APCOA Railway Car Park - Penalty Notice

DjangoUnchained

well done for timing it out. i was lucky in that i put my popla appeal in and apcoa withdrew the claim, they probably couldnt be bothered to wade through the six pages of gobbledegook i cobbled together cutting and pasting other appeals.( i think at some point i even referred to it as airport land by mistake).

lily10

I have today received an email from a company called QDR Solicitors headed 'Important Correspondence' - it links to a letter only accessible once I have completed the security questions but there are none. When entering my surname and postcode it produces an error, so I am unable to view the letter.
However, when I looked this company up it appears they are a debt collecting agency ( previously I received debt collection letters from ZZPS) and I suspect it is the next stage on for the APCOA Penalty Notice.
Should I ignore? Should I contact APCOA again? 
Advice would be much appreciated - I thought this had timed out as more than 6 months now from date of 'offence'.

KeithP

lily10 said:

Should I ignore? Should I contact APCOA again? 
Advice would be much appreciated - I thought this had times out as more than 6 months now from date of 'offence'.

Please re-read my post on your thread on 23 January at 3:58PM.

You already know how to deal with debt collectors letters, don't you?
If not, the fourth post of the NEWBIES thread is the place to go.

lily10

Thanks KeithP - I should have looked at the NEWBIES thread again. I panicked slightly.
Although I know now to ignore QDR I still don't know what their letter says as I can't access it.
I'm assuming that if any court action was being progressed they would have to send me papers in the post and not just via email.

Coupon-mad

lily10 said:

Thanks KeithP - I should have looked at the NEWBIES thread again. I panicked slightly.
Although I know now to ignore QDR I still don't know what their letter says as I can't access it.
I'm assuming that if any court action was being progressed they would have to send me papers in the post and not just via email.

That's correct.

Try putting in your old postcode instead. Humour me. Try it.  I think this is about another PCN from years ago and not about APCOA.

badgersarebold

Coupon-mad said:

lily10 said:

Thanks KeithP - I should have looked at the NEWBIES thread again. I panicked slightly.
Although I know now to ignore QDR I still don't know what their letter says as I can't access it.
I'm assuming that if any court action was being progressed they would have to send me papers in the post and not just via email.

That's correct.

Try putting in your old postcode instead. Humour me. Try it.  I think this is about another PCN from years ago and not about APCOA.

Hi lily10,

Just wondering how this has panned out for you? A few weeks ago, I had a similar PN letter from APCOA, claiming that I had not paid for parking at Yeovil Junction. I did, and had the RingGo VAT invoice to prove I had paid. So I appealed, with the invoice from RingGo. I expected a simple, OK, so you paid. Sorry to have troubled you. But....

APCOA rejected my appeal. So I have submitted a second appeal to POPLA, with all the evidence I could muster (photographs about the signage, which is still pretty rubbish), and including the RingGo invoice to show parking paid..

Since submitting my appeal last week, the online progress has gone no further than Received. Nothing in the Progress bar.  Unlike APCOA which supplied a copy of my online appeal submission, POPLA only acknowledges your appeal submission. It does not send you an automated record of what you sent. 

Coupon-mad

Normal for POPLA.  Not that it matters whether people 'win' the appeal or not!

Nobody pays APCOA.

pustit

lily10 said:

Hi
I've just received the POPLA  decision and it was unsuccessful.
I have copied their assessment below.
They are still pursuing me as the registered keeper!
I find it astounding that the car park signs were deemed sufficient.
Anyway...I assume I now just wait until this times out after 6 months.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in detail:

 • APCOA not using POFA 2012 and using Railway Byelaws for claims 

• Misleading and confusing use of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’

 • A change in the alleged breach. • Not relevant Land under POFA 2012 and no registered keeper liability. The appellant has referred to previous POPLA cases to support this ground.

 • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

 • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 

• No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers • Authenticity of photograph and use of technology.

• Mis-presentation of the law used. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: 

• A word document with appeal explained in further detail. • Four photographs of the onsite signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I note the appellant has raised that the land in question does not constitute relevant land and they are not responsible for the PN as the registered keeper. The appellant has raised the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA 2012) in support of this ground. 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. 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. The land is not relevant land and therefore, is subject to railway byelaws. As such, the requirements of PoFA do not apply in this case. 

The parking operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Terms and Conditions of Parking…Acceptance of these terms and conditions of parking is a condition of entry to this car park…Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice, which may be issued either 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 …£85 if paid after 14 days…”

The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log from the date of the parking event. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PN. Having considered the rules and regulations of the site, a payment was required to cover the appellant’s parking time. The parking operator’s data log shows me that no payment has been made and the PN has been issued as a result of this. 

I note the appellant has raised that the operator is using misleading and confusing information of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’, as the parking operator has not considered appendix G of the BPA code of practice paragraph 5, as the terms Penalty Charge Notice must not be used. 

