POPLA appeal - Evidence from APCOA

LordLee

Hi all.  Need a bit of advice, i've read the FAQ as i'm a relatively newbie to this area of the forum, but can't find any direct advice.

I've appealed a private ticket from APCOA via POPLA and now received their evidence.  My main concern was the notice was not signed which, to my mind without even entering into the rest of the legal stuff, wouldn't bind a contract to begin with, but maybe i'm being naive. 

I appealed on the lack of signature plus the following - 

Mr XXXX further appeals to POPLA advising that the Charge is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. 

Mr XXXX advises that the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. 

Mr XXXX advises that the amount APCOA have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to the company or the landowner. Mr Hollands advises that the signage was not seen before parking, so there was no valid contract formed he does not believe the Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

Mr XXXX advises that the parking charge notice was not signed where indicated and therefore is not valid, it could have been issued by anyone. 

Mr XXXX further advises that it was night, and the sign was not properly illuminated for people to read correctly.

I attached a photograph of the unsigned Penalty Notice with my appeal.

APCOA state that as seen in the section of the BPA code of practice. As shown a signature is not required as the parking attendant reference number is displayed on the Penalty Notice.

Their photographic evidence of adequate lighting was taken the morning after when it was light. 

Does anyone have any advise of specific things I should reply with?  Any help appreciated.

By the way the Penalty Notice from APCOA does mention Rail Byelaw 14. 

troublemaker22

That wasn't a smart appeal.  Looks like you've found an antique on the web that predates the abolition of the "Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss" argument by the Supreme Court in 2015.  Your argument that the PCN needs to be signed is also wrong..

Apart from that it's hard to make sense of your request for help as you haven't shown us any of the relevant material so we know nothing about the Penalty Notice you are appealing against, what you wrote in your appeal or the evidence that APCOA uploaded in support of its case. 

But don't despair because if you lose at POPLA, the result is not binding.  APCOA would need to take the case to court which they rarely (if ever) do. In fact I've never heard of a single case in which they've taken a railway penalty case to court.   

LordLee

Oh dear * embarrassed face palm *

I copied something from here, i think within the FAQs section. It is rather confusing to navigate,

In short I parked in a Southeastern Railway Car park run by APCOA, thought i'd paid on the app. (It didn't work and there is no evidence as to why.)  Next morning the penalty notice was on my car.

I genuinely thought an unsigned notice wasn't legally binding.  So I appealed via POLA on that basis, and including the reasons above. 

APCOA have come back with evidence of signage, all the T&Cs, and of course dismissal of lack of signature.  The signage is very difficult to read at night and to my mind the lighting either wasn't working properly or is inadequate. Their evidence is imagery in daylight the next day.  

I'm one to happily admit when i'm wrong, and whilst private parking companies like APCOA rarely go to court, I am starting to feel like I should hold my hands up and pay. 

Umkomaas

No one ever pays APCOA. APCOA never sues anyone. A penalty notice can only be pursued through the Magistrates Court, only by the Train Operating Company (not an agent like APCOA), and any penalty imposed by the court is thereafter the property of the Exchequer, not the TOC, and certainly not APCOA. 

You will lose the POPLA appeal, because they are finding in favour of APCOA in railway parking penalty cases, aided and abetted by some weasel words and the twisting of Byelaws interpretation (read other APCOA/POPLA/Railway Byelaws cases), but don't let that be a setback, there is no requirement placed on the motorist to pay following a loss at POPLA. Just ignore anything further. Should be all over in 6 months time. 

In the unimaginable circumstance of any legal claim being made against you, come back to us on this thread. 

troublemaker22

Why would you donate to APCOA?  It’s not a charity. If you have money to give away, I can provide you with details of worthy charities. 

fisherjim

You do realise that APCOA want you to make mistakes/not pay for parking/park out of bay etc etc that's how they make money why do you want to support their little scam?

LordLee

Umkomaas said:

No one ever pays APCOA. APCOA never sues anyone. A penalty notice can only be pursued through the Magistrates Court, only by the Train Operating Company (not an agent like APCOA), and any penalty imposed by the court is thereafter the property of the Exchequer, not the TOC, and certainly not APCOA. 

You will lose the POPLA appeal, because they are finding in favour of APCOA in railway parking penalty cases, aided and abetted by some weasel words and the twisting of Byelaws interpretation (read other APCOA/POPLA/Railway Byelaws cases), but don't let that be a setback, there is no requirement placed on the motorist to pay following a loss at POPLA. Just ignore anything further. Should be all over in 6 months time. 

In the unimaginable circumstance of any legal claim being made against you, come back to us on this thread. 

OK thank you.  So forgive my naivety here but should I just not respond to the POPLA email and the APCOA evidence?  Or respond and then ignore?

LordLee

troublemaker22 said:

Why would you donate to APCOA?  It’s not a charity. If you have money to give away, I can provide you with details of worthy charities. 

OK... point taken. 

troublemaker22

I no longer bother with POPLA appeals for APCOA railway penalty cases.  I have, however, just emailed the following to ukcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com

This message is a complaint.  It is not an appeal.    

Xxxxxx is the keeper of the vehicle. He is not obliged to identify the driver and he declines to do so.  If you have a contractual claim against the driver, you should pursue the driver.  There is no presumption in law that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver of the vehicle on any occasion.

Your Penalty Notice contains a thinly veiled threat to bring a private criminal prosecution against my client unless he pays you £100.

I draw your attention to section 21 of the Theft Act 1968:

21 Blackmail.

(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

I also draw your attention to the evidence given to the statutory inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal demonstrating that the threat or use of private criminal prosecution as a means of gaining financial advantage to the prosecutor is wholly inappropriate.

Xxxxxx refuses to pay you any money in response to your penalty notice.

Umkomaas

troublemaker22 said:

I no longer bother with POPLA appeals for APCOA railway penalty cases.  I have, however, just emailed the following to ukcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com

This message is a complaint.  It is not an appeal.    

Xxxxxx is the keeper of the vehicle. He is not obliged to identify the driver and he declines to do so.  If you have a contractual claim against the driver, you should pursue the driver.  There is no presumption in law that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver of the vehicle on any occasion.

Your Penalty Notice contains a thinly veiled threat to bring a private criminal prosecution against my client unless he pays you £100.

I draw your attention to section 21 of the Theft Act 1968:

21 Blackmail.

(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

I also draw your attention to the evidence given to the statutory inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal demonstrating that the threat or use of private criminal prosecution as a means of gaining financial advantage to the prosecutor is wholly inappropriate.

Xxxxxx refuses to pay you any money in response to your penalty notice.

Previously I have suggested OPs throw this at APCOA where there is a thread of private criminal prosecution:

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

troublemaker22

Equally entertaining. Thanks for sharing