MAN Airport - appealed before reading recommended APCOA text

reysham

Trying to type this without sharing personal information.

Dropped off luggage and family in barrierless zone at Manchester, then parked elsewhere. Tried to pay but couldn't before flight time. By the time internet access was available the requisite 24 hours had passed.
I appealed based on this information, although neither driver nor keeper information was shared. Received a denial and instructions to pay £100 (or £60 within 14 days). The letter has a PCN and a POPLA verification number.
Do I suck it up and pay for not checking here first, or can I email the text below regardless of my previous actions?

This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus Trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NTK does not comply with POFA. As there is no keeper liability then liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and thus is an auto win @ POPLA. Please therefore cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code where you will auto withdraw.
***not relevant land for POFA***

Thank you all.

Gr1pr

No,  you don't get a second chance for an appeal 

But as it's not relevant land, use a recent 2025 no keeper liability appeal at popla, as seen in various apcoa airport threads

This MET Stansted thread can be adapted,  plus doubledotcom has recentky placed a map in another Manchester Airport thread you can add

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/stansted-met-southgate-park-starbucks/15/

You definitely do not pay a penny 

Coupon-mad

You'll easily win at POPLA if you are sure you didn't go and imply who was drivibg.

reysham

I'm sure I didn't, but I can't find what I wrote. I have tried to access the appeal platform but this is asking for a payment or for me to share liable party details.

Can I request the correspondance from them, or access it somehow?

In the meantime, I am using and editing the link Gr1pr has shared and will paste here if you don't mind reviewing.

Thanks all.

Gr1pr

Just appeal as keeper anyway,  don't fret about it,  just follow the advice anyway 

reysham

This is what I have drafted, with the help of the thread shared above, and the map suggested as well. Is this ready to send?

Dear APCOA,

I am submitting the following in response to the correspondence received on xxxxxx, the appeal made on the same date, and the subsequent response from APOCA received on xxxxxx.

1.  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper Falls Under Manchester Airport Byelaws

 Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper is within the boundary of Manchester Airport. The attached map is produced by Manchester Airport. It clearly shows the official boundary of the airport. I have starred the location of  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper, which is clearly within the blue airport boundary.

Manchester Airport is governed by Manchester Airport Byelaws. Any land subject to statutory control, such as Byelaws, is not relevant land under PoFA. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply. 

2. “Private Land” Does NOT Automatically Mean “Relevant Land”

"Private land" does NOT mean "relevant land" under PoFA. "Relevant land" means land where no statutory control applies. Since Byelaws apply to  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper, it is NOT relevant land.

Train station car parks are also private land, yet PoFA does not apply to them because they are covered by Railway Byelaws. The exact same principle applies to  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper because it is covered by Manchester Airport Byelaws.

3. Your Conduct is a Clear Breach of the PPSCoP

By falsely claiming Keeper Liability under PoFA at Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper in your NtKs, you are in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.1(d)

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

Yet you misrepresent liability, issue misleading notices, and falsely claim the Keeper is liable when you have zero legal basis to do so. This is not an accident. This is clearly a deliberate and ongoing breach of industry standards.

4. DVLA KADOE Breach

You are in clear breach of your KADOE agreement because you are using Keeper Data to falsely assert PoFA liability where none exists. While you may have obtained the data lawfully, you are now misusing it by misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal position. PoFA does not apply at  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper, yet you have knowingly issued an NtK that falsely states the Keeper will be liable under PoFA if they do not provide the driver’s details.

This is a clear breach of KADOE, as the Keeper’s data must not be used for purposes that are legally invalid. You are not just issuing unlawful demands; you are misleading the Keeper into believing they are liable when they are not.

However, the central issue is your complete failure to understand and apply the law correctly. The DVLA matter will be reported.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

Gr1pr

Its POPLA you are addressing,  not APCOA, so you have made numerous errors

Its Dear Popla   ( not Apcoa  ) , or preferably delete the 2 words completely 

Spelling mistake on the first paragraph,  it's APCOA, not Apoca

Delete the word YOU & YOUR etc,  , replace with APCOA, or THE OPERATOR ,  because you are addressing POPLA about APCOA  ( you are not addressing APCOA   )

Its Schedule 4 of POFA2012 that doesn't apply,  not all of Pofa2012 

So fix the various incorrect terminology 

reysham

Edited as follows:

'I am submitting the following in response to the correspondence received on xxxxxx, the appeal made on the same date, and the subsequent response from APCOA received on xxxxxx.

1.  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper Falls Under Manchester Airport Byelaws

Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper is within the boundary of Manchester Airport. The attached map is produced by Manchester Airport. It clearly shows the official boundary of the airport. I have starred the location of  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper, which is clearly within the blue airport boundary.

Manchester Airport is governed by Manchester Airport Byelaws. Any land subject to statutory control, such as Byelaws, is not relevant land under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. Therefore, PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply. 

2. “Private Land” Does NOT Automatically Mean “Relevant Land”

"Private land" does NOT mean "relevant land" under PoFA. "Relevant land" means land where no statutory control applies. Since Byelaws apply to  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper, it is NOT relevant land.

Train station car parks are also private land, yet PoFA does not apply to them because they are covered by Railway Byelaws. The exact same principle applies to Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper because it is covered by Manchester Airport Byelaws.

3. APCOA’s Conduct is a Clear Breach of the PPSCoP

By falsely claiming Keeper Liability under PoFA at Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper in APCOA’s NtKs, APCOA is in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 8.1.1(d)

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

Yet APCOA misrepresent liability, issue misleading notices, and falsely claim the Keeper is liable when APCOA have zero legal basis to do so. This is not an accident. This is clearly a deliberate and ongoing breach of industry standards.

4. DVLA KADOE Breach

APCOA is in clear breach of its KADOE agreement because APCOA are using Keeper Data to falsely assert PoFA liability where none exists. While APCOA may have obtained the data lawfully, APCOA is now misusing it by misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal position. PoFA does not apply at  Manchester Airport Drop Off Forecourt T2 Upper, yet APCOA have knowingly issued an NtK that falsely states the Keeper will be liable under PoFA if they do not provide the driver’s details.

This is a clear breach of KADOE, as the Keeper’s data must not be used for purposes that are legally invalid. APCOA is not just issuing unlawful demands; it is misleading the Keeper into believing they are liable when they are not.

However, the central issue is APCOA's complete failure to understand and apply the law correctly. The DVLA matter will be reported.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]'

- Should the Section 4 of PoFA 2012 be referred to as such throughout, or can referring to PoFA after an initial reference suffice? 
- If this is ready to go, should I email to POPLA or post as recorded delivery, and in either case, what is the address?

Thanks all

Coupon-mad

I disagree with 3 and 4 because APCOA never cite the POFA, so they have misled nobody. Nor have they failed to understand or apply the law correctly.

Replace 3 and 4 with the usual 'unclear signs' argument and 'no landowner authority' citing the correct Code of Practice clause posted here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81566209/#Comment_81566209

doubledotcom

It doesn't require the map or any of the other superfluous waffle. A single-point appeal suffices:

The appellant is the registered Keeper and exercises their legal right not to identify the driver. As Manchester Airport is subject to statutory control and therefore not 'relevant land' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Keeper liability does not apply. APCOA has no lawful basis to pursue the appellant.

All the other stuff is not required as APCOA have never claimed Keeper liability in their NtK and POPLA couldn't care less about KADOE.

reysham

@doubledotcom, thanks for your input.

To clarfiy, would you recommend just sending the single paragraph appeal?