IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Apcoa parking notice

edited 20 September 2016 at 2:30PM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
44 replies 12.4K views


  • Yes sorry it happened at Luton airport. I have a POPLA code and will search for the most recent appeals.

    Thank you, so i can just ignore the written authorisation of the landowner letter etc and just appeal.
  • Ralph-yRalph-y Forumite
    4.5K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    you could post it up if you want to give the regulars a giggle ....

    you need to host the pic at photobucket/tinnypic then post up the url and change the http bit to hxxp ....

    you can not post links yet
    we will change the link so we can see it

    good luck

  • pappa_golfpappa_golf Forumite
    8.9K Posts
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Kitty25 wrote: »
    Yes sorry it happened at Luton airport. I have a POPLA code and will search for the most recent appeals.

    Thank you, so i can just ignore the written authorisation of the landowner letter etc and just appeal.

    might not need the code !

    "POPLA has decided to adjourn all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws. This is following complaints to POPLA and ISPA that POPLA has no authority to look at these appeals. We are considering our position and will make a further statement in due course. We do not anticipate the cases to be adjourned for more than two months from 1 September 2016. Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned. During this period, motorists must still submit their appeal within 28 days of the date of the POPLA code if they want POPLA to consider their appeal. If you have already submitted your appeal you do not need to take further action. "

    do as suggested by others and POPLa website , it might go all wrong for them on bylaw land

    NO appeal service , no DVLA access , we can only want ,
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • Thank you, just putting it together now.
  • pappa_golfpappa_golf Forumite
    8.9K Posts
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    be sure to highlight , (bold) the fact that its bylaw land , so they do not miss this fact
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • FruitcakeFruitcake Forumite
    54.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    So, Luton Airport = not relevant land, so the POFA 2012 does not apply, so liability cannot be transferred to the keeper, so only the driver is liable and as long as you don't tell them who that is, you should prevail.

    Only the airport authority can issue court papers, and only for trespass, and only for six months fro the date of the alleged event. Your job therefore is to stretch this out past six months so it times out.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • pappa_golfpappa_golf Forumite
    8.9K Posts
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    agree with fruitcake, take your time , send POPLa as late as possible (as you should have done with your appeal) , 6 mths is the time they have before prosecution (bylaws) so 1 mth to appeal (approx.) another mth for popla , or longer if they have not decided regarding bylaws , a mth offer to pay , if popla do the appeal , then to debt collectors for a mth or so ,,, getting close to 6 mths? , even if they start court action , it will be quashed , and 6 mths will have elapsed

    there again Apcoa do not do court , as the little con would be reviled
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Kitty25 wrote: »
    Thank you, just putting it together now.
    Good - show us BEFORE submitting it (which will be as a PDF attachment under 'OTHER' on the POPLA website). We want to comment to make sure it is likely to win.

    Other people's similar POPLA appeals (which all won!) are already written for you to copy, search 'APCOA Airport' or 'APCOA POPLA' and you have them in your results in seconds. Make sure you only read 2016 results - any older POPLA appeal is too old to bother with.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Here is what I plan to submit. I would be grateful if you could let me know if this is ok please?

    I cannot covert my word document to a pdf, will a word doc be ok to send?

    Thank you

    POPLA Ref ...................
    APCOA Parking PCN no .......................

    A notice to keeper was issued on 16th September 2016 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on 23rd September 2016 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Luton Airport. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    1) APCOA not using POFA 2012
    2) Airport Act 1986
    3) Amount demanded is a penalty
    4) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    5) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
    6) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    7) Misleading and unclear signage
    8) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
    9) Photo evidence appears doctored
    10) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

    1) From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

    2) Airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.

    Airport Act 1986
    65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.

    Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

    3) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

    4) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 2nd September 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 21 days later on 23rd September 2016.

    The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

    5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
    POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.
    ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’

    6) 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.

    7) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

    I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."

    8) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

    I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

    I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOAParking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

    9) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

    10) As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. 90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    A brilliant mix of old and new - nice work for an APCOA Airport POPLA appeal incorporating the new point about the individual not being liable.

    I predict it will make APCOA crawl back under their stone by the end of this month with 'no contest, NKL' as their excuse.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

NS&I to change Premium Bond prize rate

It will rise to 1.40% from June

MSE News

Compers of the MSE Forum:

Show us the prizes you've won recently

Join the MSE Forum discussion