Help needed for APCOA evidence response to open Popla case

kknb0800

Hello,

I received a penalty notice from APCOA for failing to pay the parking charge back in July at St Albans railway station.

I wasn't the driver but the person paying for the session did so through the APCOA connect app which at the time, showed a valid session start after payment had been made. It turns out that despite the app showing a valid session commence, payment had actually failed, something which the app did not report back to the user.

Using information from this forum and mostly from a previous successful appeal for the same issue, I appealed to APCOA which, as expected, was rejected. I then waited for the maximum time permitted to submit a POPLA case. APCOA have responded and I have until Tuesday to respond. They have confirmed that a payment attempt was made but it had failed. This, to me, adds credence to my case but they failed to acknowledge that the app returned the wrong response to the user. They can see that the intention to pay for the parking was there. Reading through the threads, this does not appear to be an isolated case.

I could really use some guidance as to the points I should press upon. The app was clearly to blame which I will continue to state in my response but beyond that, I'm not sure what else I should be referencing. Any help would really be appreciated.

APCOAs statement is as follows:

"The terms and conditions set and displayed for this car park, clearly state that: 

This car park is Railway Land operated by Govia Thameslink Railway GTR, where APCOA have been issued landowner authority to enforce on their behalf against any vehicle parked in breach of their terms set.

A tariff and terms and conditions are offered upon signage displayed and brought to the adequate attention of the motorist. The signage is laid out in a simple format to communicate the tariff payable, the terms of parking, and the amount payable if there is a breach. The signage further details other actions we may take. As per the BPA code of practice states, signs are conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

Having purchased parking or by remaining in the car park, these terms are accepted, and all vehicles must be parked in line with them. 

Terms and conditions are displayed upon entry to this site, within, adjacent to all pay and display machines and along all exit routes. 

At the time this notice was issued, this vehicle was monitored by ANPR to have entered the car park on 22/06/2023 at 18:16 and to exited at 21:48 that day, remailing on site for over 3 hours, having parked without a valid parking session as instructed. 

The appellant appealed to APCOA stating that the app advised that the session had begun. 

The appeal was rejected as: 

a) A valid payment allocated to the VRM in question was not detected by the ANPR cameras for this vehicle to be parked on the day in question through the Connect online payment system. 

b) As this site is monitored by ANPR, payment must be made as instructed upon the tariff board displayed within. The payment must be allocated to the VRM of the vehicle being parked for the duration of the stay. 

c) The contravention is ‘Use of Private Car Park without making a valid payment’. The vehicle was on site for over 3 hours over the allowed 20 minutes to drop off and pickup. As the vehicle was on site for over 3 hours, a payment to park should have been made. 

d) Payments at this location can be made via ScanPay or APCOA Connect. The options available via Connect are; App, AutoPay, Phoneline, Web and LatePay. The LatePay function can be utilised up to 24 hours after a vehicle initially arrives on site. 

e) Upon checking the Connect system, we can see that a payment was attempted on the date in question. However, this payment failed.   

f) We can confirm that 576 payments were made for this site for the date in question. 4 payments were taken via Autopay, 24 payments were made via the phoneline, 19 payments were made via LatePay, 523 payments were made via Smartphone and 6 payments to park were made via the Web. The below date has been obtained via the payment system and shows payments made during the parking event. Taking all of this into account, we cannot accept that there was an issue with the payment systems. There are several reasons why a payment to park could have failed, including loss of signal, the user requiring an updated version of the App or user payment authorisation.

g) The appellant mentioned PoFA 2012. We can confirm that this Penalty Notice was not issued under the conditions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This is a Penalty Notice issued on Railway land as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking has occurred, DVLA confirmed to us that the appellant is the registered keeper and therefore liable for this Notice. 

h) It is the driver’s responsibility to source, read and understand the terms of parking displayed prior to leaving their vehicle unattended. The vehicle should have left the parking location if this was not possible. The motorist has appealed to POPLA on no further grounds. The vehicle entered onto private land in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Signage at the site is adequate, and a tariff and terms of parking are given. For the reasons given above, APCOA believe this notice was issued correctly, and should stand. "

The document uploaded to POPLA by APCOA is below and has the original appeal contained within.

hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1quEUK5JjSyQ_neFGoC6ge-3VFOQjNVPA/view?usp=drive_link

The wording I submitted to POPLA is here: hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1AF7qtA5nQX70r-2TQdS116eMchCPzb7x/view?usp=drive_link

Many thanks!

