Heathrow T2 Drop-Off fine

Coupon-mad

I presume POPLA are letting you email your comments, which means you have no character/word limit which is good!  Below I have used a lot of POPLA's own words from winning cases about signs.

Hope it works for you, if not just IGNORE APCOA.

Your comments need to point out this:

Only ONE SIGN in evidence has £80 on it and all the rest do not mention nor quantify that sum at all.

Even with driving round 3 times in moving traffic in the dark, the car was never anywhere near the single sign that has 'PCN charge £80' buried in small print.  This was never seen.

The first Assessor was wrong to jump to this conclusion (below)  and I respectfully request a different assessor reviews the evidence properly:

"The appellant says that the charge amount of £80 is unclear on the signage but maintains that they did pay for their parking therefore the terms for this part of the process on the date must have been clear to the appellant. I am therefore satisfied that there would have been sufficient time to have read the remainder of the signage pertaining to the charge amount."

Quite simply: No. There are a lot of 'must have' presumptions in that wrong conclusion and this isn't the sort of unprofessional guesswork I expected from Ombudsman Services.

In fact, if you carefully review the evidence, it was impossible to read the (supposed) single sign with £80 on it because it was nowhere near me. Only the signs with '£5 drop off' were seen and I paid, even though I had not dropped any passenger off!

Also, all the signage photos from the operator are shown in daylight. The event took place at night.

APCOA's evidential burden was simply to show POPLA how the signs would look in MY case and to do that, they should have supplied photos in similar lighting conditions (hours of darkness) but they did not.  There is no evidence of lighting on any of the signs except the yellow overhead gantry which only mentions £5 (which it is common ground that I paid).

POPLA is an evidence based service and cannot jump to unfair conclusions about a driver seeing the single unlit cluttered sign that apparently had £80 on it.  To form a contract in the context of parking, all the signs should include words to the effect:

"Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of £80" or alternatively: "by dropping off passengers in this zone without paying £5 within 24 hours, you the driver agree to pay a parking charge of £80".

BUT NONE OF THE SIGNS CREATE ANY SUCH CONTRACT.

Even the single one with £80 on it (in the evidence pack) doesn't set it out as part of a contractual breach or agreement scenario. There was no contract to pay £80. Even if my headlights had picked out a sign - which they did not - the fact is no sign I passed actually had the £80 on it. They all just mentioned £5 as I drive round and round, caught in the maze of the Airport lanes.

The purported £80 parking charge in my case didn't just not stand out, it was entirely absent on every sign except one!

Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises to private parking operators: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs 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”.

I suggest that in view of the above, POPLA should conclude that, unlike the large lettering £5 tariff which is repeated on every sign, the £80 charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the vast majority (nine out of ten) signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis.

The Supreme Court judges made it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100).  The Supreme Court attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage.  While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same.

As such, POPLA surely cannot consider the evidence has rebutted my grounds of appeal about the £80 not being drawn to my attention prominently, or at all.

My final observation about APCOA's evidence:

In good faith (even though I never did drop a passenger off) I paid £5.

This distressing confusing trip was not 'more than one visit' (nor even a drop off). It was simply time spent driving round and round, getting channelled into the wrong lane at speed in the confusing Airport lane layout, and then leaving the area to try the lane approach again.

To be clear, I gained nothing of value from this ridiculous labyrinthine 'zone'.  I went to Heathrow to pick up my wife and planned to pick her up from the arrivals area.  I wasn't dropping anyone off.

Due to poor signs, I accidentally became channelled in moving traffic into the 'drop off' area and the first time I stopped briefly to ask directions from an Airport official. He told me I needed to go to the lower level to 'Arrivals' and so I drove back around. I followed the T2 sign for Short Stay/Arrivals again, and again came to the same confusing area. You can't stop or you would cause an accident. The right lane led to Short Stay parking, and left lane to drop off.  While the signage said Short Stay/Arrivals, the road markings at the end only said Short stay and I thought I missed the road/exit. I went round the 3rd time and noted down how to pay £5 for the time I'd spent trapped in the 'drop off zone' then finally I went through the T3 direction, and eventually it led me the correct way to Arrivals to pick up my wife.

I trust that POPLA should conclude, by applying a level of fairness and common sense, that there is no legitimate interest in APCOA trying to take more than one £5 for these wasted minutes.  It might have been different if I had not paid £5 but I did, despite gaining no utility from the zone.  The time was spent driving round and round and round!

The only reason I was there for a total of 6 minutes on the third time that I became entrapped by the poor signage and lane layout, was to read and note down how to pay £5 within 24 hours.  There is no other way to know once you go home, how to pay and there is no barrier to pay at in situ, and by this time I was trying to work out how to pay my £5 and I wanted to do the right thing.

I took this information down from a sign that was completely silent about any £80 penalty, as the vast majority of them are here. I only agreed to pay £5 because that's all the sign told me.

