APCOA - Keeper/Driver Query

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except you could add an extra point that the allegation is that a byelaw was breached.  APCOA are put to strict proof of which byelaw and the evidence of breach.  Also where those full byelaws were displayed as opposed to where the vehicle was.  Evidence needed that the driver would have seen and read those byelaws, or been able to from a moving car, because the driver denies seeing ant byelaws notice, let alone being in breach.

dan37_dan

Thanks Coupon-mad, will add that additional point and post for comment.

Couple of questions.

Does the appeal rejection letter provide strict proof of which byelaw was allegedly breached, have they already provided this? Should i go to town on the signage and road markings around the 'permit holder' only area? Or leave that covered by the general signage appeal point?

Coupon-mad

No the rejection letter doesn't negate my point.

I already knew that template letter states the byelaw.  That's not the same as requiring APCOA to prove it all to POPLA.

The idea is to make your case too hard to bother with, in terms if time.  APCOA often throw in the towel.

dan37_dan

5. No evidence of which byelaw was breached - the operator is put to strict proof of which byelaw was breached.

The allegation has been made that a byelaw had been breached, I put this operator to strict proof of which byelaw was breached and to provide evidence of that breach. Equally I put this operator to strict proof as to where these full byelaws are displayed in relation to the vehicles parked location within the car park when the breach was said to have occurred. It is submitted that the driver could not have seen any byelwas notice. As such evidence is required that the driver would have seen and read those byelaws, or have been able to see and read them from a moving car, because the driver denies seeing any byelaws notice, let alone being in breach.

Coupon-mad

Are you admitting the car was parked and left in the car park?  That is how that reads, so I am just checking.

Suggested addition to heading:

5. No evidence of which byelaw was breached - the operator is put to strict proof of which byelaw was breached and how the driver could have read that byelaw, in relation to the exact position of the vehicle.

dan37_dan

I've not made any explicit reference to it (apart from the inference in my last statement) but yes I, as the registered keeper, am not arguing against the point that the car was parked in this car park. 

No issues with that approach? If there is I'll remove the inference from the last statement.

"The allegation has been made that a byelaw had been breached, I put this operator to strict proof of which byelaw was breached and to provide evidence of that breach. Equally I put this operator to strict proof as to where these full byelaws are displayed in relation to the vehicles location. Evidence is also required that the driver would have seen and read those byelaws, or have been able to see and read them from a moving car"

Coupon-mad

I've re-read your first post and would add to point 5:

A ticket was purchased using the APCOA Phone App (Apcoa Connect) and a screenshot (minus driver name) is shown below.  There is no evidence of any breach of byelaw 14, which is about failure to pay a tariff advertised.

KeithP

As mentioned earlier, back in March, the last sentence in this paragraph in APCOA's appeal rejection letter is wrong...

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. 

It was suggested at the time that you complain to the BPA about that.
Nothing appears to have happened on that issue.
That would've probably been an easy way to get this issue closed.

Coupon-mad

I don't think it would.  The BPA wouldn't step in over that, as it's not a Code breach.

KeithP

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think it would.  The BPA wouldn't step in over that, as it's not a Code breach.

So you think the BPA would accept that it's ok for a member of their Approved Operator Scheme to blatantly tell lies with the sole intention of 'encouraging' their victim to pay the unfound charge?

If that were to happen then who is the arbiter? The DVLA, via their KADOE agreement?