We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
FAILED POPLA APPEAL - PCN Apcoa Railway Parking
crustyclown777
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hey All,
I received a Penalty Notice at a Railway Station - I'm the keeper and she was the driver.
Ultimately I used the blue template found in the newbies section, and had to refer it to POPLA as Apcoa refused it.
Yesterday I received the POPLA feedback, which was unsuccessful. I was hoping somebody here with better legal understanding could tell me if their response is accurate, and maybe I should fight back further (somehow)
Any help/insight is greatly appreciated!
POPLA decision feedback:
I will first begin by addressing the appellants grounds of appeal and motorist comments in relation to POFA, which includes, relevant land and keeper liability as a whole. This notice is a penalty notice, and was issued under Railway Byelaws. The operator does not need to have identified the driver, or to have used POFA to make the appellant liable. This penalty notice was issued under the Railway Byelaws, and under these Byelaws, the owner of a vehicle is responsible for the penalty, not the driver, and there is no transfer of liability. The operators evidence confirms that the DVLA provided the appellants details as the registered keeper, and the keeper is presumed to be the vehicle owner, unless the contrary is proved, which it hasn’t been. Therefore, the appellant is liable for this charge. Therefore, any grounds raised by the appellant in relation to POFA have no bearing on this case, and are not applicable. I note that the appellant says they want proof of the Byelaw which was allegedly breached. The Railway Byelaws Section 14(4)(i) states that the owner of any motor vehicle left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) may be liable to a penalty as displayed in that area. 14(1) specifically states that no person in charge of a vehicle shall use the land in contravention of any traffic sign. In this case, the evidence shows that the signs at the car park state that payment of a tariff is required, and the penalty for contravening this is £85. The operator has provided evidence of records for the appellants vehicle registration which show that no payment was made for parking on the date of the event. As such, I am satisfied that a breach of the relevant Byelaw occurred, and liability for the penalty is established. While the appellant says that the sum is a penalty, this is correct and it is intended to be. The sum does not contravene the Consumer Rights Act, and the Beavis case has no relevance, as these relate to contract law. This is not a parking charge notice (PCN) issued for breach of contract, this is a penalty which as above, was issued for breach of the Railway Byelaws, so the Act, or the case referenced by the appellant have no bearing. The relevant law in relation to Byelaws and the sum of a penalty charge is the Sentencing Act 2020. This discusses the Byelaws penalty charges and how much can be sought for breaching specified rules and regulations: “Offence and level of fines… Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and… may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. Level 3 of the standard scale as set out in the Act is £1000. The charge in this case is £85 and is well below the £1000 maximum and is therefore enforceable. I acknowledge the image provided by the appellant and their grounds in relation to how clear the sum of the penalty is on the signage however, the only requirement is that it is stated, which the evidence shows that it is. As above, the tests set out in ParkingEye vs Beavis are not applicable. The appellant has stated that the signs at the car park are not sufficient to form a contract, but again, this notice has not been issued under Contract law, so there is no contract. Of course, the rules for parking do still need to be stated on signs around the car park so that motorists are aware of what they are. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out the standards and requirements that its member operators should meet. Section 19.3 of the Code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park, and these must be conspicuous and legible, so they are easy to see, read and understand. The operator has provided photographs of the car park which shows signs displayed throughout as required. The evidence also shows signs at the entrance which state that charges apply for use of the car park 24 hours a day. Having reviewed the images of the signs, these clearly state that parking is subject to payment of the correct tariff. There are further signs setting out the tariffs, as well as payment reminder signs. The language used on the signs is plain and intelligible. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the signs meet the BPA standard, and it is clear to all motorists using the car park that tariffs apply. The appellant has disputed that the operator has landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code does state that the operator must have written authorisation from the landowner before it begins management of the site. The operator has provided evidence of its contract with the landowner, and while the appellant has referenced Section 7.3 within their appeal, the specific requirements for the contract is between the landowner, the operator, and the BPA. POPLA only needs to be satisfied that authority is in place. The evidence of the contract confirms the operators authority to issue penalty notices, and therefore, the operator is able to pursue payment of this notice. As the evidence shows that the vehicle was parked without valid payment, the rules for parking were breached and I must therefore conclude that the penalty notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
I received a Penalty Notice at a Railway Station - I'm the keeper and she was the driver.
