APCOA Penalty Notice - POPLA appeal stage - mistake?

nuoretrapparit

Hi MSE-ers,

I received a penalty notice (not a PCN) from APCOA for parking at a railway station car park without paying (the driver did actually pay later in the day, but I did not include this in the appeal). 

I followed the advice from various APCOA threads and appealed on the grounds of non-POFA compliance and non-relevant land, and APCOA have come back with the attached.

Am I missing something, or is what they have written completely wrong? I was under the impression that at railway stations and airport land, the keeper cannot be held liable, and the keeper can certainly not be assumed to be the owner...

Can I go back to POPLA with the easiest appeal ever, or have I made a mistake?

nuoretrapparit

PS - I have not said or implied who was driving at any stage.

KeithP

The first few lines on the first image you have shown us are at odds with the clear statement on the front of my vehicle's Registration Document(V5c)...

Gr1pr

There is no proof of ownership, or of who was driving 

You appealed as the registered keeper, because your details are on the V5C document 

The V5C is not proof of ownership, it says so on the front 

Never take what APCOA say as gospel, they speak with forked tongue 

POFA schedule 4 doesn't apply on railway land, so liability cannot be transferred from driver to Keeper by trying to use it, so there is no keeper liability 

You keep going, rebutting what you can, because at the end all you are actually doing is getting it past the 6 months deadline 

nuoretrapparit

Thanks both - sounds good. Just wanted to check I hadn't missed a legal subtlety or something - good to know it's just APCOA not knowing their stuff as usual. Appeal on the last day pointing this out it is then

LDast

Try asking a question in your appeal so that they have to get back to you and continue to stretch this out.

nuoretrapparit

Just to update for anyone in the same position - I am at the operator comment stage of the POPLA appeal.I appealed on various grounds, some of which APCOA have effectively countered with evidence (landowner permission, for example) but most of which have been essentially ignored in the comment stage, particular the owner/keeper ground. We'll see what happens but I'm prepared to just wait it out.

KeithP

nuoretrapparit said:

Just to update for anyone in the same position - I am at the operator comment stage of the POPLA appeal.I appealed on various grounds, some of which APCOA have effectively countered with evidence (landowner permission, for example) but most of which have been essentially ignored in the comment stage, particular the owner/keeper ground. We'll see what happens but I'm prepared to just wait it out.

Do you mean that you are not going to point out to PoPLA those points that APCOA have ignored?
Not sure that's a wise move. 
PoPLA need to be led by the nose to those winning points.

But maybe I've misunderstood you.

nuoretrapparit

KeithP said:

nuoretrapparit said:

Just to update for anyone in the same position - I am at the operator comment stage of the POPLA appeal.I appealed on various grounds, some of which APCOA have effectively countered with evidence (landowner permission, for example) but most of which have been essentially ignored in the comment stage, particular the owner/keeper ground. We'll see what happens but I'm prepared to just wait it out.

Do you mean that you are not going to point out to PoPLA those points that APCOA have ignored?
Not sure that's a wise move. 
PoPLA need to be led by the nose to those winning points.

But maybe I've misunderstood you.

You have misunderstood me. I intend to do just that. Something like the following - needs tidying up a bit, but this is the meat of it. I don't expect to win at POPLA to be honest as there is no signage issue at the car park in question

In response to the Operator’s claim of keeper liability, I refer back to my original statement that the keeper of a vehicle cannot be held liable for any penalty notices issued, as the front of a logbook states that keeping a vehicle does not prove ownership. The Operator cites Section 22 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act (1994), which as can be seen from this link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/section/22 contains no mention of the word ‘owner’, nor contains any mention, whether explicit or implied, that keeping a vehicle is proof of ownership. The Operator's assertion of this point, with the prefix ‘For further clarification’, is not supported by the legislation in question, nor by any case precedence. Furthermore, the Ask The Police online resource is clear that keeping a vehicle does not prove ownership, as can be seen on the following link: https://www.askthe.police.uk/faq/?id=848f20b4-13db-eb11-bacb-0022483f5223#:~:text=The registered keeper should be,who is paying for it. 

In response to the Operator's supply of multiple photos of the signage, no mention of signage, whether clear or otherwise, was mentioned in either Appeal, whether to the Operator or to POPLA. The irrelevant inclusion of these images therefore suggests a cut-and-paste approach from the Operator regarding the pursuit of this Penalty Notice.

In response to the Operator's inclusion of correspondence to show consistent terminology was used, this is limited to correspondence sent to me as the Keeper, for which no dispute was raised in the Appeal. The Appeal text, had the Operator deigned to read it properly, mentions and provides screenshot proof of the fact that the online platform mentions Parking Charge Notices, and this is where the confusion arises.

In summary, the Operator has either not responded to issues raised in the Appeal (for example, Authenticity of photograph and use of technology; Misleading and confusing use of the term ‘Penalty Notice’ and ‘Parking Charge Notice’), repeated their erroneous reasoning for the mistakes made in their pursuit of this charge (No registered keeper liability, Mis-presentation of the law used), or included irrelevant and timewasting documentation for points that were not even raised in the original appeal (multiple photos of the signage at the station).

nuoretrapparit

Ps - one area they appear to have dealt with is the landowner authority, they have supplied a contract with the railway operator including a clause giving APCOA the right to pursue in court. Does anyone know of any points I can raise to contradict this?

Grizebeck

Don't worry it will time out soon enough