APCOA PCN railway station

Parkingposter · 12 April 2019 at 10:33PM

Hello
I’ve read lots about the way to appeal a PCN, including the newbies thread and I’ve searched for APCOA appeals in the forum to read too. I would appreciate though if possible confirmation that the best way to proceed is to copy the blue section on the newbies thread at the first stage of appeal (to APCOA). I would ideally like this PCN to be cancelled at the first stage rather than going to POPLA, and so wondered if I should note my key points at this first stage, ie
- railway land is not relevant land so there is no keeper liability
- even if it was relevant land, the Notice to keeper was sent by post after 14 days so is not PoFA 2012 compliant.
I also could back a POPLA appeal up with other elements from previous appeals (such as not complying with the code of conduct/ signage etc) but think the above two points are the main ones relevant to this case.
The newbies template doesn’t mention these points but I appreciate that it is a way of getting to the POPLA stage.

Is it advisable NOT to mention byelaws at the first appeal as this may help with delaying things for 6 months until it times out?

Sorry if I am asking an irritating question - I am nervous about the appeal as I have been told by someone more experienced in appealing tickets that I would likely not be able to make a successful appeal on my own. I’m also a little confused by the POPLA notes on railway land (from june 2018) ie that the OWNER is liable, not the driver, so are the points about no keeper liability in fact irrelevant?

It doesn’t help that there are 4 PCNs for the same offence at stake so I really want to get it right!

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad · 12 April 2019 at 10:53PM

APCOA PCNs don't time out at 6 months. This is ONLY true of 'penalties' (e.g. Indigo).

You can certainly add a line or two about no keeper liability/byelaws/not relevant land at first appeal stage if it fits in the appeal box online for APCOA appeals. You could replace the bit in the template about VRNs and machines, with something more relevant.

That's fine as long as the driver is not implied by a rushed addition. The only reason for the template was because of numpties who can't manage the simple task of appealing without naming the driver or writing rubbish, even when told what to put.

You don't sound like such a person! You have clearly researched this already.

It doesn’t help that there are 4 PCNs for the same offence at stake so I really want to get it right!

It'll be fine. You can't lose at POPLA v APCOA as long as the driver is not implied, and APCOA will give up either at 1st or 2nd stage.

Parkingposter · 13 April 2019 at 12:38PM

Thank you for replying, I really appreciate it. I was planning on appealing today (it is day 25) with the text below - is this overkill at this stage, or are there any points that I have misunderstood/arent recommended to use?

Dear Sir/Madam
Re Parking Charge Notice XXX
Vehicle Registration XXX
I refer to the above detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me by APCOA Parking as a Notice to Keeper. I confirm that I am the keeper of this vehicle. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template I require ALL photographs taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence.

I write to formally dispute the validity of this PCN and ask for it to be cancelled on the following grounds.
1) Railway land is subject to byelaws and hence is not relevant land for the purpose of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
2) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not PoFA 2012 compliant
- it does not comply with paragraph 9 (2f) regarding warnings to keeper
- it does not comply with paragraph 9 (4b/5), regarding timescales
3) The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice is not adhered to

1) Railway land is not ‘relevant land’
As PoFA 2012 does not apply on railway land as it is considered ‘not relevant land’, ther can be no transfer of liability from the driver at the time to the keeper. As the registered Keeper I decline, as is my right in law, to name who was driving.

2) The Notice to Keeper is not POFA compliant.
Signs in the car park in question state that the operator reserves the right to apply to the DVLA for keeper details, thus implying APCOA adheres to PoFA keeper liability. However, even if the land in question was considered relevant land, the parking charge notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the PoFA 2012, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met. Specifically, paragraph 6 (1) states:
6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9 is the relevant paragraph here as the NTK was sent by post.

Paragraph 9 (2f) states that the NTK must:
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
The NTK sent to me as registered keeper does not give any such warning, nor state any such right to recover charges from the keeper.
In addition, Paragraph 9 (4) of the PoFA 2012 states that:
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
The relevant section here is b) as the NTK was sent by post. Paragraph 9 (5) states that:
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
This NTK was sent to me as registered keeper 27 days after the alleged event -see the attached photo of the NTK from APCOA with the ‘Date of event’ of 21/02/19 and the ‘Date Issued’ of 20/03/19. Therefore there can be no POFA keeper liability.

