APCOA - Keeper/Driver Query

Coupon-mad

That's never changed. It is six days in reality, you don't 'count on' seven because they count the day they sent the email as day one (so it's never a full seven days).

dan37_dan

Seem i wasted my time.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the penalty charge as the driver was parked in a permit holders area before the designated time without purchasing and or displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant disputes that a compliant notice to keeper was served and has failed to show that it is pursuing the driver. The appellant dispute that the operator has the relevant authority from the landowner. The appellant disputes that the signage at the site is adequate. In their comments they advise that the signage does not comply with Appendix B. They also question which byelaws was breached in their comments they have raised queries regarding Section 24 (4). The appellant has provided two documents detailing their appeal which also contain images of the site. In their comments the appellant has also raised new grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. 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. When entering a private car park, motorists are expected to comply with the rules and regulations. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The rules and regulations of the site state: “Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice, which may be issued either manually or by post… Failure to park within a marked parking bay or causing an obstruction to other users… Charges for breach of these parking conditions: £100”. Further signage and road markings also warn drivers that they cannot parking in season permit bays before 9.30am Mon-Fri. The operator has provided date and time stamped photographic evidence of the vehicle parked at the site. The vehicle was observed parked in a permit holders bay before 9.30am and as such the attendant issued the penalty charge as the vehicle was in breach of the rules and regulations The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a permit. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was not registered against a permit. But had purchased a normal ticket which was not valid when the driver parked. The operator issued the penalty charge as the driver was parked in a permit holders area before the designated time without purchasing and or displaying a valid permit. The Railway Byelaws state in section 14, (3): “No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.” The appellant disputes that a compliant notice to keeper was served and has failed to show that it is pursuing the driver. This Penalty Notice has been issued under the railway byelaws and as such the operator is holding the owner of the vehicle liable so has not used any of the provisions contained with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant dispute that the operator has the relevant authority from the landowner. Section 7 of the British Parking Association code of practice requires the operator to hold a valid contract for the management of a site which it does not own. In this case the operator has provided an extract of a copy of a contract held with SE Trains Limited and confirms that this site is covered by this agreement. I am satisfied based on this information that the operator hold a valid contract to mange parking under byelaws in this location as an agent of the operator. The appellant disputes that the signage at the site is adequate. In their comments they advise that the signage does not comply with Appendix B. Section 19 of the British Parking Association code of practice sets out the requirements for signage. Further requirements are contained within appendix B. Section 19.2 explains that the operator must have an entrance sign and Appendix B explains that the size of this sign must take into account the speed the driver is traveling. The operator and appellant have provided photograph evidence of the site and site maps. This shows that there is a clear entrance sign in the standard format. Section 19.3 explains that the signage at the site must be clear, easy to see and read. The evidence shows that there is signage placed throughout the site which is white with dark blue text. Further to this the amount of the penalty is clearly displayed. Railway Byelaws Section 14 (4) (i) explains that a driver may be liable to pay any penalty which is displayed in that area. In this case I am satisfied that the signage across the site meets the requirements of both the British Parking Association code of practice and the railway byelaws. They also question which byelaws was breached in their comments they have raised queries regarding Section 24 (4). The operator has provided an examples of the penalty notice which was issued. This notice states that it was issued under Section 14 if the Railway Byelaws. Section 24 (4) explains that this must be recorded on the penalty and not on the signage at the site. Further to this it explains that the driver has the right to challenge the validity of the penalty in a court of law. This right is unaffected by the appellants appeal to POPLA. The appellant has provided two documents detailing their appeal which also contain images of the site. I have considered the evidence and grounds of appeal above. In their comments the appellant has also raised new grounds of appeal. I cannot consider new grounds of appeal raised at the comment stage of the process. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the rules and regulations on a privately operated car park. The evidence shows that the driver was parked in a permit holders bay without a valid permit before the time when this was permitted. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the penalty charge has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the penalty charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

dan37_dan

So reading the forum, I will now start to get debt collector letters (or other such letters) They will try to frighten me but actually they can do nothing.

It will not go to Court until/unless I get a Letter of Claim. So I need to watch for this. 

I assume if it does reach the stage of court proceedings then I can simply pay the £100 at that point? Sorry but I have no appetite to spend time writing defence statements etc. my time is worth more than the £100 fine as much as I want to stick it to these people.

Le_Kirk

You need to make sure that if you move, you tell the PPC about your new address for service; they have six years to bring a claim!  It takes 30 minutes (maximum) to adopt the template defence to suit your circumstances and most (99%) of posters on this forum don't lose.  If a court claim is issued, it will be too late to pay £100, the PPC will want their pound of flesh plus their fake fees!

Castle

Le_Kirk said:

You need to make sure that if you move, you tell the PPC about your new address for service; they have six years to bring a claim!  It takes 30 minutes (maximum) to adopt the template defence to suit your circumstances and most (99%) of posters on this forum don't lose.  If a court claim is issued, it will be too late to pay £100, the PPC will want their pound of flesh plus their fake fees!

It's a Penalty Notice so it will time out after 6 months.

Coupon-mad

Yep, nothing to worry about.

It will not go to Court until/unless I get a Letter of Claim. So I need to watch for this. 

Won't happen.  It's a penalty not a contractual parking charge so can't go to the county court (LBC, etc).

Can you copy that decision into POPLA DECISIONS but add about ten paragraph breaks please?  Unreadable as a wall of text taken from the Assessor's decision you were emailed, needs you to break it up please before putting it up on the POPLA DECISIONS sticky for posterity.  Please also say which PPC and location it is about and give a URL link back to this little thread.

dan37_dan

Will do. 

Just to confirm Le_Kirk's point about having to inform the PPC if I move isn't relevant as its a Penalty Notice and will timeout.

Coupon-mad

Yep six months only, as it isn't a parking charge notice.  If worried, you could email APCOA after the 6 months and tell them to erase all your data because the penalty limitation period has lapsed. 

vegansaver

Sorry to hear you lost this one Dan.

I am a little confused as to why his case lost, when he put together such a thorough appeal? 

I didn't think railway land was relevant land? 

Coupon-mad

It's not - but byelaws allow owner liability.  So it's a different argument.

Makes no difference and it'll time out soon, being a penalty.  It can't go to small claims.