If it took me a total of 6 minutes to drive in, stop, look around for some sort of payment machine, kiosk or barrier, find there was none and then read and note down the website to pay at within 24 hours (writing all of this down by hand on a scrap of paper in the dark) then to leave the area, then that was surely within the range allowed by the BPA's 'minimum 5 minutes' consideration period.  Perfectly understandable under the specific circumstances and considering the dark conditions and time taken to look around expecting to find a machine somewhere to pay my £5, then to read and carefully note down a website by hand.

KeithP

kumarrk02 said:

Btw, shouldn't the letter have to be received by me within 14 days? They may have am earlier date on the letter, but I received it much later.

That's only necessary if they want to use POFA to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

As you have already told them you were driving, they do not need to rely on POFA at all.

Coupon-mad

You'd have won easily if you hadn't said who was driving! 100% slam dunk win was binned.

Remember that next time and come here BEFORE appealing and certainly never appeal as driver.

Hopefully now rescued with the above comments about the £80 for you to urgently email before POPLA just rubber-stamp the first Assessor's decision, but if not, ignore APCOA.

kumarrk02

Thanks for your help again. Yes, I do feel really stupid for not coming here first. I thought that they should have my details since I already paid the drop off fees...

@Coupon-mad Hope this is fine with you to copy and paste your comments above. My brain is in jelly and cannot think straight. I added the case that APCOA did not detect me driving the 2nd time through T2.

Please see draft below. I will email later today.

@KeithP - Regarding the 14 days, I received APCOA's original/initial PCN after 14 days. I mentioned being the driver in my appeal only. I meant to say that they should notify me regarding my fine within 14 days, and I received my letter much later.

******

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ref:

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to comment on APCOA’s evidence, which I refute for being misleading and unfair.

I have reviewed the evidence and please my comments below:

There were Only ONE SIGN in evidence has £80 on it and all the rest do not mention nor quantify that sum at all.

 

Even with driving round 3 times in moving traffic in the dark, the car was never anywhere near the single sign that has 'PCN charge £80' buried in small print.  This was never seen.

 

I drove through T2 drop off/Short stay car park 3x times, yet the APCOA had only recorded 2 times. The 2nd time, I did not stop and drove off as I could not find the arrival bay, and drove around and drove through T3.  If APCOA had not detected my 2nd trip through the T2 terminal, I highly doubt the reliability of their equipment. Can they explain why my 2nd trip though T2 terminal failed to be recorded?

 

 The first Assessor was wrong to jump to this conclusion (below) and I respectfully request a different assessor reviews the evidence properly:

 

"The appellant says that the charge amount of £80 is unclear on the signage but maintains that they did pay for their parking therefore the terms for this part of the process on the date must have been clear to the appellant. I am therefore satisfied that there would have been sufficient time to have read the remainder of the signage pertaining to the charge amount."

 

Quite simply: No. There are a lot of 'must have' presumptions in that wrong conclusion and this isn't the sort of unprofessional guesswork I expected from Ombudsman Services.

 

In fact, if you carefully review the evidence, it was impossible to read the (supposed) single sign with £80 on it because it was nowhere near me in this area. Only the signs with '£5 drop off' were seen.

 

Also, all the signage photos from the operator are shown in daylight. The event took place at night.

 

APCOA's evidential burden was simply to show POPLA how the signs would look in MY case and to do that, they should have supplied photos in similar lighting conditions (hours of darkness) but they did not.  There is no evidence of lighting on any of the signs except the yellow overhead gantry which only mentions £5 (which I had paid).

 

POPLA is an evidence based service and cannot jump to unfair conclusions about a driver seeing the single unlit cluttered sign that apparently had £80 on it. 

 

To form a contract in the context of parking, all the signs should include words to the effect:

 

"Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of £80" or alternatively: "by dropping off passengers in this zone without paying £5 within 24 hours, you the driver agree to pay a parking charge of £80".

 

BUT NO SIGNS CREATE ANY SUCH CONTRACT.

 

Even the single one with £80 on it (in the evidence pack) doesn't set it out as part of a contractual breach or agreement scenario. There was no contract to pay £80. Even if my headlights picked out a sign, the fact is no sign I passed actually had the £80 on it. They all just mentioned £5.

 

The £80 parking charge in my case didn't just not stand out, it was entirely absent on every sign except one!

 

Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises to private parking operators: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs 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”.

 

I suggest that in view of the above, POPLA should conclude that, unlike the large lettering £5 tariff which is repeated on every sign, the £80 charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the vast majority (nine out of ten) signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis.

 

The Supreme Court judges made it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100).  The Supreme Court attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage.  While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same.

 

As such, POPLA surely cannot consider the evidence has rebutted my grounds of appeal about the £80 not being drawn to my attention prominently.

