Heathrow Drop off - should I appeal to POPLA

lrodin

Hi all, I used a version of the templated letters from the forum and submitted my appeal. The appeal has now progressed and APOCA have registered their evidence and POPLA have given me 7 days to respond before they will decide on my appeal.

Can anyone assist in what I should respond to Popla other that iterating that I'm the registered keeper but have never confirmed |I was the driver, I was present in the vehicle but cannot confirm I was the driver?  Happy to send the actual documents I received from POPLA (the APOCA response) if helpful but couldn't work out how to upload them to this forum.

For reference, the POPLA appeal was on the following grounds:

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

The APOCA submitted evidence transcribed below:

APCOA have had a contract in place with Heathrow Airport since 01/10/2021. The current landowner’s authority runs until 30/12/2029. Please find a copy enclosed. It has been redacted to ensure the privacy of the landowner. This is a rolling contract and is currently valid. Terms and restrictions of parking are signposted throughout any restricted areas and on the entrance/exit of private grounds. Any driver parked in breach of the displayed terms or restrictions will be issued a Parking charge notice containing evidence from our ANPR cameras. APCOA are an approved operator of the BPA; under which guidelines the notice will be issued. Notices are issued by ANPR by post: Terms of parking are sign posted upon entry to, throughout and along all exit routes of this area. Name and address of Keeper provided by the DVLA and confirmed as the driver in their appeal to APCOA [I did not confirm I was the driver, but did confirm I was the keeper and present in the vehicle on the day] xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx Statement and other evidence: Heathrow Airport is situated on private land where APCOA have been appointed to enforce their terms on their behalf. This area is a dedicated drop off zone for vehicles dropping passengers off at Heathrow Airport.  A payment is required to be paid online orby phone by midnight of the following day.  As per the terms and conditions of this site: <Image of a sign> No payment was made within the correct time after the parking event. Signage is compliant with the BPA code of practice and APCOA can confirm that we are an approved operator.  Terms or restrictions are given upon signage displayed upon entry to and throughout this site and brought to the adequate attention of the motorist. The signage is laid out in a simple format to communicate the tariff payable, the terms of parking, and the amount payable if there is a breach. The signage further details other actions we may take.  As per the BPA code of practice states, signs are conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand Having entered onto private land, these terms are accepted, and all vehicles must adhere to them.  This vehicle was seen to enter the drop off zone at 22/05/202218:37and exited at18:40on the same day. Payment is required to be made online or by phone by midnight of the following day. As no payment was received within this timeframe, a parking charge was issued correctly. Upon being issued a notice, the driver made an appeal to APCOA claiming that they made payment of the drop off charge and supplied a payment receipt as evidence. a) The ANPR images provided show the vehicle enter and exit the drop off area. b) A search of the payment system for this location, confirmed that the motorist did pay on the xxxxx, however this payment had been allocated to an unpaid visit from the xxxxxxx, leaving their visit from the xxxxx unpaid and outstanding. c) A payment is allowed to be paid up to midnight on the day after the drop off event. d) Signage clearly indicates that £5 is required per visit to the drop off zone, it is the motorist’s responsibility to confirm that each visit has been paid for. e) On this occasion, the motorist was allowed over 29hours to make a payment. The motorist chose not to do this. f) The driver entered onto private land freely and in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. A tariff and terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. The driver now appeals to POPLA on further grounds. The driver explains that they made a payment on xxxxxx but the payment was made on xxxxx out of the time allowed. A site plan and photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park is included in this pack. The terms and conditions of this car park are: “£5.00 per visit – it advises the motorist to ‘Pay online or by phone, and the website address is also provided: //heathrow.com/dropoff. Included in the signage is a contact number 0330 008 5600’ Signage further advises that ’Payment must be made by Midnight on the day after your visit”. The signage also states a Parking Charge of £80 will be issued for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the site.  It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they have made payment for each visit to the terminal drop-off zone. Considering the above APCOA are satisfied that this notice was issued correctly and should stand.  Heathrow Airport is situated on private land, where the driver enters willingly into agreement of the displayed restrictions and conditions around the Airport; also given on their website.  It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are familiar with and adhere to these whilst entering and remaining on the property. It is the driver’s responsibility to advise their passengers accordingly. <evidence letters sent to me> <evidence of initial appeal to APOCA which is just copies of what I submitted>

Coupon-mad

Please can you show their full photo library of signs at this place that they say are there?  I'm sure they have provided a load of photos and we haven't seen an evidence pack from this notorious place before.

How long exactly was your car shown 'in the zone'?

lrodin

Coupon-mad said:

Please can you show their full photo library of signs at this place that they say are there?  I'm sure they have provided a load of photos and we haven't seen an evidence pack from this notorious place before.

How long exactly was your car shown 'in the zone'?

