APCOA - Keeper/Driver Query

dan37_dan

Umkomaas said:

Wait 3 weeks from PCN issue date then appeal online via APCOA as keeper

Was this a windscreen ticket placed there by an APCOA attendant, or one issued via the post?  If the former, yes, follow the 25/26 days appeal delay, if the latter, you can get on with the appeal right away, no need to wait. 

It was a windscreen ticket, I've appealed using the standard blue template (amended slightly to fit) in the newbies post.

Thanks Umkomass

dan37_dan

So no great surprise, appeal rejected by PPC. Options from them are :

You have now reached the end of our internals procedure, and have the option to either

• Make Payment for the Penalty Notice
• Submit a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA)

Payment at the reduced rate of £60.00 for the Penalty Notice will be accepted if received within 14 days of the date of this letter. After 14 days, the amount payable will increase to £100.00 and be held at the full amount of £100.00 for a further 14 days. Payment can be made using the options outlined below.

They have sited POFA in the rejection letter :

As this Penalty Notice was issued on Railway Land, we operate under the Railway Byelaws. As advised under Railway Byelaw 14.4(1) "The owner of any motor vehicle, cycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area". Therefore, in this instance the registered keeper is liable, and we are unable to transfer liability to the driver. 

So now we wait between day 29 and day 57 (from date of issue of windscreen PCN) to see if NTK arrives in the post and then appeal at POPLA using the various guides or appeal at POPLA as soon as the NTK arrives.

Is this correct?

Fruitcake

Appeal to PoPLA as near to day 56 as possible, or when the NTK arrives. Don't miss the PoPLA deadline. 

Post your draft appeal here for checking before you submit it.

They are lying about the keeper being liable where byelaws are concerned, so I suggest you complain to the BPA.
A vehicle keeper can never be held liable for a railways byelaw breach. 

dan37_dan

Just putting together my PoPLA appeal (will post here once done for checking) thanks as always.

Quick question, the emailed and then posted appeal rejection from APCOA is not any form of compliant Notice to Keeper is it?

I did NOT provide any details around who was driving in my appeal to APCOA and I wont in my appeal to PoPLA either, I'm sure I've read that it isn't but I'm struggling to find the link now.

Thank you all very much for providing all this info so regularly and in your own time - well done, it's invaluable.

Coupon-mad

APCOA never use the POFA wording.

dan37_dan

Many thanks so as it stands I can appeal on the grounds of 'A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply' amongst others. 

Umkomaas

They are lying about the keeper being liable where byelaws are concerned, so I suggest you complain to the BPA.
A vehicle keeper can never be held liable for a railways byelaw breach. 

Have the BPA come back to you on this yet?  Almost a month now.

dan37_dan

What should my complaint to the BPA have looked like?

Choose Complaint Subject :  "Railway Byelaws Complaint"

In relation to blah APCOA have stated the following in their rejection letter of my appeal as the registered keeper of the vehicle. :

"As this Penalty Notice was issued on Railway Land, we operate under the Railway Byelaws. As advised under Railway Byelaw 14.4(1) "The owner of any motor vehicle, cycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area". Therefore, in this instance the registered keeper is liable, and we are unable to transfer liability to the driver. "

The statement provided by APCOA isn't truthful, According to POFA 2012 for Keeper Liability to apply

The car park must be on “relevant land”.  Relevant land is defined as private land and specifically excludes the following land:
(a) a public highway
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority
(c) any other land where parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control (such as airports and railway stations which are covered by byelaws).

Then attach the APCOA appeal rejection letter.

Thx

dan37_dan

Hi all, I've drafted my POPLA appeal letter, would appreciate your expert eyes and feedback as always.

POPLA Appeal Letter

PENALTY NOTICE NUMBER: XXXXXXX

VEHICLE REGISTRATION: XXXXXXX

POPLA Verification Number: XXXXXXX

CONTRAVENTION DATE: XXXXXXX

This appeal is being submitted in relation to the ‘Penalty Notice' dated XXXXXXX issued by APCOA Parking for vehicle registration number XXXXXXX. As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I appealed to APCOA Parking on XXXXXXX challenging the Penalty Notice. APCOA Parking responded on XXXXXXX stating that the appeal had been unsuccessful.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from myself as the registered keeper. I contend that I, as the registered keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

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.''

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking+sign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix states:

“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material”

Figure 1 shows a map of XXXXX Station Car Park and the entrance ramp to the car park. Point A on the map shows the location of the only signage at the entrance to the car park that any driver would pass, this sign is shown in figure 2, it clearly shows that sign being a directions only sign.

Figure 1 (Will show pic in pdf version)

https://ibb.co/gdGMGNt

Figure 2 (Will show pic in pdf version)

https://ibb.co/Ks0X1nN

Figure 3 shows the remainder of the 'On' ramp to the car park, it clearly shows no additional signage of any description that a driver would pass on their journey into the car park.

Figure 3 (Will show pic in pdf version)

https://ibb.co/wWFj4W4  

The additional signs are sporadically placed, they are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. 

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). As described earlier areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

In addition to the lack of any entry signs, APCOA Parking Ltd’s main car park sign (the only one in the car park displaying terms and conditions) is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read. It clearly violates BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) and appendix B.

Figure 4 and 5 shows the main car park sign to demonstrate this point, this sign is located at point B on the previous map of the car park location and would not be passed or seen by any driver entering the car park.

Figure 4 (Will show pic in pdf version)

https://ibb.co/dG5tBYD

Figure 5 (Will show pic in pdf version)

https://ibb.co/5j6ZwQp

Figure 6 shows the signage of the parking charge itself. Point C on the previous map of the car park location, again this would not have been passed or seen by any driver entering the car park.

Figure 6 (Will show pic in pdf version)

https://ibb.co/JnzZC3C

>>>>>>>

dan37_dan

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about 1cm high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .25 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.