Strange APCOA Penalty Notice - please help.

andrewfordays

Thank you, I'll have a look tomorrow and will reshape.  On the last point regarding "relevant land", I don't fully know what this means so I'm not sure how to best approach it.  I understand that in previous comments people have also pointed this out but I really need it explained further as it isn't overtly clear.

Previously, you also mentioned that APCOA always backdown when byelaws are mentioned so I'd really like some guidance on this as it feels like an important point.

They have now sent 4 penalty notices, all the same;  the car driving through the road without stopping. It's absolutely crazy.

Fruitcake

Relevant land means land above or below ground that is not already covered by a traffic order, such as a public road, or land where byelaws apply such as a port, airport, or railway asset.

The PoFA, and therefore keeper liability, only applies to relevant land. The keeper cannot be held liable if the alleged event occurred on non-relevant land.

Where railway byelaws apply, the driver can, and the owner may be liable, but the keeper can never be liable. 

Coupon-mad

Best to just Google:

APCOA POPLA appeal relevant land

No reading anything that's 2 years or more old, though (except the NEWBIES thread which is edited at least yearly, and always up to date!).

1505grandad

You should be using/quoting from BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020.

andrewfordays

Hi everyone, I'm looking back through all of this now and I can't help but think that the focus should be on the fact that the car was at no point ever in a parking spot? I feel a little bit over top to be having to write about "relevant land" and "railway byelaws" when there is literally no evidence of any wrong doing. 

I appreciate some people on here may have been walking a grey line by being in a space for 20 minutes or the ticket machine being broken, but in this case the car was literally never in the car park?!

Coupon-mad

No.  We know what we are doing.  Those points you want to drop are the nailed on 100% winning points

I feel a little bit over top to be having to write about "relevant land" and "railway byelaws" when there is literally no evidence of any wrong doing.  

And if POPLA don't agree, you lose.

A car doesn't have to be shown in a parking spot, if the signs talk about the 'stay' or 'by remaining on site'.

The allegation isn't that you parked.  You could lose this if you drop the winning arguments to rely on a tenuous one that wrongly presumes you have to be parked to get a private PCN.

andrewfordays

Understood!
I've had another look this afternoon and have totally reworked it as I felt the first version was a little rushed.

You'll see there are a lot more points now, as well as a diagram to highlight just how silly this all is. 

Would love to hear your thoughts and hopefully get the official nod before sending off to POPLA.

Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VQOnUI_xIvr6afuHmdKNR3NNe7Q7J8WS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118008039863823253601&rtpof=true&sd=true

Many kind thanks for all the help

A.

PS I noticed in their Penalty Notice (see page 1 of this thread) that I committed the "offense" of...etc etc.  When I was reading the latest BPA guidelines I saw that it said "You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority."

Am I the only one that thinks stating it is an "offense" is, by definition, in breach of statutory authority?  I might be over thinking it but would be curious to get your thoughts.

Coupon-mad

If it is a 'penalty' notice (which I think this is) then it is a bit different and they can allege a byelaws offence.   No worries.  Just do the POPLA appeal anyway and APCOA will likely throw in the towel.

andrewfordays

Thank you, all submitted.

andrewfordays

Update.
The first (of four) we have won, so thank you for all the help there. The second, they have supplied (incredibly misleading evidence) to POPLA which we need to make comments on and the other two APCOA have stated we need to write to APCOA with evidence and have 14 days to do so before they consider our (internal APCOA) appeal before then inevitably going back to POPLA.

The evidence they have supplied to POPLA is so egregious it makes me think the people working at APCOA must be absolutely vial. So what has happened in reality is that car has made two journeys (neither using the car park) once in the morning to drop a customer off at the station, it drives in the entrance, drops off the customer and leaves, all in 60s seconds. It then arrives at 9pm to pick a customer up and is again in and out in 60 seconds (and again not using the car park at all).  What APCOA have done is use the ANPR picture at entry at 8am, then added the leaving picture at 9pm and claimed to POPLA that the car was there all day! I honestly can't believe that people are so horrible, we're appalled that they've manipulated the data in this way, it's abhorrent behaviour.

Is there something we can do so they can be further investigated?