The appellant has gone on to explain that there is a change in the alleged breach as the operator has not mentioned specific byelaw that has been breached under Railway Byelaw 14 and no information has been provided to explain what exactly the breach related to. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, the section in question talks about how the Penalty Charges are issues and not the website this information is explained on. As such, this does not invalidate the issue of the PN in this case as the reason for the issue is correct and therefore, these grounds have no bearing on my decision.

I appreciate the appellant has explained in detail that the site is not relevant land under PoFA, referring to driver liability and the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. I can see the appellant has used previous POPLA cases to support these grounds. First of all, driver liability is not relevant for the reasons I have already stated earlier in my report. Also, POPLA bases its decision on the evidence provided relating to individual contravention. As the POPLA cases mentioned do not relate to this case, it has no bearing on the appellant’s ability to comply with the rules and regulations on the date of breach. POPLA does not cross reference decisions across multiple appeals.

I acknowledge the appellant has referred to the signage as part of the detailed grounds. The British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 19.1 of the Code of Practice states signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.2 states that entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms 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. 

In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, showing that they are around 30 signs are displayed across the car park, including a sign at the entry point. I can see the operator has also provided a site to show the boundaries of the car park, where the signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles. The signs are date stamped 17 May 2023 and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PN charge can be read. I have considered the appellant’s photographs and whilst I note the appellant believes the signage is not clear, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is legible, conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. 

I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the term and a contract would have been formed based on this signage. As the appellant has highlighted as part of their detailed grounds, section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. I can see that the parking operator has provided a copy of a ‘Contract for Parking Enforcement & Landowner Authority’, which outline the rules and boundaries of the car park. This agreement also shows the agreement is in place between September 2018 and September 2024, and is signed by both the landowner and operator. After reading the contract provided, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated. I am also satisfied that the Section 14 has been applied correctly and the motorists’ vehicle was parked on a site that is managed by the operator.

In accordance with my role I will base my decision on the principle of assessing if the PN was issued correctly, against the advertised terms and conditions of the site. The appellant has highlighted about the authenticity of photograph and use of technology, as they say the details on the photographs are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos and requests the operator used a highly advanced camera when capturing the vehicle. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working.

In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to support how the onsite cameras are not reliable. In the absence of such evidence, I am satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR images are reliable. 

The appellant has provided a further ground, stating that the operator has mis-interpretation of the law, stating that the appeal rejection letter used the law of “Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c.22) as a clarification as to the definition of an owner relating to a vehicle in order to enable them to pursue the individual. They say this legislation does not state this definition and this legislation has been misrepresented in order to push the agenda of obtaining funds. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has raised this point, the act allows the government to keeper a register of vehicles and their associated keepers. it also allows this information to be provided to whomever the government concerns relevant. 

POPLA consider that the keeper and owner of the vehicle are one and the same unless proven differently. As such, this statement has no bearing on my decision. I have considered the appellant's detailed document and whilst I appreciate the level of detail included, these details do not invalidate the PN. 

In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail. Whilst I note the appellant’s further comments, I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the penalty notice 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.

Am I misreading those last two sentences?

badgersarebold

pustit said:

lily10 said:

Hi
I've just received the POPLA  decision and it was unsuccessful.
I have copied their assessment below.
They are still pursuing me as the registered keeper!
I find it astounding that the car park signs were deemed sufficient.
Anyway...I assume I now just wait until this times out after 6 months.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in detail:

 • APCOA not using POFA 2012 and using Railway Byelaws for claims 

• Misleading and confusing use of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’

 • A change in the alleged breach. • Not relevant Land under POFA 2012 and no registered keeper liability. The appellant has referred to previous POPLA cases to support this ground.

 • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

 • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 

• No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers • Authenticity of photograph and use of technology.

• Mis-presentation of the law used. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: 

• A word document with appeal explained in further detail. • Four photographs of the onsite signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I note the appellant has raised that the land in question does not constitute relevant land and they are not responsible for the PN as the registered keeper. The appellant has raised the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA 2012) in support of this ground. 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. 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. The land is not relevant land and therefore, is subject to railway byelaws. As such, the requirements of PoFA do not apply in this case. 

The parking operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Terms and Conditions of Parking…Acceptance of these terms and conditions of parking is a condition of entry to this car park…Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice, which may be issued either 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 …£85 if paid after 14 days…”

The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log from the date of the parking event. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PN. Having considered the rules and regulations of the site, a payment was required to cover the appellant’s parking time. The parking operator’s data log shows me that no payment has been made and the PN has been issued as a result of this. 

I note the appellant has raised that the operator is using misleading and confusing information of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’, as the parking operator has not considered appendix G of the BPA code of practice paragraph 5, as the terms Penalty Charge Notice must not be used. 