3) The BPA Code of Practice is not adhered to.
- 7.1 No evidence of Landowner Authority has been provided
- 18.2 Entrance signs do not follow the guidance on standard entrance signs as detailed in the Code of Practice
- 18.3 The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself (attached photographs show the poor signage e.g a sign facing inwards to a fence, and text being so small and difficult to read, particularly as the signs are placed high up)
- 20.5b there is no evidence that a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows was done to decide if a payment ticket was displayed
- 20.12/20.13 Timescales for issuing a NTK are not adhered to
- 20.14 reasonable cause for contacting the keeper must be in the NTK
- 21.1 signs must state what the data captured by ANPR is used for
- 21.5 There is no evidence provided that you have signed up to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice

Given that APCOA has no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper, please confirm that you will now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you still believe that you have a valid claim, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate my dispute to POPLA.

You may already be aware, but POPLA guidance issued in 2018 with regard to penalty notices issued under railway byelaws, states several expectations of a penalty notice that have not been followed in this instance. For example:
- A Penalty Notice (PN) should say it is a penalty notice
- A PN should confirm how the byelaws were brought to the motorist’s attention
- A PN should confirm the law under which it has been issued
- A PN should not use the words ‘parking charge notice’
POPLA also notes that the timescales of PoFA 2012 should be followed for penalties issued on railway land, ie issued via post in the period of 14 days beginning with the day after the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. As noted above, this notice to keeper was sent outside of this period.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your full response within the timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Formal note
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that they data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Name and address (of registered Keeper)

The_Deep · 13 April 2019 at 1:00PM

They usually give uo when they see the word "bye-laws". They have tried to scam you so complain to your MP, they are drawing up a new regulations to control these scammers.

On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Redx · 13 April 2019 at 1:06PM

the above appeal looks more like an appeal to POPLA , not to APCOA (which you cannot do as you need a POPLA code from APCOA in order to appeal to POPLA)

the APCOA initial appeal to get a POPLA code is the blue text appeal from the NEWBIES thread

we do not believe that APCOA read the initial appeals and they rarely accept any initial appeal, so its at POPLA where these are killed off

once APCOA see a good popla appeal, they tell popla they do not wish to proceed, so that is when you win

my advice ? stick to the tried and tested methods that work, do not think that APCOA will fold at your first appeal to them , because they wont , they will make you take it to popla and then decide if they wish to proceed or not (usually its NOT)

Parkingposter · 13 April 2019 at 3:09PM

Thank you all, I will go with a simpler first stage appeal, as I think you are right that I’m getting a bit too detailed. I will save the rest (and more!) for POPLA.

Redx · 13 April 2019 at 4:52PM

have a read of this successful popla appeal , may help you

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5980198

Coupon-mad · 14 April 2019 at 2:07AM

I don't think such a long appeal will fit in APCOA's appeal box online. Hence the template.

Anyway, as I said:

It'll be fine. You can't lose at POPLA v APCOA as long as the driver is not implied, and APCOA will give up either at 1st or 2nd stage.

rachity · 14 April 2019 at 2:27AM

From what I've seen/read, neither POPLA nor DfT have said that it's ok to ticket on railway land using the private land route. (Ie they concur that it is a penalty issue.)

Updated info can be downloaded via https://popla.co.uk/

Handbags-at-dawn · 14 April 2019 at 7:05AM

rachity wrote: »

From what I've seen/read, neither POPLA nor DfT have said that it's ok to ticket on railway land using the private land route. (Ie they concur that it is a penalty issue.)

That’s not quite right. After years of dithering, last June the DfT produced a letter expressing the view that “a parking operator may also have the right to issue a contractual parking ticket depending on the terms which have been agreed between the parties......”

The writer of this letter then continues, in a shocking display of obfuscation: “.....for example between the parking operator and the registered keeper/owner of the vehicle” .

As we all know, as a general rule only the person who parks the car (the driver) can be a party to the parking contract. A more cynical person than me might conclude she dropped this in to pave the way for operators to chase the wrong person.

Fortunately POPLA stick to the law on this one (there are many areas where they don’t): there is no such thing as keeper/owner liability for breach of contract on Byelaws land.

rachity · 14 April 2019 at 7:27AM

Hi Handbags-at-dawn

Yep....neither DfT nor POPLA seem(ed) to know their 'Arris from their Elba on this matter.

& all concerned appear to have 'kicked the can down the road' for someone else (courts?) to make a decent decision.

In the meanwhile it's "Carry on regardless, lads....... let's trouser as much as we can while the sun shines!"

APCOA PCN railway station

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free