Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • sammyw84
    • By sammyw84 18th Feb 18, 12:11 AM
    • 34Posts
    • 11Thanks
    Birmingham airport APCOA
    • #1
    • 18th Feb 18, 12:11 AM
    Birmingham airport APCOA 18th Feb 18 at 12:11 AM

    I have received a Parking charge notice today dated 14/2/18 by APCOA Parking, stating i was parked on a red route at Birmingham airport on 23/11/17. i did pull over just so my brother could jump in (who has mobility problems an i had my disabled nan in the car.

    the notice had 4 little pictures of my car (which is a lease car) that was there a whole 14 seconds.

    the fine is for 100 or 50 if paid in 14 days, i am just wondering where i stand as i believe you only have to pay council penalty fines.

    any help would be appreciated.

    thank you
Page 2
    • sammyw84
    • By sammyw84 11th Apr 18, 6:38 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    ok guys here is the final one its exactly as above but with my dates and details such as reg ect.

    POPLA Ref *********
    APCOA Parking PCN no *********

    A notice to keeper was issued on 23rd November 2017 and received by me, the registered Leasee
    of ******* on14th February 2018 for an alleged contravention of !!!8216;BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE!!!8217;!!!8217; at Birmingham 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 23rd November 2017, and the notice to keeper was received 83 days later on 14th February 2018.

    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 !!!8216;reasonable cause!!!8217; 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 !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217; for the purposes of POFA 2012.
    !!!8216;As the site is not located on !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217;, 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.!!!8217;

    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

    !!!8220;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 !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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!!!8217;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 APCOA Parking 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 !!!8211; 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.

    I dont think i have missed anything, thanks again for everyone's input and advice
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 18, 2:04 AM
    • 66,002 Posts
    • 78,476 Thanks
    APCOA will throw in the towel again!

    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • tamacha420
    • By tamacha420 21st Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Hi All

    i am in the same boat got a letter stating that the car was parked at BHX airport on x March and the letter is dated 33 days later, I have as a keeper of the vehicle appealed to them based on learning from all you nice people. The question I have is that on the letter they have given there email address birminghamappeals at Apcoa dot com

    But got an auto replying saying to use there online portal to submit the appeal which I have done by attaching the pdf file.

    Is it normal? shouldn't they have given that link at first place anyways.

    Thanks for your help
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Apr 18, 2:18 PM
    • 21,402 Posts
    • 33,740 Thanks
    But got an auto replying saying to use there online portal to submit the appeal which I have done by attaching the pdf file.

    Is it normal? shouldn't they have given that link at first place anyways.
    Largely nugatory - it counts for nothing, other than perhaps to highlight the shambolic nature of a business you are dealing with.

    Get your POPLA Code from them, then construct your POPLA appeal (check out recent APCOA POPLA appeals to help you to formulate your own), which won't include anything about the APCOA email address.

    You will learn from searching other recent APCOA threads that once a substantial POPLA appeal is submitted, APCOA will withdraw. Come back with your draft - but on a new thread of your own, not this one.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • tamacha420
    • By tamacha420 22nd Apr 18, 12:39 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Thanks well do lets see when they get back to me
    • sammyw84
    • By sammyw84 9th May 18, 10:40 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    just wanted to say a MASSIVE thank you to all that helped me on here, i heard back from the appeal and i won!!!

    i'm delighted, thanks again everyone
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th May 18, 10:46 PM
    • 21,083 Posts
    • 26,504 Thanks
    well done

    did APCOA tell popla they did not want to pursue it ? like they usually do ? (to save themselves the popla fee)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

480Posts Today

6,063Users online

Martin's Twitter