The appellant has gone on to explain that there is a change in the alleged breach as the operator has not mentioned specific byelaw that has been breached under Railway Byelaw 14 and no information has been provided to explain what exactly the breach related to. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, the section in question talks about how the Penalty Charges are issues and not the website this information is explained on. As such, this does not invalidate the issue of the PN in this case as the reason for the issue is correct and therefore, these grounds have no bearing on my decision.

I appreciate the appellant has explained in detail that the site is not relevant land under PoFA, referring to driver liability and the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. I can see the appellant has used previous POPLA cases to support these grounds. First of all, driver liability is not relevant for the reasons I have already stated earlier in my report. Also, POPLA bases its decision on the evidence provided relating to individual contravention. As the POPLA cases mentioned do not relate to this case, it has no bearing on the appellant’s ability to comply with the rules and regulations on the date of breach. POPLA does not cross reference decisions across multiple appeals.

I acknowledge the appellant has referred to the signage as part of the detailed grounds. The British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 19.1 of the Code of Practice states signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.2 states that entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms 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. 

In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, showing that they are around 30 signs are displayed across the car park, including a sign at the entry point. I can see the operator has also provided a site to show the boundaries of the car park, where the signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles. The signs are date stamped 17 May 2023 and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PN charge can be read. I have considered the appellant’s photographs and whilst I note the appellant believes the signage is not clear, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is legible, conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. 

I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the term and a contract would have been formed based on this signage. As the appellant has highlighted as part of their detailed grounds, section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. I can see that the parking operator has provided a copy of a ‘Contract for Parking Enforcement & Landowner Authority’, which outline the rules and boundaries of the car park. This agreement also shows the agreement is in place between September 2018 and September 2024, and is signed by both the landowner and operator. After reading the contract provided, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated. I am also satisfied that the Section 14 has been applied correctly and the motorists’ vehicle was parked on a site that is managed by the operator.

In accordance with my role I will base my decision on the principle of assessing if the PN was issued correctly, against the advertised terms and conditions of the site. The appellant has highlighted about the authenticity of photograph and use of technology, as they say the details on the photographs are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos and requests the operator used a highly advanced camera when capturing the vehicle. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working.

In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to support how the onsite cameras are not reliable. In the absence of such evidence, I am satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR images are reliable. 

The appellant has provided a further ground, stating that the operator has mis-interpretation of the law, stating that the appeal rejection letter used the law of “Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c.22) as a clarification as to the definition of an owner relating to a vehicle in order to enable them to pursue the individual. They say this legislation does not state this definition and this legislation has been misrepresented in order to push the agenda of obtaining funds. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has raised this point, the act allows the government to keeper a register of vehicles and their associated keepers. it also allows this information to be provided to whomever the government concerns relevant. 

POPLA consider that the keeper and owner of the vehicle are one and the same unless proven differently. As such, this statement has no bearing on my decision. I have considered the appellant's detailed document and whilst I appreciate the level of detail included, these details do not invalidate the PN. 

In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail. Whilst I note the appellant’s further comments, I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the penalty notice 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.

Am I misreading those last two sentences?

pustit said:

lily10 said:

Hi
I've just received the POPLA  decision and it was unsuccessful.
I have copied their assessment below.
They are still pursuing me as the registered keeper!
I find it astounding that the car park signs were deemed sufficient.
Anyway...I assume I now just wait until this times out after 6 months.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in detail:

 • APCOA not using POFA 2012 and using Railway Byelaws for claims 

• Misleading and confusing use of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’

 • A change in the alleged breach. • Not relevant Land under POFA 2012 and no registered keeper liability. The appellant has referred to previous POPLA cases to support this ground.

 • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

 • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 

• No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers • Authenticity of photograph and use of technology.

• Mis-presentation of the law used. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: 

• A word document with appeal explained in further detail. • Four photographs of the onsite signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I note the appellant has raised that the land in question does not constitute relevant land and they are not responsible for the PN as the registered keeper. The appellant has raised the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA 2012) in support of this ground. 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. 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. The land is not relevant land and therefore, is subject to railway byelaws. As such, the requirements of PoFA do not apply in this case. 

The parking operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Terms and Conditions of Parking…Acceptance of these terms and conditions of parking is a condition of entry to this car park…Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice, which may be issued either 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 …£85 if paid after 14 days…”

The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log from the date of the parking event. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PN. Having considered the rules and regulations of the site, a payment was required to cover the appellant’s parking time. The parking operator’s data log shows me that no payment has been made and the PN has been issued as a result of this. 

I note the appellant has raised that the operator is using misleading and confusing information of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’, as the parking operator has not considered appendix G of the BPA code of practice paragraph 5, as the terms Penalty Charge Notice must not be used. 

