Successful Appeal, Great Western GWR Swindon Station APCOA

russm1981

Appealed on multiple grounds as attached.  Including railway byelaws etc.

In the end they upheld on basis of the size of the £ charge on the sign.  Feels like they were attempting to just sidestep all the other issues around land ownership and byelaws to avoid determining on those.

Attached my appeal submission, then my comments on APCOA evidence and the POPLA decision as replies below

russm1981

POPLA DECISION

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Aimee Moulton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for use of a private car park without making valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: - The operator offers autopay which means that if registered for this, there is no requirement to buy a ticket. - They use autopay for another vehicle which they own and drive, so they set it up for this vehicle too before the parking event. - That day, they checked the website and noticed that the vehicle was not registered. - They were doing this on behalf of the driver, so they do not accept personal responsibility for the charge. - They tried to register again, but there were technical issues and sometimes the page was blank, and other it showed their previous subscription. - They emailed the parking operator to ask what they should do, and received no reply. - They provided evidence of the issues within their initial appeal, and they now have a video. - The appellant says that it has now come to their attention that the land is not relevant land as it is subject to Railway Byelaws, so the operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to hold the keeper liable. - Although they were travelling, they had made no statement about who was driving. - The operator has addressed correspondence to them, when it should have addressed the keeper. - Only the landowner can take action, and only against the driver. - There has been a breach of the DVLA KADOE contract. - The vehicle was being used to transport their father who has cancer, and he qualifies as a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010, and no reasonable adjustments were provided. - If the operator disputes that POFA can be used, the notice was not given within the relevant period as required. - The notice did not refer to Railway Byelaws as required. - They require evidence of the operators landowner authority, in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. - The signage at the car park is not prominent or clear. - The sum of the charge is not clear on the signs, like the test set out in ParkingEye vs Beavis. - They plan to complain to the landowner, and the DVLA. The appellant has also provided comments after reviewing the operators case file. The appellants documents includes screenshots of the operators website.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal however, I will be focusing on their grounds of appeal relating to the sum of the charge on the signs. They say that adequate notice of the sum of the charge is not given, and the sum of the charge in this case did not stand out as set out in the test in ParkingEye vs Beavis. In this case, the Court did find that the parking charge was enforceable, but it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage, making motorists fully aware of the consequence of failing to comply. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at this car park, and the sum of the charge is stated at the bottom of the sign in small text and it does not stand out on the signage, and therefore isn’t adequately brought to the attention of motorists. This ground of appeal does make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. As the appeal has been allowed, the further grounds and evidence provided do not require consideration.

russm1981

ORIGINAL APPEAL SUBMISSION

russm1981

COMMENTS ON APCOA EVIDENCE

KeithP

Well done, but why do we now have three threads about the one parking incident?

Grizebeck

Far to much time spent on that.....

B789

russm1981 said:

Feels like they were attempting to just sidestep all the other issues around land ownership and byelaws to avoid determining on those.

What did you expect them to do? They found in your favour on one point which was enough and all that was needed. They never cover other points if there is a winning one. Well done, obviously a lot of effort on your part, but just get on with your life now, it's over.

Coupon-mad

Well done!  😀