Fruitcake

First of all, don't worry about this. APCOA have yet to take anyone to court and I doubt they will start with a case involving a single PN.

They have helpfully mentioned that an attempt at payment was made, but failed. They have listed several reasons why this might have happened but failed to mention it could have been caused by a faulty payment system. Just because they allege nobody else had a problem doesn't mean there wasn't a fault with their system. You should state that they have failed to provide definitive proof that no fault occurred, especially since they can see an attempt at payment, but no warning given to the motorists that it had failed. This isteslf is proof of a system failure. A fully operational system would have generated a warning to the motorist.

Your major point however is that they admit the PN was not given in accordance with the PoFA 2012, and they admit the site is not relevant land where byelaws apply, meaning the keeper can never be held liable.
Reiterate that the keeper was not the driver, and PoPLA are aware no such assumption can be made.

You should also complain to the BPA and your MP that the operator stated that the DVLA confirmed that the keeper is "liable for this Notice". This is a blatant lie. A complaint should also be made to the DVLA about this.

KeithP

APCOA have made a mistake with this...

...DVLA confirmed to us that the appellant is the registered keeper and therefore liable for this Notice.

Railway Byelaws use words that indicate the vehicle's owner may be liable. They make no mention of any Registered Keeper's liability.

The front to of my vehicle's Registration Document(V5c) has these words across the front...

kknb0800

Thank you both for taking the time to respond. You're guidance is invaluable.

I've drafted my response below. I'm not sure whether or not, in point 4, to mention that I'll be complaining to the BPA and my MP. I've also added that I'd be reporting them to the DVLA for intentionally misquoting them. Is this OK or should I just say that their statement is a lie?

In response to the evidence pack submitted by APCOA, I would like to make the following points:

1. APCOA have confirmed that payment was attempted. This itself, shows the intention of the user to pay for the session. They have listed several reasons why payment may have not been successful but failed to mention it could have been caused by a faulty payment system. Just because they allege multiple successful payments where made is wholly irrelevant as it cannot, in any way, imply there was no fault with their system. APCOA have failed to provide definitive proof that no fault occurred, especially since a payment attempt was recorded on their system, but no warning given of this fact. This itself is proof of system failure. A fully operational system would have generated a warning to the user in order to retry payment.

2. APCOA admit the Penalty Notice was not given in accordance with the PoFA 2012 and they admit the site is not relevant land where bylaws apply. This means the keeper can never be held liable. I am stating once more that the keeper was not the driver and furthermore, no such assumption can be made. 

3. Railway bylaws use words that indicate the vehicle's owner may be liable. There is no mention of any Registered Keeper liability. As stated very clearly across the front of my Registration Document (V5c), "This document is not proof of ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle."  

4.APCOA have stated that:

    

"DVLA confirmed to us that the appellant is the registered keeper and therefore liable for this Notice"

    

I shall be submitting a complaint to the BPA for this seemingly blatent lie. I will also report APCOA to the DVLA and my local MP for St. Albans making them aware of this as I fear other motorists could be victim of the same lie, solely intended to misinform.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheldand for POPLA to inform APCOA that the penalty notice is dismissed.

Yours faithfully

KeithP

That looks good.

Just one small point... perhaps this sentence could be made clearer with the addition of a few words to become "There is no mention in Railway Byelaws of any Registered Keeper liability".

kknb0800

Great, I'll make the change and submit. I'll report back with the outcome.

Thank you once again. 

KeithP

And for interest, here are the Railway Byelaws.
It's Byelaw 14 that deals with parking....

www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws

Fruitcake

That looks okay to me, but do follow up with all the complaints.

kknb0800

Fruitcake said:

That looks okay to me, but do follow up with all the complaints.

Thanks. Submitted and I will be sure follow up with all complaints👍

Le_Kirk

I shall be submitting a complaint to the BPA for this seemingly blatent blatant lie. I will also report APCOA to the DVLA and my local MP for St. Albans making them aware of this as I fear other motorists could be victim of the same lie, solely intended to misinform.

If you haven't sent it yet, maybe correct this spelling error.

kknb0800

Le_Kirk said:

I shall be submitting a complaint to the BPA for this seemingly blatent blatant lie. I will also report APCOA to the DVLA and my local MP for St. Albans making them aware of this as I fear other motorists could be victim of the same lie, solely intended to misinform.

If you haven't sent it yet, maybe correct this spelling error.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd already submitted it but I did run it through a spell check, which picked it up, before sending.