The appellant has gone on to explain that there is a change in the alleged breach as the operator has not mentioned specific byelaw that has been breached under Railway Byelaw 14 and no information has been provided to explain what exactly the breach related to. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, the section in question talks about how the Penalty Charges are issues and not the website this information is explained on. As such, this does not invalidate the issue of the PN in this case as the reason for the issue is correct and therefore, these grounds have no bearing on my decision.

I appreciate the appellant has explained in detail that the site is not relevant land under PoFA, referring to driver liability and the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. I can see the appellant has used previous POPLA cases to support these grounds. First of all, driver liability is not relevant for the reasons I have already stated earlier in my report. Also, POPLA bases its decision on the evidence provided relating to individual contravention. As the POPLA cases mentioned do not relate to this case, it has no bearing on the appellant’s ability to comply with the rules and regulations on the date of breach. POPLA does not cross reference decisions across multiple appeals.

I acknowledge the appellant has referred to the signage as part of the detailed grounds. The British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 19.1 of the Code of Practice states signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.2 states that entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms 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. 

In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, showing that they are around 30 signs are displayed across the car park, including a sign at the entry point. I can see the operator has also provided a site to show the boundaries of the car park, where the signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles. The signs are date stamped 17 May 2023 and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PN charge can be read. I have considered the appellant’s photographs and whilst I note the appellant believes the signage is not clear, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is legible, conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. 

I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the term and a contract would have been formed based on this signage. As the appellant has highlighted as part of their detailed grounds, section 7.1 of the Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. I can see that the parking operator has provided a copy of a ‘Contract for Parking Enforcement & Landowner Authority’, which outline the rules and boundaries of the car park. This agreement also shows the agreement is in place between September 2018 and September 2024, and is signed by both the landowner and operator. After reading the contract provided, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated. I am also satisfied that the Section 14 has been applied correctly and the motorists’ vehicle was parked on a site that is managed by the operator.

In accordance with my role I will base my decision on the principle of assessing if the PN was issued correctly, against the advertised terms and conditions of the site. The appellant has highlighted about the authenticity of photograph and use of technology, as they say the details on the photographs are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos and requests the operator used a highly advanced camera when capturing the vehicle. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working.

In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to support how the onsite cameras are not reliable. In the absence of such evidence, I am satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR images are reliable. 

The appellant has provided a further ground, stating that the operator has mis-interpretation of the law, stating that the appeal rejection letter used the law of “Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c.22) as a clarification as to the definition of an owner relating to a vehicle in order to enable them to pursue the individual. They say this legislation does not state this definition and this legislation has been misrepresented in order to push the agenda of obtaining funds. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has raised this point, the act allows the government to keeper a register of vehicles and their associated keepers. it also allows this information to be provided to whomever the government concerns relevant. 

POPLA consider that the keeper and owner of the vehicle are one and the same unless proven differently. As such, this statement has no bearing on my decision. I have considered the appellant's detailed document and whilst I appreciate the level of detail included, these details do not invalidate the PN. 

In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail. Whilst I note the appellant’s further comments, I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the penalty notice 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.

Am I misreading those last two sentences?

@pushtit - Hi, i agree, they contradict. Its extraordinary to see this whole hidden world of "dodgy" private carpark operators, and their supposedly "independent" regulatory body, that's more of an enforcer for the operators. Not an appeal body for carpark users

badgersarebold

badgersarebold said:

Coupon-mad said:

lily10 said:

Thanks KeithP - I should have looked at the NEWBIES thread again. I panicked slightly.
Although I know now to ignore QDR I still don't know what their letter says as I can't access it.
I'm assuming that if any court action was being progressed they would have to send me papers in the post and not just via email.

That's correct.

Try putting in your old postcode instead. Humour me. Try it.  I think this is about another PCN from years ago and not about APCOA.

Hi lily10,

Just wondering how this has panned out for you? A few weeks ago, I had a similar PN letter from APCOA, claiming that I had not paid for parking at Yeovil Junction. I did, and had the RingGo VAT invoice to prove I had paid. So I appealed, with the invoice from RingGo. I expected a simple, OK, so you paid. Sorry to have troubled you. But....

APCOA rejected my appeal. So I have submitted a second appeal to POPLA, with all the evidence I could muster (photographs about the signage, which is still pretty rubbish), and including the RingGo invoice to show parking paid..

Since submitting my appeal last week, the online progress has gone no further than Received. Nothing in the Progress bar.  Unlike APCOA which supplied a copy of my online appeal submission, POPLA only acknowledges your appeal submission. It does not send you an automated record of what you sent. 

UPDATE - 27 August 2024
Today I received the following email from POPLA, confirming that APCOA have withdrawn my appeal. Because they have decided not to take my case any further. Which is a relief. But what a palaver getting there..

POPLA's email:
"The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team