea how they can say this, but on the top of the “Terms and Conditions of Parking” board, it says “This car park is on private Railway owned land and operates under Railway Byelaws”.

This must have been enough to satisfy the assessor and perhaps I didn’t explain clearly enough that the Railway Byelaws were not stipulated anywhere on site.

The assessor addressed all the points I made, but supported all of APCOA’s responses and evidence.

I really don’t think POPLA are independent at all.

For example, the assessor says:

“Section 19.3 requires the operator to place clear signage which is easy to see, read and understand. The operator has provided examples of the signage at the site and a site map to show where this has been installed. It has also provided photographs showing the signage at the site. The evidence shows that there are clear signage placed throughout the site. The signs are clear with dark blue text on a white background and the amount of the penalty is clearly displayed. As are the requirements the driver was required to comply with.

I am satisfied that the signage at the site is adequate to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver and that the driver would have been seeking these out as the entrance sign would have altered them to this requirement”.

 

“Section 14 (3) of the Railway byelaws allows a penalty to be issued as is displayed in the area. Further to this Section 24 (1) advises that this may be no more than level 3 on the standard scale. A Penalty of £100 is way bellow even level 1 on the standard scales and as such is a reasonable amount for a Penalty for breaching the rules established for parking.”

 

This bit makes POPLA appear entirely unprofessional.

I specified it numerous times in my initial appeal and comments, and I don’t expect them to take my word for it but surely they’re aware that APCOA and their peers cannot enforce Railway byelaws? 

They conflate parking terms and byelaws just as APCOA do and the assessor thinks APCOA are doing a favour by only charging a penalty of £100.

Coupon-mad

Yep. Typical POPLA Assessor. Ignore it.

allaboutthedough

I recall reading on a couple of other posts here that the assessors have legal backgrounds so I am quite surprised that they are like this.
Will definitely ignore, but am only so confident in doing this due to all the help, support and information provided here, both generally and specifically to me.
I am extremely grateful 

Thank you

Coupon-mad

No.

In 2014/15 POPLA Assessors were legally trained persons but they found in favour of consumers most of the time (80% I seem to recall) and the service also cost more than the current cheap impersonation of an appeals service.

So the BPA dropped the legally-trained assessors provided by LondonCouncils, in favour of the current motley crew of nail technicians and soft !!!!!! novel writers who can't add up to 14 and use template 'computer says no' responses.