APCOA appeal denied & complaint as not issued under railway byelaws

SockGin9865

Coupon-mad said:

Do you think you almost certainly chose 'driver' in any drop down choice?

No definitely didn’t, there wasn’t any drop down other than for reason for appeal, put ‘The contravention did not occur’

Coupon-mad

OK so you can try a POPLA appeal as keeper stating that whilst you were an occupant of the car, the driver was not admitted or named so this POPLA appeal is from the registered keeper.  Then talk about no keeper liability.

SockGin9865

Coupon-mad said:

OK so you can try a POPLA appeal as keeper stating that whilst you were an occupant of the car, the driver was not admitted or named so this POPLA appeal is from the registered keeper.  Then talk about no keeper liability.

Great thank you very much! Will try this 

SockGin9865

Coupon-mad said:

OK so you can try a POPLA appeal as keeper stating that whilst you were an occupant of the car, the driver was not admitted or named so this POPLA appeal is from the registered keeper.  Then talk about no keeper liability.

Thanks, just to check, would the following be an acceptable appeal for POPLA?

Appeal re POPLA Code: [x] v APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd.

 

Vehicle Registration: XX

POPLA ref: [x]

 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated x April 2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper (NtK). My appeal to the operator, APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, was submitted and acknowledged on x May 2025 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated x May 2025.

 

I was an occupant of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and purchased what I believed was a valid parking session on behalf of the driver, who has not admitted liability and will not be named.

 

I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

 

1.     The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements and therefore there is no keeper liability.

2.     Vehicle Images contained in NtK: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

 

1.     A) The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements regarding the relevant period in which to issue a notice to keeper

 

The Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 6 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) requires that if a notice to driver is not issued, the notice to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates that it must be given by:

 

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

The specified period of parking ended on the x April 2025, the day after being the x April 2025. The relevant period of 14 days from the x April 2025 ended on the x April 2025. The date of issue on the notice issued by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is the x April 2025. As presumed by PoFA 2012, this was delivered on the second working day after the date of issue, the x May 2025, outside of the stipulated 14 days relevant period.

This serves to highlight that APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply. As a result, the appellant is not liable for any charges, as the Notice to Keeper has not been properly ‘given’ under the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012.

 

1.      The NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements regarding evidence of period parked.

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”.

Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

 

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

 

APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd.’s NtK simply provides the location as ‘Slough Station East Car Park”, the date of “x April 2025” and the time of contravention as “x:x”.

The NtK does not provide any other time stamp to indicate entry or exit time.

At no stage do APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd’s response to my appeal, NOT the NtK, provides the entry and exit time as per their ANPR system as x:x and x:x respectively.

It is not in the gift of APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement -“period of parking” -and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

 

I require APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time for the duration claimed and at the location stated in the NtK.

 

1.     C) The Notice to Keeper issued by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is also non-compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to a contradiction in the payment deadline specified on the notice.

*IMAGE OF BACK OF NtK)

 

As per the above photo, the back of the NtK states: “A charge of: £100.00 is payable and must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice”. This instruction contradicts the statutory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they have 28 days from the day after which the notice is deemed to be given (served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details.

 

According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to Keeper is deemed to be served two working days after posting, meaning the 28-day period must start after this deemed service date. The instruction on the back of the NtK, however, misleadingly demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, which shortens the legal timeframe available to the keeper.

 

Further down, the NtK reiterates the incorrect timeframe, stating “You have 28 days to pay this Parking Charge Notice from the date on which it was issued”. This is incorrect and legally misleading. The contradictory timeframes create confusion for the recipient and breach the requirement for clarity and transparency under PoFA.

 

As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v. Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA. Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.

 

Therefore, the operator cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper.

 

1.     D) No Keeper Liability

 

I was an occupant of the vehicle and the registered keeper, but the driver has not been named or admitted liability. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

 

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

 

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

 

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

 

Understanding keeper liability

 

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

 

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

 

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

 

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

 

 

2.     Vehicle Images contained in NtK: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

 

The BPA Code of Practice point 7.3 stipulates that:

 

“Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:…

…b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp”

 

The Parking Charge Notice in question contains two images of the vehicle with two close up images of the number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park.

 

I require APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

Many thanks,

XX

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good except I would replace this convoluted section:

C) The Notice to Keeper issued by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is also non-compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to a contradiction in the payment deadline specified on the notice.


with a far better observation that the NTK doesn't even claim to be capable of holding a keeper liable. The wording is non-POFA, with no 9(2)f warning that the keeper can be liable. The PCN was not properly given.

(use that phrase).

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  there is an “s” on the end of “Freedoms” re PoFA