Heathrow drop off parking fine

Tigger1902

Hi, I have read the NEWBIES thread. But was wondering if it’s still possible to dispute the fine with the template provided even after saying in the original appeal, not the POPLA one, that I tried to pay the charge online, but it kept failing, which is the case. I wasn’t infact the driver, and I didn’t mention in the appeal that I was. 

Le_Kirk

You won't be able to use the PPCs system to appeal if you have already done so.  It is LBC/LOC and then court claim papers with debt collector letters interspersed.

Tigger1902

I appealed the initial fine which I received in the post via the link in the letter, this was rejected and now they have given me an option to appeal via POPLA which they didn’t give me before. So because I didn’t appeal via POPLA in the first instance I can’t appeal now?

KeithP

Tigger1902 said:

I appealed the initial fine which I received in the post via the link in the letter, this was rejected and now they have given me an option to appeal via POPLA which they didn’t give me before. So because I didn’t appeal via POPLA in the first instance I can’t appeal now?

You can now appeal to PoPLA - assuming you haven't run out of time.

The third post of the NEWBIES thread offers comprehensive guidance on how to create and file a winning PoPLA appeal.

fisherjim

You need to re read the newbies thread and get up to speed with all this, your appeal to the PPC was always going to fail they are only in this game for the money nothing else just greed.

They haven't "given you an option to appeal via POPLA" that's what they have to do after they reject your appeal to them.

Do not make the mistake of wasting your POPLA appeal by using mitigating facts or a description of what happened POPLA only consider process and what rules the useless PPC are supposed to go by.

There are also dozens of these incidents from APCOA littered all over this forum which you should also follow, they are having a field day with this.

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy one of the dozens of other Airport APCOA POPLA appeals (Google it, if you find the forum search too clunky, but DON'T use a POPLA appeal that's more than a year or two old).

State at the start that you were the keeper and tried to pay, due to being a passenger that day, but you were not the driver.

Tigger1902

Thank you for your help, could you advice me if the following would be acceptable 

A notice to keeper was issued on xx April 2022 and received by me (the registered keeper) of vehicle registration on xx April 2022 for an alleged use of drop zone without payment. I am writing to you as the registered keeper, I tried to pay, due to being a passenger that day, but was not the driver.

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

2)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)

3)Misleading and unclear signage

4) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA

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

6) Photo Evidence appears doctored

1) 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.’

2) 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 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."

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

3) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It appears that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and, as such, are misleading, as they are unable to be seen and assimilated by a driver without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

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.

6) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and lack of location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photographs in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged (See <Daily Mail Article on UKPC doctoring photos> for more information).

I would challenge APCOA Parking Ltd to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc). I would also challenge APCOA Parking Ltd that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such a way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

Nevertheless, I challenge APCOA LTD to prove to POPLA that the CCTV and ANPR equipment that was specifically used for the alleged contravention are:

• Fit for purpose: approved technical design to comply with the relevant requirements and Acts of Parliament;

• Calibrated: calibration certificates for all components to be made available to POPLA to confirm they are current and relevant;

• Operator competency: Operator is competent and trained to use the equipment and also that the operator on the day was competent and converse with the Data Protection Act.

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.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK as a start but remove #6 (because it doesn't get taken into account by POPLA).

#4 needs expanding to state the NTK is non-POFA - e.g. lack of 9(2)f warning about keeper liability.

Tigger1902

Coupon-mad said:

Looks OK as a start but remove #6 (because it doesn't get taken into account by POPLA).

#4 needs expanding to state the NTK is non-POFA - e.g. lack of 9(2)f warning about keeper liability.

Thank you so much for your advice,

is the following better and sufficient?

A notice to keeper was issued on 20th April 2022 and received by me (the registered keeper) of vehicle registration on 25th April 2022 for an alleged use of drop zone without payment. I am writing to you as the registered keeper, I tried to pay, due to being a passenger that day, but was not the driver.

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

2)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)

3)Misleading and unclear signage

4) Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA

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

6) Misleading and unclear signage

7) No cause for requesting details from the DVLA

8) Amount demanded is a penalty

9)Airport Act 1986

1) 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.’

2) 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 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."

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

3) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It appears that signage at this location does not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and, as such, are misleading, as they are unable to be seen and assimilated by a driver without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

4) If APCOA want 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 place 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).

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012, Schedule 4 due to these omissions:

''9(2)The notice must—

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.''

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.

6) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'use of drop off zone without making a valid payment'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading – the terms of which are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read and assimilated without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it." The terms of payment require an online portal to be used. This is not made clear on any signage that a driver could read without stopping. This clearly does not comply with the report.

7) To access the DVLA data, parking companies sign up to the Kadoe contract which allows the parking company to retrieve keeper data electronically for the reasonable cause of seeking recovery of unpaid parking charges. Kadoe contracts attach several conditions to the access including that the parking company seeks recovery from the driver or the keeper if the procedure in schedule 4 of the protection to freedoms act is used. The contract states data can only be used to enforce the ticket using Schedule 4 of POFA.

Hence if the parking company tries to claim liability against the keeper with no evidence to suggest they were the driver then the data would have been misused, If the keeper will not name the driver in circumstances where POFA can no longer apply then they would be breaching the act if they continue to process their data.

8)

Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

9) 2) Airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.

Airport Act 1986

65 Control of road traffic at designated airports

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.

Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

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.

Coupon-mad

Yes, except you have two sections about unclear signs.  They need amalgamating.

Le_Kirk

Tigger1902 said:

I appealed the initial fine which I received in the post via the link in the letter, this was rejected and now they have given me an option to appeal via POPLA which they didn’t give me before. So because I didn’t appeal via POPLA in the first instance I can’t appeal now?

If you have been given a POPLA code and you haven't appealed to POPLA before and the code is in date, then yes you can appeal to POPLA.