APCOA - Railway Ticket.

TheFitch29

Hi Guys,

A little but down the path and probably as you'd imagine - Wished I had discovered these pages and played this completely differently. 
But we are where we are and I could do with your combined wisdom.

To summarise: I parked at Chislehurst Railway station, paid on the APCOA app for '1 Day' and was on my way.
Got a ticket because '1 day' is actually governed by as session time. My 1 day of parking ended at 4am the next morning and my car was still there till 11AM. (Thought that was fine after paying for 1 Day at roughly 7pm the night before - Plenty of time right?)

Appeal to APCOA and as you imagine, got nowhere. Appealed to POPLA to no avail.

Got until the 30th of August 2023 before APCOA Pass it on to debt collectors apparently.

Any advice on how to play this going forward would be handy.

POPLA's website is rubbish so I can get access to my initial appeals and APCOAS evidence. Best I can do is post they're judgement wording before.

Just incase anyone is unsure - The signs at this car park are pants. Closest one to my car (which was opposite the station platform entrance) was about 50 yards away... behind a construction fence. With the 'session times' in tiny letters.
Fairly sure I haven't admitted who was driving either; referred to the vehicle parked, but not by whom.

What I find really annoying is the POPLA adjudicators assumption that I must've seen the signs. Took me 10 minutes to find them after I'd received the ticket.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Taylor-Jade Ryan

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the penalty charge due to failure to purchase and/or display a valid parking ticket or parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They were led to believe that 1 days parking, would allow them to park for 1 day • It only permitted them to park for 9 hours • This was not clearly stated when purchasing parking on the app • Signage is limited and not easily accessible • It is devious parking enforcement After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. Images of a sign on site 2. Confirmation of their parking session The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

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 operator can assume is the registered keeper. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. The parking operator has provided images of the signs that are placed throughout the car park which contain the rules and regulations of parking at this site. I appreciate the appellant states the signage was limited and not easily accessible but, I am satisfied the signs were prominent and were seen by the appellant as they made payment for a day’s parking. On review of the signs, it explains that the parking day runs from 04:00am to 03:59am the following day, and daily tickets expire at 03:59 hours on the day after purchase. The evidence provided by the appellant of their parking confirmation receipt also confirms that the session expired at 03:59 on 26 May. Therefore, I cannot agree that this was not made clear to them when purchasing the parking tariff on the app. The vehicle was observed at 11:02 on 26 May when the parking session had expired. As no additional parking time was purchased, the vehicle was in breach of the rules of the site and became liable in receiving a penalty charge. The signs are clear that in the event a breach of the rules occurred, a penalty charge of £100 would be issued. As such I cannot agree the enforcement in place is devious. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the penalty charge in accordance with the rules and regulations of the privately operated car park. As they have not been met on this occasion, I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the penalty charge, and the appeal is refused.

YankeeBrit

Pity you threw away the easy option by giving away who was driving. Doesn't really matter though. You just need to string this out for 6 months from the date of the event. You could still try Plan A.

Unless APCOA pass the penalty to the landowner for them to prosecute in a Magistrate court (almost unheard of) then it will just time out. It's all explained in the Newbies/FAQ thread.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore it.

TheFitch29

Anyone able to explain how this Railway Byelaw loophole actually works? 
If I understand it right, after 6 months, they legally cannot pursue it in court anyway? 

Is it that simple?

YankeeBrit

Yes.             

TheFitch29

Fair enough.

Any advice on how to string it out from now until the 6 month expiry date?

From the 30th the 'debt collectors' get involved. Will the standard response of 'Go forth and multiply' work until it expires?

Umkomaas

Any advice on how to string it out from now until the 6 month expiry date?

Leave every reply to them to the last minute. Ask single, inane, questions, one at a time. Think 'doh' kind of Qs. Tie them up, then follow that one up with another. You take control of the agenda.

Coupon-mad

TheFitch29 said:

Fair enough.

Any advice on how to string it out from now until the 6 month expiry date?

From the 30th the 'debt collectors' get involved. Will the standard response of 'Go forth and multiply' work until it expires?

Stop taking the bait.

You won't be paying.  Just ignore it all.

It's not a loophole.

TheFitch29

Progress...

Just received this through the post.

Now I have no intention of paying anyway - But this is interesting.

Notice to Owner and they list themselves as a creditor. Can they class themselves as a 'creditor', seeing as they haven't actually extended 'credit' in anyway.

On the reverse it states that the registered keeper is legally liable - Sounds like BS to me. How could you hold someone who didn't commit the 'offence' liable?

Lastly - I've already appealed to them direct and then to POPLA, and they're now allowing us to appeal AGAIN.
Looks like they're grasping at straws

1505grandad

The above NTO states  -  "...car park on 10 July 2023 at 11.14.

Your op states  -   "The evidence provided by the appellant of their parking confirmation receipt also confirms that the session expired at 03:59 on 26 May.

Are there TWO parking events now on this thread?

Umkomaas

Send APCOA this - let's see how they respond. 

Dear APCOA

Unequivocally, the Penalty Notice will remain unpaid, therefore please serve private criminal prosecution proceedings without delay so your entitlement to do so can be tested. Please confirm that you are the Train Operating Company.

Yours sincerely