Process help please for getting to apeal on a APCO Notice to Owner

Cashby

Window PCN received from APCOA on 28/9/24
Appealed Via APCOA website on 22/10/24 as not the driver
Notice to Owner arrived 06/12/24
Owner now trying to appeal on APCOA website as sated in letter however website states
” You have already challenged this PCN/ECN and we replied on Mon, 4 Nov 2024. You cannot challenge twice’
Their email response did not contain a reject of the appeal, just that they would seek to get the details of the owner, so I do not have an appeals number.

So how is this ‘Notice To Owner’ appealed please?

Coupon-mad

Via the complaints route.

They have a published complaints policy and you can lodge a complaint that a keeper is being denied their right to appeal on receipt of the NTK and has also not been provided with a POPLA Code either.

Cashby

Coupon-mad said:

Via the complaints route.

They have a published complaints policy and you can lodge a complaint that a keeper is being denied their right to appeal on receipt of the NTK and has also not been provided with a POPLA Code either.

Thanks.
Do I need to put my appeal to them in writing to as they have offered an address?

LDast

It’s a fake Penalty Notice. Tell them that you refer them to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Nothing will happen. Ignore the debt collector letters and it will all blow over.

Coupon-mad

Cashby said:

Coupon-mad said:

Via the complaints route.

They have a published complaints policy and you can lodge a complaint that a keeper is being denied their right to appeal on receipt of the NTK and has also not been provided with a POPLA Code either.

Thanks.
Do I need to put my appeal to them in writing to as they have offered an address?

No.        

Cashby

LDast said:

It’s a fake Penalty Notice. Tell them that you refer them to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Nothing will happen. Ignore the debt collector letters and it will all blow over.

That’s funny
however, sorry to be a pain, how can you be sure that that it will all blow over? This was invoice from a Railway Station issue.

Coupon-mad

We are sure due to over a decade of experience of this industry.

Nothing EVER happens with APCOA PCNs and if it's headed 'Penalty Notice' then it will simply time out after 6 months.

ChirpyChicken

As above it will time out after 6 months.
End of.

ChirpyChicken

Everything is a set process with set letters in a set order
No one is special.
No one is different. 
No case is unique.

LDast

Because it is a fake Penalty Notice. It is an "offered contract" that uses unlawful language. If the motorist does not pay the bribe, the only way APCOA can do anything about it is to prosecute him through the magistrates' court. That would be expensive and even if successful, not a penny would go to APCOA. It would go to the public purse. Do not imagine for a moment that APCOA has any altruistic desire to spend their profits on such an outcome.

If APCOA wanted to criminally prosecute the driver in court, they would have to do so by laying the information to the court that they are intending to prosecute the defendant for beaching a specific subsection of railway bylaw 14 under bylaw 24(1).

The private prosecutor for APCOA would need to persuade the court that it believed it serves the public interest and that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. A minor parking violation is unlikely to be seen as a serious offence unless it causes significant disruption, danger, or financial loss. Even the DfT has stated that it expectes breaches of bylaw 14 to be dealt with outside of the criminal procedure under bylaw 24.1. I.e. through the civil Parking Charge Notice route.

Parking offences were decriminalised in 1991. Only Train Operating Companies (TOC) still have the powers to criminally prosecute under railway bylaws and even then there would face an uphill struggle to get a conviction if defended properly. The burden of proof in a criminal matter must be beyond a reasonable doubt rather than the more lax balance of probability in the civil court.

If APCOA were able to convince the court that they were serving the public interest and they had a realistic prospect of conviction, the court would need to issue a summons (in the case of a private prosecution such as this) and they would have to state under which subsection of bylaw 14 they were intending to prosecute. Does your Penalty Notice actually state which subsection of bylaw 14 has been breached? I'll bet it doesn't.

This leads to another problem for APCOA. In a recent example where a motorist received a real Penalty Notice from a TOC for a minor parking offence, an SJP charge was issued claiming that the "owner" was being pursued for a breach under railway bylaw 14.2.

Offences under 14.2 can only be committed by the person in charge of the vehicle. But 14.4 extends that liability to "the owner".

14.4 In England and Wales

(i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14.1 to 14.3 may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

The statement of facts said that the TOC applied to the the DVLA for details of the "rightful owner" and in reply they are said to have received details of the "registered owner". The DVLA does not keep details of vehicle owners - "rightful", "registered" or otherwise - and nor, so far as I know, does anybody else.

On advising the recipient to defend this, at trial, the TOC will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was the owner of the vehicle on the relevant date. I don't see how they can do that and (assuming they have not) at the closure of their case he can ask the court to consider that there is "no case to answer." If that is successful, where and in what manner the car was parked will not be relevant.

Having reviewed the Byelaws, there are only three mentions of the word “owner” and none of them are defined. The court could decide on its own definition of "owner". But the TOC clearly state that they got details of the "Registered Owner" from the DVLA. This is nonsense because the DVLA do not hold that information. All they have are details of the Registered Keeper and his offence can only be committed by either the person in charge of the vehicle or its owner.

Even if ownership could be proved, it introduces problems. Mrs B789 and I own our car jointly. It was bought with joint funds, paid for from a joint bank account and we have a bill of sale in joint names. Even in the unlikely event they could establish this, who would the TOC prosecute in our circumstances? Both of us?

It is surprising that the TOC should use the terms "Registered Owner" and "Rightful Owner" - or indeed "owner" for these purposes at all. They should be aware that they cannot obtain the details of the owner of a vehicle very easily - if at all. In this case, APCOA are doing the same thing.

Finally, as there would be no financial benefit for APCOA, can anyone ever see them actually spending time and resources on an action with no guaranteed outcome and, even if successful, would not earn them a penny and most likely would cost them substantially? 

So, I will bet a penny to a pound that APCOA will never, ever, initiate a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court. They cannot issue a claim in the county court for a supposed criminal matter. They are simply hoping that by using the language they use in their fake Penalty Notice is enough to con all the sheeple who receive them are too ignorant to know any better and they simply, unknowingly, pay a bribe to APCOA to make it all go away.

A better word for it all is extortion.

fisherjim

^^^^^^^^^

Brilliant explanation @LDast I bought one of our cars, all the receipts etc are in my name, I am "the owner" but it was my wife that was entered as "Registered Keeper" she got £2.4K discount having an NHS ID Card. Only the dealer and us hold records as to who the owner actually is certainly not The DVLA.