Ultimately I used the blue template found in the newbies section, and had to refer it to POPLA as Apcoa refused it.
Yesterday I received the POPLA feedback, which was unsuccessful. I was hoping somebody here with better legal understanding could tell me if their response is accurate, and maybe I should fight back further (somehow)
Any help/insight is greatly appreciated!
POPLA decision feedback:
I will first begin by addressing the appellants grounds of appeal and motorist comments in relation to POFA, which includes, relevant land and keeper liability as a whole. This notice is a penalty notice, and was issued under Railway Byelaws. The operator does not need to have identified the driver, or to have used POFA to make the appellant liable. This penalty notice was issued under the Railway Byelaws, and under these Byelaws, the owner of a vehicle is responsible for the penalty, not the driver, and there is no transfer of liability. The operators evidence confirms that the DVLA provided the appellants details as the registered keeper, and the keeper is presumed to be the vehicle owner, unless the contrary is proved, which it hasn’t been. Therefore, the appellant is liable for this charge. Therefore, any grounds raised by the appellant in relation to POFA have no bearing on this case, and are not applicable. I note that the appellant says they want proof of the Byelaw which was allegedly breached. The Railway Byelaws Section 14(4)(i) states that the owner of any motor vehicle left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) may be liable to a penalty as displayed in that area. 14(1) specifically states that no person in charge of a vehicle shall use the land in contravention of any traffic sign. In this case, the evidence shows that the signs at the car park state that payment of a tariff is required, and the penalty for contravening this is £85. The operator has provided evidence of records for the appellants vehicle registration which show that no payment was made for parking on the date of the event. As such, I am satisfied that a breach of the relevant Byelaw occurred, and liability for the penalty is established. While the appellant says that the sum is a penalty, this is correct and it is intended to be. The sum does not contravene the Consumer Rights Act, and the Beavis case has no relevance, as these relate to contract law. This is not a parking charge notice (PCN) issued for breach of contract, this is a penalty which as above, was issued for breach of the Railway Byelaws, so the Act, or the case referenced by the appellant have no bearing. The relevant law in relation to Byelaws and the sum of a penalty charge is the Sentencing Act 2020. This discusses the Byelaws penalty charges and how much can be sought for breaching specified rules and regulations: “Offence and level of fines… Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and… may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. Level 3 of the standard scale as set out in the Act is £1000. The charge in this case is £85 and is well below the £1000 maximum and is therefore enforceable. I acknowledge the image provided by the appellant and their grounds in relation to how clear the sum of the penalty is on the signage however, the only requirement is that it is stated, which the evidence shows that it is. As above, the tests set out in ParkingEye vs Beavis are not applicable. The appellant has stated that the signs at the car park are not sufficient to form a contract, but again, this notice has not been issued under Contract law, so there is no contract. Of course, the rules for parking do still need to be stated on signs around the car park so that motorists are aware of what they are. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out the standards and requirements that its member operators should meet. Section 19.3 of the Code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park, and these must be conspicuous and legible, so they are easy to see, read and understand. The operator has provided photographs of the car park which shows signs displayed throughout as required. The evidence also shows signs at the entrance which state that charges apply for use of the car park 24 hours a day. Having reviewed the images of the signs, these clearly state that parking is subject to payment of the correct tariff. There are further signs setting out the tariffs, as well as payment reminder signs. The language used on the signs is plain and intelligible. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the signs meet the BPA standard, and it is clear to all motorists using the car park that tariffs apply. The appellant has disputed that the operator has landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code does state that the operator must have written authorisation from the landowner before it begins management of the site. The operator has provided evidence of its contract with the landowner, and while the appellant has referenced Section 7.3 within their appeal, the specific requirements for the contract is between the landowner, the operator, and the BPA. POPLA only needs to be satisfied that authority is in place. The evidence of the contract confirms the operators authority to issue penalty notices, and therefore, the operator is able to pursue payment of this notice. As the evidence shows that the vehicle was parked without valid payment, the rules for parking were breached and I must therefore conclude that the penalty notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
0
Comments
-
Means nothing. You are dealing with the tea boy at POPLA who, personally, I would have written a "without prejudice" response telling them to go sit on a spike and rotate.
