Strange APCOA Penalty Notice - please help.

Fruitcake

Please note, this is a Penalty Notice issued on Railway land as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking has occurred, and you have confirmed to us that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and therefore you are liable for this Notice.

Lies

The Railways byelaws state: In England and Wales

(i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle 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.

For further clarification, the owner, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. 

Lies

If the Penalty Notice remains unpaid, APCOA Parking is entitled to pursue you as the keeper through the Magistrates Court by way of a private criminal prosecution for payment of the Penalty Notice.

Lies

How are you getting on with your complaints?

You have a PoPLA code, so use it. Construct a draft appeal using all the points previously mentioned plus all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES.
Post it here for checking before you submit it.

Coupon-mad

Just appeal to POPLA as per all the other exact same threads.  Copy what they did and their wording in APCOA cases.

You'll win.

andrewfordays

Complaint made to Network Rail today.   They didn't make it easy and it honestly felt like they didn't want to know but got them to listen in the end.

Fruitcake

Does that mean they have instructed the PPC to cancel the charge? It is not over until the PPC says it is over.

andrewfordays

No no, we're a long way from that, but I've at least got an appointment with a case manager from the community relations team. Is there anything specifically I should be saying to him or her in case they randomly call?

Coupon-mad

Just not saying who was driving.

But there is no need for any of this as APCOA will fold when the keeper appeals, as seen on yet another APCOA thread today.  Works every time.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

Just not saying who was driving.

But there is no need for any of this as APCOA will fold when the keeper appeals, as seen on yet another APCOA thread today.  Works every time.

Except for exposing the PPC's lies made to the registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

Yes I agree!

But I am trying to point the way to getting rid of it so the OP knows not to say who was driving, and that a 'registered keeper' appeal will win anyway.

andrewfordays

Hi everyone hope you had a great bank holiday weekend.   I've been working on my POPLA appeal.  Coud you let me know if this is all OK?

POPLA Verification Code: 0510XXXX

Vehicle Registration: HDXXXXX

 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 10/03/2022 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – APCOA – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 29/03/2022 and rejected via an email dated 01/04/2022. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

 

·      The car was not “parked” at all and did not “make use of a private car park” - this is clear and obvious on the so-called "evidence" which clearly shows the car, in motion, with the lights on a public highway.

 

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

 

·      APCOA have provided no evidence of the period of time the car was on railway property, nor who was driving, nor highlighted any grace period with which has supposedly surpassed. It has also provided no evidence that the car was parked in any car park whatsoever (for any period of time) nor provided evidence for any "bye-law" (which it has no authority to uphold) that has been contravened.

 

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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

 

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.''

 

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 Code of Practice) 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 Code of Practice 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.

 

The car was not “parked” at all and did not “make use of a private car park”

 

With regard to the evidence provided, The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

 

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence

that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must

refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date

and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs

used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or

digitally altered."

 

The PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle clearly in transit. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph”  nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos).

 

The date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the images.

 

The car is not shown to be in a car park at all let alone a clearly evidenced to have surpassed the grace period within a parking space.

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at

the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

 

“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

 

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

 

“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcementaction. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

 

“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

 

 

In summary, we believe it to be clear and obvious that the car was never in the operator’s car park, let alone parked, it was unmistakably within the 20-minute grace period, the car has evidently not contravened any "Bye-laws" and the driver cannot be identified.  With there being no evidence against us at all, we strongly hope that POPLA upholds our appeal on the grounds that we have done absolutely nothing wrong and are in fact the victims of behaviour we can only describe as an egregious abuse of the operator’s power.  We would also like POPLA to note that we believe this to be intentionally predatory and that there accusations against us have very little to do with bye-laws that have been supposed broken and a lot  more to do with the fact that people are not using train stations, or (more importantly for them) paying for train stations car parks anymore.  

 

 

Coupon-mad

There is not a '20 minute grace period'.

This is old:

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at
the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. 

The BPA CoP no longer says there are 2 periods of time that you can rely on.

Your headings don't match the order of what you say after that and I don't think you've made enough of the fact this is not 'relevant land' and byelaws exist that you contend allow drop offs.