APCOA Penalty Notice - POPLA appeal stage - mistake?

Castle

nuoretrapparit said:

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?

Could you please post a copy of the landowner's authority.

Coupon-mad

nuoretrapparit said:

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?

Show is the contract, please.

Which station?

If it's the Govia one it only gives them the right to issue PARKING CHARGE NOTICES and to pursue those (contract law) in the County Court.

nuoretrapparit

Coupon-mad said:

nuoretrapparit said:

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?

Show is the contract, please.

Which station?

If it's the Govia one it only gives them the right to issue PARKING CHARGE NOTICES and to pursue those (contract law) in the County Court.

Yes it is the Govia one, and it talks about 'notice of parking charge' and pursuing it in the county court. 

So this is an invalid point from their side, then? That's useful to know, I will add it to my comments.

nuoretrapparit

Just seen my image didn't post - here it is 

My response to this point will be something like the following, unless anyone knows of an existing templated response (I could not find one)


In response to the Operator's sharing of its agreement with the train operator and landowner, the agreement shared states the Operator is the creditor of ‘all notices of parking charge issued’, with right to pursue these in the county court. As mentioned in my appeal and as subsequently confirmed by the operator, the notices issued to me as Keeper by post are Penalty Notices, not Parking Charge Notices, or Notice of Parking Charge, or any such wording mentioned in the contract. I therefore do not see the relevance of this contract relating to this appeal and strongly challenge the right of the Operator to issue Penalty Notices of this kind on behalf of the landowner, as no contractual agreement exists for them to do so.

Castle

"Govia Thameslink Railway Company Limited" doesn't exist.

fisherjim

As above no such company, its Govia Thameslink Railway GTR, not GTRC!

nuoretrapparit

Can't say I'm surprised at their cluenessness, to be honest. Would you say it's worth pointing out the other problems with the agreement (PCN Vs penalty notice), or just reject its validity based on the incorrect name of the party and leave it at that?

Coupon-mad

nuoretrapparit said:

Can't say I'm surprised at their cluenessness, to be honest. Would you say it's worth pointing out the other problems with the agreement (PCN Vs penalty notice), or just reject its validity based on the incorrect name of the party and leave it at that?

I'd go as far as to say that what I pointed out is a silver bullet. No authority to issue Penalty Notices is surely a killer comment.

nuoretrapparit

Thank you all for your help. This is the text I submitted as comments - not exactly legally polished, but hopefully it gets the point across. 

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, whether POFA compliant or not, 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. Furthermore, the Ask The Police online resource is clear in its judgement 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 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 response to the Operator's sharing of its agreement with the train operator and landowner, neither Govia Thameslink Railway Company Limited nor Govia Thameslink Railways Company Limited, the two landowner entities listed in the agreement, are company names listed on the Companies House register, so I am unclear exactly as to which landowner this agreement even refers to. Furthermore, even if the agreement did contain the name of an existing legal entity, it states the Operator is the creditor of ‘all notices of parking charge issued’, with right to pursue these in the county court. As mentioned in the appeal and as subsequently confirmed by the operator, the notices issued to the keeper by post are Penalty Notices, not Parking Charge Notices, or Notice of Parking Charge, or any such wording. I therefore do not see the relevance of this contract relating to this appeal and strongly challenge the right of the Operator to issue Penalty Notices of this kind on behalf of the landowner, as no contractual agreement exists for them to do so.

In summary, in its response to my POPLA appeal the Operator has either not shown its legal or contractual justification to issue Penalty Notices at all by way of a valid and relevant landowner contract, not responded to issues raised in the Appeal at all (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).

Coupon-mad

I think that's rather too wordy for the assessor to see the silver bullet but cross fingers.

Not that you'll be paying anyway!