Heathrow APCOA PCN

hate_tickets_36

Hi I used the newbies sticky appeal my Heathrow PCN for drop off but my appeal was refused. The response is below:

As your vehicle was observed in contravention of the terms and conditions at the Heathrow terminal drop-off zone, we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practice, and therefore not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.

In your appeal you have explained that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle but dispute the parking charge. You have also declined the invitation to provide us with the full name and address of the driver. Whilst we appreciate your comments, it is not sufficient grounds to warrant cancellation of this PCN. As stated above, the terms and conditions of using the drop-off zones are displayed by way of clear signage. It is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the signage on site. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to know who is driving your vehicle at any given time. By providing us with the name and address of the driver who contravened the terms and conditions of using the Terminal Drop Off zone, we can reissue the PCN to them to seek recovery of the outstanding balance due in respect of this charge. As you have refused to provide us with these details, we will continue to hold you liable for this charge.

To appeal to POPLA I've drafted the challenge below from other posts. However I am not sure of the first point as they have not specifically mentioned 'notice was not issued under POFA 2012' in the appeal. Am I okay to proceed?:

POPLA Ref. X

APCOA Parking PCN No. X

Dear Sir/Madam,

A notice to keeper was issued on X April 2022 and received by me (the registered keeper) of vehicle registration X on X April 2022 for an alleged contravention of ‘Use of Drop Off Zone without making a valid payment’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

4) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA

5) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

1) APCOA has indicated on appeal that the notice was not issued under POFA 2012 and therefore the Keeper Liability provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 are not applicable on this occasion.

If APCOA were to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. 

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' sub-section under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as the Registered Keeper I am not legally liable, as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws and/or other statutory instruments.

As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

3) 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 Parking Eye 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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

4) The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

5) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is invalid and that my representation should lead to POPLA cancelling the APCOA Ltd demand to me, the Registered Keeper.

Yours Faithfully,

Coupon-mad

It wasn't issued under POFA because:

- Airports are not 'relevant land' so there is no POFA right to keeper liability

- APCOA have never used paragraph 9 POFA wording anyway (ever).  You can read that for yourself and compare it to, say, 9(2)f.  Spot the omissions.

hate_tickets_36

Coupon-mad said:

It wasn't issued under POFA because:

- Airports are not 'relevant land' so there is no POFA right to keeper liability

- APCOA have never used paragraph 9 POFA wording anyway (ever).  You can read that for yourself and compare it to, say, 9(2)f.  Spot the omissions.

Thank You! So looks like I am ready to proceed right?  

Coupon-mad

Not sure.  We know nothing about what happened - was £5 paid or not?

hate_tickets_36

Coupon-mad said:

Not sure.  We know nothing about what happened - was £5 paid or not?

Unfortunately not, I didn't see the signage. It was the first time going there and was in a rush.

Fruitcake

Not to worry. The keeper should win at PoPLA on byelaws or non PoFA compliant NTK.

adi0604

hate_tickets_36 said:

Hi I used the newbies sticky appeal my Heathrow PCN for drop off but my appeal was refused. The response is below:

As your vehicle was observed in contravention of the terms and conditions at the Heathrow terminal drop-off zone, we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practice, and therefore not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.

In your appeal you have explained that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle but dispute the parking charge. You have also declined the invitation to provide us with the full name and address of the driver. Whilst we appreciate your comments, it is not sufficient grounds to warrant cancellation of this PCN. As stated above, the terms and conditions of using the drop-off zones are displayed by way of clear signage. It is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the signage on site. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to know who is driving your vehicle at any given time. By providing us with the name and address of the driver who contravened the terms and conditions of using the Terminal Drop Off zone, we can reissue the PCN to them to seek recovery of the outstanding balance due in respect of this charge. As you have refused to provide us with these details, we will continue to hold you liable for this charge.

To appeal to POPLA I've drafted the challenge below from other posts. However I am not sure of the first point as they have not specifically mentioned 'notice was not issued under POFA 2012' in the appeal. Am I okay to proceed?:

POPLA Ref. X

APCOA Parking PCN No. X

Dear Sir/Madam,

A notice to keeper was issued on X April 2022 and received by me (the registered keeper) of vehicle registration X on X April 2022 for an alleged contravention of ‘Use of Drop Off Zone without making a valid payment’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

4) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA

5) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

1) APCOA has indicated on appeal that the notice was not issued under POFA 2012 and therefore the Keeper Liability provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 are not applicable on this occasion.

If APCOA were to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. 

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' sub-section under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as the Registered Keeper I am not legally liable, as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws and/or other statutory instruments.

As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

3) 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 Parking Eye 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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

4) The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

5) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is invalid and that my representation should lead to POPLA cancelling the APCOA Ltd demand to me, the Registered Keeper.

Yours Faithfully,

Any update??

Did you win POPLA on below draft?

Le_Kirk

The user @hate_tickets_36 has not been on the forum since April this year; you might get some response if you send them a PM - use the envelope symbol top right of the page.

hate_tickets_36

adi0604 said:

hate_tickets_36 said:

Hi I used the newbies sticky appeal my Heathrow PCN for drop off but my appeal was refused. The response is below:

As your vehicle was observed in contravention of the terms and conditions at the Heathrow terminal drop-off zone, we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practice, and therefore not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.

In your appeal you have explained that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle but dispute the parking charge. You have also declined the invitation to provide us with the full name and address of the driver. Whilst we appreciate your comments, it is not sufficient grounds to warrant cancellation of this PCN. As stated above, the terms and conditions of using the drop-off zones are displayed by way of clear signage. It is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the signage on site. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to know who is driving your vehicle at any given time. By providing us with the name and address of the driver who contravened the terms and conditions of using the Terminal Drop Off zone, we can reissue the PCN to them to seek recovery of the outstanding balance due in respect of this charge. As you have refused to provide us with these details, we will continue to hold you liable for this charge.

To appeal to POPLA I've drafted the challenge below from other posts. However I am not sure of the first point as they have not specifically mentioned 'notice was not issued under POFA 2012' in the appeal. Am I okay to proceed?:

POPLA Ref. X

APCOA Parking PCN No. X

Dear Sir/Madam,

A notice to keeper was issued on X April 2022 and received by me (the registered keeper) of vehicle registration X on X April 2022 for an alleged contravention of ‘Use of Drop Off Zone without making a valid payment’. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)

3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

4) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA

5) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

1) APCOA has indicated on appeal that the notice was not issued under POFA 2012 and therefore the Keeper Liability provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 are not applicable on this occasion.

If APCOA were to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. 

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' sub-section under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as the Registered Keeper I am not legally liable, as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws and/or other statutory instruments.

As POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in case 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. He stated ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

3) 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 Parking Eye 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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

4) The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

5) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is invalid and that my representation should lead to POPLA cancelling the APCOA Ltd demand to me, the Registered Keeper.

Yours Faithfully,

Any update??

Did you win POPLA on below draft?

Hello yes I won POPLA