Ignore the muppets at POPLA and just time this out. If it's a "penalty" then it needs to go to magistrate court and the penalty will go to the public purse, not the thieving scammers APCOA. They really are a bunch of bottom dwelling eejits.
Ignore anything except an LBC which won't be coming and with all the tactics available, this will time out after 6 months.1 -
What a load of cobblers, and yet again, proof that PoPLA is not fit for purpose. There is so much dross in that response that it is laughable, and simply not worth anyone's time to point out how wrong the assessor was.
It wouldn't surprise me to know that she/he was one of the assessors who couldn't count to 14 and had to be retrained.
Forget it and get on with your life. It's only APCOA who don't do court, and in any case it will time out after six months.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks3 -
ha ok thanks, it does feel like they're calling my bluff. I'll ignore it, only 2 months to go until it times out.B789 said:Means nothing. You are dealing with the tea boy at POPLA who, personally, I would have written a "without prejudice" response telling them to go sit on a spike and rotate.
Ignore the muppets at POPLA and just time this out. If it's a "penalty" then it needs to go to magistrate court and the penalty will go to the public purse, not the thieving scammers APCOA. They really are a bunch of bottom dwelling eejits.
Ignore anything except an LBC which won't be coming and with all the tactics available, this will time out after 6 months.0 -
Glad to hear. It's a shame that POPLA aren't to be trusted with their responses, they must be pushing a lot of extra cash to these parking companies.Fruitcake said:What a load of cobblers, and yet again, proof that PoPLA is not fit for purpose. There is so much dross in that response that it is laughable, and simply not worth anyone's time to point out how wrong the assessor was.
It wouldn't surprise me to know that she/he was one of the assessors who couldn't count to 14 and had to be retrained.
Forget it and get on with your life. It's only APCOA who don't do court, and in any case it will time out after six months.0 -
They certainly do. That's why the Government is replacing POPLA and the rival (even worse) kangaroo court, the IAS
Look out for the DLUHC's announcement reviving the stalled statutory CoP this month. We'll be all over it here on the forum by the end of July and we need all victims to come here, read up and respond to the Government's final Public Consultation.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Morning All,
Just thought I’d follow up on my original post.
The 6 month mark is coming up - 22.9.23
but I’m now starting to get letters from solicitors, as a form of escalation from ZZPS.
I’m assuming the advice is to ‘do nothing’ still, but just wondering if this type of letter is of interest to some people here.
0 -
No all seen before
1 -
Please please please do this:crustyclown777 said:Morning All,
Just thought I’d follow up on my original post.
The 6 month mark is coming up - 22.9.23
but I’m now starting to get letters from solicitors, as a form of escalation from ZZPS.
I’m assuming the advice is to ‘do nothing’ still, but just wondering if this type of letter is of interest to some people here.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
No worries, I'll do it today. cheers!Coupon-mad said:
Please please please do this:crustyclown777 said:Morning All,
Just thought I’d follow up on my original post.
The 6 month mark is coming up - 22.9.23
but I’m now starting to get letters from solicitors, as a form of escalation from ZZPS.
I’m assuming the advice is to ‘do nothing’ still, but just wondering if this type of letter is of interest to some people here.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards