POFA Compliant APCOA NTK?

jimmywiggle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148578#Comment_82148578

I could, but starting new threads on the same topic is probably irritating to people.

And this might increase traffic + visibility to both similar topics in one thread?

Umkomaas

And this might increase traffic + visibility to both similar topics in one thread?

But if every new poster did that and answers start flying back and forth, confusion will occur, with the danger of somebody getting the wrong end of the stick, potentially resulting in an expensive error. Please start your own thread, where you will get bespoke help.

jimmywiggle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148578#Comment_82148578

Possibly, but i'd also rather not start more threads on the same topic for those who regularly visit the forum.

Also, the extra traffic to the single topic might help others looking for a similar answer in the future

Le_Kirk

No, you definitely need your own thread as it can become confusing trying to answer two posters on the same thread.

James_Poisson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82151214#Comment_82151214

Nope that isn't the way it works!

jimmywiggle

Fair enough, I will do that then.

RandomUsername12

Hiya Again,

I have sent off the appeal which is stated earlier in this thread(before all the random stuff from others)

They have replied with a very large 44 page pack. I tried to attach it but its not a supported file type, possibly I can put it on a onedrive for you if you want to see it.

How would you usually reply to it? I doubt they adressed all the things my initial appeal asked for, im sure its automated.

It would be their railway type one if you already have folders of their usual packs.

Let me know your thoughts I have 5 days now to make comments on their pack then its the result

Kind regards

RandomUsername12

Im thinking something like this;

COMMENTS ON THE OPERATOR'S EVIDENCE.

These comments respond to the Operator's pack and stay within my four grounds of appeal. I accept the Operator's evidence that this site is now treated as relevant land and that the Railway Byelaws no longer apply. My grounds do not depend on them.

THE NOTICE TO KEEPER FAILS PARAGRAPH 9 OF SCHEDULE 4, ON THE OPERATOR'S OWN EVIDENCE.

On page 10 of its pack, the Operator states that the Parking Charge "was dated 20/08/2026 and that was when the Parking Charge was sent out". No proof of posting is offered, so this is the Operator's own case on the date of sending. The only date on the Notice is 20/08/2026, labelled "Date of Issue of this Charge", and the reverse says the sum remains unpaid "at the date of this notice".

On that case, the unpaid total is specified as at the day of posting. Paragraph 9(2)(d)(ii) requires it to be specified as at a time no later than the end of the day before the day the notice is sent by post. The Notice does not comply.

If the Operator instead says "Date of Issue" is not the date of sending, then paragraph 9(2)(i) is not met, because the Notice specifies no date of sending at all. The reverse refers to a "Date of Sending above" and a "Balance Due", and neither appears on the Notice.

Either way the Notice was not given in accordance with paragraph 9. Paragraph 9(1) makes the listed requirements conditions, and paragraph 6(1)(b) requires a notice given in accordance with paragraph 9 before keeper liability can arise. A defective notice cannot be repaired by statements in an evidence pack.

THE CREDITOR IS NOT IDENTIFIED, AND THE OPERATOR'S OWN DOCUMENTS MAKE THIS WORSE.

Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice itself to identify the creditor. It says "APCOA (creditor)", which is a brand, and its footer lists five separate companies. The pack does not answer this.

The authority at pages 39 and 40 authorises APCOA to "fully act on my behalf", and the pack says the site is operated "on behalf of SE Trains Limited". If APCOA acts as agent, the person entitled to recover from the driver is the principal, so "APCOA (creditor)" is wrong. If APCOA acts as principal, paragraph 2(1) requires authority to contract with the driver requiring payment of parking charges, and the document nowhere says APCOA may do that.

THE LANDOWNER AUTHORITY IS INCOMPLETE.

Page 37 describes it as "a section taken from" a wider agreement, and page 39 refers to "the Agreement", which is not produced. The Operator says it has been redacted, though I asked for it unredacted. Appendix 1 lists "Sevenoaks", not Car Park B, and there is no boundary plan. The only enforcement type ticked, other than ANPR and attendants, is "Penalty". The pack cites BPA Code sections 7.1 to 7.4. I ask the assessor to check the authority against the landowner requirements of the code that applied on 10 August 2026.

THE KEEPER CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE THE DRIVER.

The Operator says that because I did not name the driver it can hold me liable as keeper. That is wrong. Keeper liability arises only if the Notice complies with Schedule 4, which it does not, and a keeper has no duty to name the driver. There is no presumption that the keeper was driving (VCS Ltd v Edward, 2023, HHJ Gargan, paragraph 35.3). The pack contains no evidence of who was driving.

SIGNAGE.

The Operator relies on photographs, none of which is dated. Several show snow and bare trees, so they were not taken in August. Nothing shows the signs in place on 10 and 11 August 2026, and none says who the driver contracts with, APCOA or SE Trains Limited.

CONCLUSION.

The Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9, so there is no keeper liability, and the driver has not been identified. I ask that the appeal be allowed.

RandomUsername12

I would probably add this too, as I just realised how I requested photos in darkness, and they have only provided undated photos in light/bright dusk. The offence is at 1:14am

1. SIGNAGE.

The Operator's own record dates the contravention at 01:11:04 on 11/08/2026. In my appeal I asked for dated photographs of the signs as they stood on 10 and 11 August 2026, including in darkness. None has been supplied. The photographs in the pack are undated and were plainly taken at different times of year: some show green foliage and strong sun, others show snow and bare trees, and the photographs of signs 7 and 8 (pages 32 and 33) appear to be taken at dusk. None shows any sign at night, and there is no evidence of illumination.

The Operator says terms are displayed "along all exit routes", but its site plan marks no sign at the exit and the exit photograph (page 24) shows none. The Operator has not shown what was legible at the time it says the contravention occurred, or who the driver was said to be contracting with, APCOA or SE Trains Limited.

Coupon-mad

Don't make your comments long and I would not say any of that, only this, because this is the only winning point:

In my appeal I stated that the landowner authority only says APCOA can issue Penalty Notices (under byelaws) not Parking Charge Notices under contract law.

In the partial landowner agreement supplied by APCOA, I noticed these issues:

• The pack cites BPA Code sections 7.1 to 7.4. which isn't the current Joint Code.
• Page 37 describes it as "a section taken from" a wider agreement, and
• page 39 refers to "the Agreement", which is not produced.
• The Operator says it has been redacted, though I asked for it unredacted.
• Appendix 1 lists "Sevenoaks", not Car Park B, and there is no boundary plan as required by the Joint Code;
• The only enforcement type ticked, other than ANPR and attendants, is "Penalty" which was my point exactly.

I am proved right, therefore this PCN was not properly given.