The car was in the zone for 2 mins 43 seconds.  

I have added the evidence they submitted with some of the dates/times redacted let me know if anything else is helpful

lrodin

here are the images:

Coupon-mad

Brilliant, thank so much, that really helps with my complaint to the BPA.  Really useful!

Say this as your Comments to POPLA:

The signs are incapable of forming a contract and there's no info about how to pay 'online' (at all). Even worse, unlike in the Beavis case, there is no £80 sum in large lettering.

It's impossible to learn about that term. At no point can a driver in moving traffic, switching lanes guided by the overhead info, and carefully avoiding causing an accident in the extremely busy traffic flow, possibly have agreed to pay £80.

The £80 is positively buried in small print on just one very wordy sign. There's no evidence where that sign is or whether the driver had an opportunity to read it. The signs are almost all not lit and there are no terms & conditions signs shown at the drop off bays (at all) which is the only time a driver would stop.

The appellant has also not identified the driver at any point. The keeper trying to pay later online (after speaking to the driver) is not an admission of driving.  The keeper cannot be held liable as this is neither 'relevant land' (POFA) nor is it a byelaws penalty.

The car was there two minutes. There is also no evidence the car did stop and gain any utility from the site, as opposed to just driving through that day.

No consideration period has been allowed. This is not a parking charge, it is an attempt at setting up a 'Toll Road' (immediate £80 punitive ticketing the second the car's wheels cross the ramp threshold) which is not allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules.  It is also disallowed under the BPA CoP, where a consideration period of at least 5 minutes is mandatory.

POPLA cannot find this £80 was properly given, due to insufficient signs and no consideration period.  POPLA should alert the BPA to this unlawful Toll Road farce, because this isn't parking management. POPLA must be drowning in Heathrow appeals this year.

patient_dream

POPLA yes even though now, they are a useless  set up

On the Heathrow web site it say a postal appeal to DRP
DRP, DEBT RECOVERY PLUS  ????

Don't be sucked into this, DRP are simple circus clowns who have no authoriy to offer an appeals service

Just another BPA member who loves to scam ...... Sad BPA

lrodin

Coupon-mad said:

Brilliant, thank so much, that really helps with my complaint to the BPA.  Really useful!

Say this as your Comments to POPLA:

The signs are incapable of forming a contract and there's no info about how to pay 'online' (at all). Even worse, unlike in the Beavis case, there is no £80 sum in large lettering.

It's impossible to learn about that term. At no point can a driver in moving traffic, switching lanes guided by the overhead info, and carefully avoiding causing an accident in the extremely busy traffic flow, possibly have agreed to pay £80.

The £80 is positively buried in small print on just one very wordy sign. There's no evidence where that sign is or whether the driver had an opportunity to read it. The signs are almost all not lit and there are no terms & conditions signs shown at the drop off bays (at all) which is the only time a driver would stop.

The appellant has also not identified the driver at any point. The keeper trying to pay later online (after speaking to the driver) is not an admission of driving.  The keeper cannot be held liable as this is neither 'relevant land' (POFA) nor is it a byelaws penalty.

The car was there two minutes. There is also no evidence the car did stop and gain any utility from the site, as opposed to just driving through that day.

No consideration period has been allowed. This is not a parking charge, it is an attempt at setting up a 'Toll Road' (immediate £80 punitive ticketing the second the car's wheels cross the ramp threshold) which is not allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules.  It is also disallowed under the BPA CoP, where a consideration period of at least 5 minutes is mandatory.

POPLA cannot find this £80 was properly given, due to insufficient signs and no consideration period.  POPLA should alert the BPA to this unlawful Toll Road farce, because this isn't parking management. POPLA must be drowning in Heathrow appeals this year.

@Coupon-mad, thank you so much really appreciated, all submitted.  Fingers crossed.

lrodin

Unfortunately bad news, my appeal to Popla was unsuccessful

I assume no other option now but to pay the PCN?

lrodin

The appeal response below:


Within their original appeal to the operator, the appellant has admitted to being the driver on the date of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability for this case. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have reviewed the signage and the terms state: “Terminal 2 Passenger Drop Off…£5.00 per visit…A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued for failure to pay or comply with the terms and conditions…Payment must be made by Midnight on the day after your visit…Pay online or by phone heathrow.com/dropoff 0330 008 5600…PCN Charges £80…” The operator has provided photographic images of the vehicle on the site at xxxx on xxxx 2022. The operator has provided its payment data log, showing that no payment was made against vehicle registration xxxxxx on the date of breach. The operator has provided a copy of its Contract for Parking Enforcement and Landowner Authority, signed by the landowner and dated 1 October 2021, authorising the operator to manage to car park on its behalf. The appellant has explained in detail that the operator has not complied with the requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and the relevant land under POFA 2012. The appellant goes on to explain that no registered keeper liability has been established and has referred to the POPLA case 6062356150 to support this part of the appeal. The operator has also not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, as per the POPLA case of 6061796103. The appellant goes on to explain further that there is no reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on this ground, advising that the driver has not been admitted at any point. The Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) is used to hold a vehicle’s keeper liable for a PCN where the driver has not been identified. In order for a parking operator to use POFA to hold a keeper liable it must follow the requirements of POFA. I understand that that appellant says the operator has not complied with the requirements of PoFA however, as I have mentioned earlier in my report, the appellant has identified themselves as the driver and therefore, PoFA does not apply in this case. Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has quoted two separate assessments from POPLA, POPLA assesses appeals on an individual basis and is based on the evidence submitted by both parties. As these reports have no bearing on the events surrounding this contravention, I do not consider them relevant to my assessment. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Having considered the parking terms stated at the site, I can see that a payment of £5.00 was required to cover the motorists parking time. According to the data log provided by the operator, the payment was not made until xxxxx, which was three days after the date of the parking event. As such, the payment was not made to cover the motorists stay for the date in question and the PCN has been issued. I have considered the appellant’s screenshot of the payment confirmation and whilst I do not dispute that payment was made, it had to be made by midnight on 23 May 2022 before it could be registered. As such, this evidence does not support that the motorist correctly made payment in accordance with the terms and conditions stated. As part of their detailed grounds within the appeal letter, the appellant has highlighted that the signs do not help form a contract without any consideration capable being offered. In their comments to the operator’s case file, the appellant expands on this point further the signs are incapable of forming a contract and there is no information about how to pay online or at all and there is no £80.00 sum in large lettering, unlike the case of Beavis. The appellant comments further that it is impossible to learn about the terms, as the area is extremely busy and at no point can a driver in moving traffic and the PCN amount is mentioned in small print. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a code of practice, which sets the standards for its parking operators. Section 19.1 of the BPA code of practice states that signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. After reviewing the signage provided, I can see that the terms clearly state that any motorist using the drop-off zone must pay £5.00 and failure to do so will result in the issue of a parking charge. The site map shows me that 20 signs are displayed across the car park, including large signs positioned at the entry point to the area in question, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. I can see that the signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms can be read, including the PCN amount. Whilst I appreciate that the appellant believes that the signage is not clear regarding the parking fee, they have admitted in their original appeal, and subsequently provided evidence of their eventual payment, that they were aware of the need to make payment. As such, it is clear that the motorist was aware of what they were required to do to cover their parking time. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site, against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice, I am of the view that the signage is sufficient in alerting motorists to pay for their parking. The appellant explains that no landowner contract, nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. The appellant has expanded on this ground within their detailed letter. Section 7.1 of the code of practice outlines to operators that they must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before being appointed to manage the land. The written confirmation must be given before the operator starts operating on the land in question and is given the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice and that they have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In respect of landowner authority, the definition of the land in question and the statement provided by the operator does conveys to the site in question and is signed by a representative, on behalf of the landowner. This contract also shows me that the agreement is in place from 1 October 2021 until 30 December 2029, which indicates to me that the operator had the relevant authorisation to issue parking charges on the date of contravention. If the landowner no longer wished for the operator to manage the site, then an earlier end date of would likely to have been stated within the documentation. After reading this evidence, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated. Within their additional comments to the operator’s case file, the appellant has stated that the vehicle was only on the site for two minutes therefore, the driver did not gain utility of the site and no consideration period has been taken into account. I note the appellant has provided such comments however, this section is for providing comments and not for raising new grounds of appeal. As the appellant did not raise any issues with consideration periods as part of their initial grounds for appeal, I am unable to consider new grounds at this stage. The appellant has commented further that POPLA must alert the BPA to the unlawful Toll Road issues, as this is not parking management and POPLA must deal with such appeals on a regular basis. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s further comments, it is only within POPLA’s remit to consider whether a PCN has been issued correctly for the date of contravention. It is not within remit to comment the volume of appeals that are received for the same site, as this has no bearing on the motorists ability to comply with the parking terms on the date in question. Should the appellant wish to raise this matter further, they would have to contact the BPA directly. I have considered the appellant’s detailed letter and whilst I acknowledge the detail they have provided, this does not support that the PCN has been issued incorrectly on this occasion. It is the motorist’s responsibility to agree with the terms and conditions of the car park. As the motorist used the drop-off zone without making a valid payment, the terms and conditions were not met. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

lrodin said:

Unfortunately bad news, my appeal to Popla was unsuccessful

I assume no other option now but to pay the PCN?

Personally I would go for Option A, Do not pay.

A PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist so there is no requirement to pay unless a judge says so.

I know that is how you received the PoPLA decision, but please repost it with some paragraphs as I find it impossible to read that wall of text as it is.