 

Final observation about APCOA's evidence:

 

I dropped off a passenger once. I paid once for that visit (the third time round) because that was the only drop off.

 

The rest of the time was not 'more than one visit' it was simply time spent driving round, getting channeled into the wrong lane at speed in the confusing Airport lane layout, and leaving the area to try the lane approach again. POPLA should fairly conclude with a level of fairness and common sense that I did not gain any utility from driving round and round 3 times.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

XXXXX

*********************************

Coupon-mad

This isn't correct:

I drove through T2 drop off/Short stay car park 3x times, yet the APCOA had only recorded 2 times. 

APCOA's evidence pack says they did detect you 3 times but let you have that middle one free (probably because you were only a minute or two and didn't stop that second time).

It is also irrelevant to your case about this PCN, which is ONLY about the 3rd visit.

I've just edited what I suggest you put, which has a longer final observation section and some other changes.  It is not quite the same as the version you drafted.

I suggest in the morning, you copy and paste my entire words and don't alter them. Can't promise it will work but I've used phrases POPLA use.

My final draft has also put this mistake right:

"I dropped off a passenger once."

YOU DIDN'T!  Don't copy that!

fisherjim

I find it quite galling that the POPLA assessor makes assumptions that you must have seen this must have seen that, and quotes the T&C's which they had the benefit of studying at length in an office, but a driver has seconds to see while driving and negotiating a confusing route at night.

Maybe the evidence should be placed in front of them for five seconds a couple of times and removed to see how they get on picking through it.

This whole airport set up is a disgrace along with the POPLA outcome.

kumarrk02

Coupon-mad said:

This isn't correct:

I drove through T2 drop off/Short stay car park 3x times, yet the APCOA had only recorded 2 times. 

APCOA's evidence pack says they did detect you 3 times but let you have that middle one free (probably because you were only a minute or two and didn't stop that second time).

It is also irrelevant to your case about this PCN, which is ONLY about the 3rd visit.

I've just edited what I suggest you put, which has a longer final observation section and some other changes.  It is not quite the same as the version you drafted.

I suggest in the morning, you copy and paste my entire words and don't alter them. Can't promise it will work but I've used phrases POPLA use.

My final draft has also put this mistake right:

"I dropped off a passenger once."

YOU DIDN'T!  Don't copy that!

Good morning everyone.

My point regarding the no. of trips wa that I actually drove through T2 3x times, and T3 1x time. So 4x trips around altogether, but they detected only 3.

They missed the 2nd one trip through T2, so the timings could not be reliably used?

APCOA want to show that I paid for the 1st trip, leaving the 3rd one as un-paid, whereas I stated to them that I paid for the 3rd trip as I stopped and used their bay.

I will go though the email and draft as you suggested. I will change 'drop off a passenger' to 'used the parking bay'. Is that ok?

Just arrived at work. Will email them shortly.

Again, many thanks to you and everyone for all your time spent to help me out. Let's hope POPLA does the right thing!

Wish me luck!

Coupon-mad

I will go though the email and draft as you suggested. I will change 'drop off a passenger' to 'used the parking bay'. Is that ok?

No, I've already edited it all to suit.  it doesn't need changing and please bin the first version.  I tweaked quite a few sections.

Please just copy the entire thing in my post (the final version) and get it emailed to POPLA as you only had six days.  You need them to read that!

Don't add anything about them not detecting your visits because they did.  And because it is completely irrelevant to your appeal.

KeithP

kumarrk02 said:

@KeithP - Regarding the 14 days, I received APCOA's original/initial PCN after 14 days. I mentioned being the driver in my appeal only. I meant to say that they should notify me regarding my fine within 14 days, and I received my letter much later.

A parking company has up to six months to get keeper details from the DVLA.
The trade associations - the BPA and IPC - allow their members another month to get a Notice to Keeper to the keeper.
So the parking company has up to seven months to get a Notice to Keeper to the keeper.

The fact that you didn't get the NtK until after 14 days just means, as I said in my earlier post, that they cannot transfer any driver's liability to the keeper. 
At that time they had no way of pinning the claim on the keeper, and had you not told them who was driving you would've been entirely safe.

kumarrk02

KeithP said:

kumarrk02 said:

@KeithP - Regarding the 14 days, I received APCOA's original/initial PCN after 14 days. I mentioned being the driver in my appeal only. I meant to say that they should notify me regarding my fine within 14 days, and I received my letter much later.

A parking company has up to six months to get keeper details from the DVLA.
The trade associations - the BPA and IPC - allow their members another month to get a Notice to Keeper to the keeper.
So the parking company has up to seven months to get a Notice to Keeper to the keeper.

The fact that you didn't get the NtK until after 14 days just means, as I said in my earlier post, that they cannot transfer any driver's liability to the keeper. 
At that time they had no way of pinning the claim on the keeper, and had you not told them who was driving you would've been entirely safe.

Thanks, got it.