APCOA Popla ANPR Fine Salisbury Train Station Car Park

lewthewho

Interesting yes I was thinking that but you are obviously infinitely more familiar with language/wording to spot that so quickly! 


I find it confusing as on this link -https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf 

(Are you suggesting I quote this document as per your note BPA CoP Annex?). 

It mentioned they shouldn't use the phrase Penalty Charge/PCN/etc) Yet they referred to my appeal as a (Penalty Charge Notice/Excess Charge).


Mentioned: (Appendix G 5.4)

A penalty notice must not:

 • Mention POFA 2012 (as this is not relevant and will confuse the owner about the situation in which they find themselves)
• Mention ParkingEye Vs Beavis (as this is not relevant and will confuse the owner about the situation in which they find themselves)
• Use the words “parking charge”, “parking charge notice”, ‘’Penalty Charge Notice’’ or “PCN” (as this is not relevant and will confuse the owner about the situation in which they find themselves)
• Refer to keeper or driver liability (as this is not relevant and will confuse the owner about the situation in which they find themselves) • Say anything untrue or misleading

Coupon-mad

Yes that's what they've breached, IMHO.

They have said something wholly misleading about the basis of the charge, which CANNOT be argued to fall under contract law (pursued in small claims) whilst also being a penalty which they admit must be pursued in Magistrates' court.  They can't say both. The BPA CoP Appendix G is breached.

lewthewho

Excellent thanks for your feedback, I am going to reply with my evidence 

-Ringgo customer service emails confirming no segment that day or recognised on their system
-Screenshot of app page I took closer to the time showing no session registered or unpaid
-The additional breach of their own policy and misleading pursuit of both contract/penalty. 

Coupon-mad

Ringgo customer service emails confirming no segment that day or recognised on their system
-Screenshot of app page I took closer to the time showing no session registered or unpaid.

What am I missing?  How does that help you?

Also you can't add new evidence at Comments stage.

macklinn

Just received parking ticket for Salisbury train station , I drove in and person was waiting so jumped in car and we carried on , didn’t park and really just drove straight through …. Should I appeal ?

Fruitcake

macklinn said:

Just received parking ticket for Salisbury train station , I drove in and person was waiting so jumped in car and we carried on , didn’t park and really just drove straight through …. Should I appeal ?

Please read the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES then instigate Plan A, a complaint by the registered keeper to the landowner and their MP.

If that fails, then appeal using the template in blue text you will find in the NEWBIES. If the station car park is a railway asset then add a one liner that it is not relevant land because byelaws apply, therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.

If you need further help, please start your own thread by clicking on the Create Post button.

lewthewho

Got my Popla decision back, unsuccessful as you all predicted! I assume now I just do nothing and wait it out?

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Adele Ditchfield

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for use of a private car park without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a word document appeal, this will be summarised only. The appellant says a compliant notice to keeper has not been issued and does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. They say the parking operator have not shown the individual it is pursuing were the driver. The appellant says that railway Land Is not relevant land. The appellant states that APCOA are using railway byelaws for claims which they are not permitted to do. They say only the parking company, or the railway can allege a breach. They say any breach of byelaws is a criminal offence and not a breach of contract. The appellant says the parking operator do not have a valid contract with the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the parking operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws Signs in the car park say: “Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a penalty notice, which may be issued wither manually or by post…Failure to purchase a valid parking session via RingGo, rail ticket vending machine, ticket office or otherwise have authority to park…Charges for breach of these parking conditions: £50 if paid within 14 days…£85 if paid later than 14 days”. The appellant says a compliant notice to keeper has not been issued and does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. They say the parking operator have not shown the individual it is pursuing were the driver. I note these comments however POFA does not apply when a penalty issue has been issued under byelaws. The appellant says that railway Land Is not relevant land. i must refer the appellant to: 3(1)In this Schedule it states that “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— (a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. The appellant states that APCOA are using railway byelaws for claims which they are not permitted to do. They have said the parking operator have confirmed this will be pursued via Magistrates court and is therefore not a breach of contract. They say only the parking company, or the railway can allege a breach. They say any breach of byelaws is a criminal offence and not a breach of contract. I acknowledge these comments however the parking operator is within its rights to pursue the matter further if the penalty is not paid. However, this is outside of our remit to comment, and this is a discussion the appellant must have with the parking operator directly. The appellant says the parking operator do not have a valid contract with the landowner. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. The parking operator have provided evidence that shows they do have a contract with the parking operator, and this was valid on the day of parking. Ultimately, the appellant failed to pay and therefore breached the rules and regulations. It is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the rules and regulations. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to make a valid payment, and therefore did not comply with the rules and regulations. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

B789

Just let it time out after 6 months as it is a Penalty Charge Notice.

OP stated:

"They say only the parking company, or the railway can allege a breach." 

Appeal not proofread or not understood.

Assessor stated:

"The parking operator have provided evidence that shows they do have a contract with the parking operator, and this was valid on the day of parking."

Assessor didn't read it properly or is a thicko.

The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the parking operator can assume is the registered keeper.

Is that actually written anywhere?

Coupon-mad

Just ignore AOCOA. Nearly timed out!

You will get a stupid £170 threatogram or two from DRPLUS.  Laugh at those, but...there is some action you must take (please):

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 that you will endure shortly - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens - anticipated in a few weeks...

NOW ANTICIPATED IN JULY/AUGUST!

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in droves! I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this crap happening again.h

The Public Consultation is coming.  We need the level of parking charges capped (and no enhanced £130/£80 rate in London because that is unjustified). The Ministers are listening and are about to finalise it all to start in 2024

The false added fee "extortion" that rips people off and leads to hundreds of thousands of roboclaims and CCJs per annum, must be outright banned.

macklinn

Coupon-mad said:

Just ignore AOCOA. Nearly timed out

You will get a stupid £170 threatogram or two from DRPLUS.  Laugh at those, but...there is some action you must take (please):

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 that you will endure shortly - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens - anticipated in a few weeks...

NOW ANTICIPATED IN JULY/AUGUST!

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in droves! I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this crap happening again.h

The Public Consultation is coming.  We need the level of parking charges capped (and no enhanced £130/£80 rate in London because that is unjustified). The Ministers are listening and are about to finalise it all to start in 2024

The false added fee "extortion" that rips people off and leads to hundreds of thousands of roboclaims and CCJs per annum, must be outright banned.

So they have cancelled the fine as they had sent me photos to say I parked all day when in fact I visited twice only driving through ,am and pm