APCOA Stansted airport

Havoc88

Good morning all, back in May I went to collect my disabled dad and brother from the airport. This was on Friday around 20:00. I had been using the airport for quite a while and was used to paying at the barrier system. By the time I realised that payment had to be made online, it was already Sunday, so I had missed the ‘pay by the following day by midnight’ deadline.

I called APCOA on Monday and tried to pay, but they refused since I had missed the deadline. I then received a ticket, which I appealed, but the appeal was rejected. I also appealed to POPLA, but that was rejected yesterday as well. I even offered them £15 instead of the £7 normal drop-off fee, but they refused. Now they want £100 for 3 minutes in the drop-off zone. The reply from POPLA doesn’t even state how many days I have to make the payment.

My question is: how rigid is APCOA? Do they normally take cases to court, or do they just send threatening letters that don’t go anywhere? It’s ridiculous that you have to pay online by midnight, with no option to pay on-site. When you get a ticket you’re given 28 days to pay, but after using the parking you only have 28 hours.

I’m also furious that POPLA sided with them, claiming that £100 is a reasonable charge, referencing the ParkingEye v Beavis case where the charge was £85. So should I take them seriously or just ignore it? I’ve already tried appealing. This would be my third court case regarding parking, and in the past, all of them were dropped, so I’m not particularly worried about court. I showed goodwill and offered to pay double, but they refused.

Any advice would be appreciated. Below I’m attaching the reply from POPLA.

“ Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Lyndsey Howgate

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to use of the pick up/drop off zone without making a payment

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below •The appellant advises that they are have used the area previously and was misled by a change in payment system. •The appellant advises unrealistic signage expectations for drivers. •The appellant advises the midnight deadline is unfair and excessively rigid. •The appellant advises that there was no opportunity to turn back once a motorist enters the area. •The appellant advises the PCN is a disproportionate penalty for a minor oversight. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. They have also raised new grounds regarding no grace period, no reminder system, unsafe expectations on drivers reading signage, revenue generation over fairness and genuine circumstances ignored. I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision. The appellant has provided a screenshot of telephone calls to the parking operator on the 22 May 2025 at 11:15 and 11:18. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The parking operator has provided a copy of the area site map indicating where signage is located within the area and time dated photographs of the signage within the area which advises pay by midnight tomorrow at pay.standsteadairport.com or call 03450175046, tariffs available and failure to comply will result in a £100 PCN being issued. I am aware that the area where the appellant entered and exited is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. All accessible entry and exit points in this area have a ANPR camera in place which takes an infrared image of a vehicle registration, as the vehicle passes by. The system then identifies the vehicle registration mark (VRM) from these images, after which the total time the vehicle remained on site is calculated, recorded and compared with any parking time purchased/the advertised terms and conditions. The parking operator has supplied images obtained from the ANPR camera that shows the appellants vehicle entering the car park on the 16 May 2025 at 19:19 and exited at 19:22 the same day. The parking operator has also confirmed that the site is a barrierless and operates a cashless payment system which is a commercial decision that POPLA can not influence. The parking operator has confirmed that no payment for use of the area was received on the day the PCN was issued. The appellant advises that they are have used the area previously and was misled by a change in payment system. The appellant advises unrealistic signage expectations for drivers. The appellant advises the midnight deadline is unfair and excessively rigid. The appellant advises that there was no opportunity to turn back once a motorist enters the area. It is a motorist responsibility to ensure any signage is observed and adhered to and if unable to adhere, then exit of the site should be made. I note when the appellant raised their initial appeal to the parking operator on the 31 May 2025, they confirmed that they did pick up their father and brother up from the area where their vehicle was captured by the ANPR cameras. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant did make use of the area. On review of the photographs of the signage in situ and the site plan showing where signage is located provided by the parking operator, I am satisfied that there is ample, clear signage on the approach to the area, within the area and also at the exit. Therefore, I am satisfied the signage clearly advises all motorist of how payment needs to be made and by when. As the appellant failed to make payment for use of the area within the designated time period, the terms and conditions where breached and the appellants appeal is refused. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is a disproportionate penalty for a minor oversight, the appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. If the appellant would like to discuss any aspect of making payment of the PCN, direct contact to the parking operator should be made. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, due to use of pick up/drop off zone without making a payment, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.”

ChirpyChicken

such a shame if you had come here you would easily have won this with the MSE forum airport template!!
Ignore Debt Recovery Plus in full and why be furious when they are quite tame

Havoc88

ChirpyChicken said:

such a shame if you had come here you would easily have won this with the MSE forum airport template!!
Ignore Debt Recovery Plus in full and why be furious when they are quite tame

Thanks for your reply. So, should I expect junk mail and nothing afterwards? I’ve tried my best, but unfortunately I didn’t think they would reject my appeal. 

I’m furious with this line “ the appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate”

ChirpyChicken

I am surprised given your previous post you didn't come here first?  that does seem a bit strange , 
of course they were going to reject your appeal. 
All i will say its just a parking ticket, your not paying it so who cares what POPLA say

Havoc88

I was too confident haha! Thanks for the replies, I will keep you all posted.

James_Poisson

I have no idea why you were so confident, APCOA are just another PPC making profits for their German bosses. They love it when people make mistakes as they can send threatening letters to frighten them in to paying them money, they don't get the money from the drop off the airport does.

POPLA only deal with the process, the contract, signage, and what laws exist in an unregulated industry, they are also paid by the PPC go figure which side they are minded to try to side with. 

They do not consider mitigation, and you missed out on a slam dunk way to get this cancelled by going it alone, but you are where you are.

Just ignore the dimwits nothing will happen.

doubledotcom

Next time, for any PCN, don't blab the drivers identity. Unless you give them the drivers details on a plate, they have nowhere to go.

Luckily for you, APCOA are benign and rely on the hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will pay up out of ignorance and fear. Just let them waste their time and effort sending you scrap paper until they give up. They don't litigate.

Coupon-mad

This would have been 100% win.

Next time come here first.

Havoc88

Thank you for your replies. Next time I’ll come here for advice - my bad, I thought it would be an easy win through POPLA. Today I received my first junk mail letter from Debt Recovery Plus. Can this case still be defended in court if it goes that far, or should I just expect more junk mail and nothing else?

Coupon-mad

APCOA don't sue anyone but update them if you move house, as you do need to check to be sure that each letter is indeed just a junk threatogram!

Havoc88

new development some trace group it’s trying to chase me for this payment, anyone has any experience with them?? Many thanks