PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

APCOA, Parking Charge Notice Luton Arport BPA Rules Applied
loladog
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 09:46
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



1st time I have ever used a forum so please excuse me if I make mistakes with this. Brief outline I was dropped off at Luton airport as traffic was so bad queuing to the £3 drop off point, the driver stropped for 11 seconds. I read up on your forum about what they can and cant do and followed this on the appeals process with APOCA. Received an email today stating that my appeal was not successful :

"Please be aware that this notice has not been issued under POFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2012 nor the airport
byelaws, but has been issued in line with BPA guidelines."

They basically served the notice after 26 days.............

I have looked at the BPA guidelines and they state

"I have been issued with a ticket but I wasn’t the driver of the vehicle, what do I do?


You may write to the operator providing details of the driver of your vehicle at the time the parking ticket was issued.

However from the 1st October 2012 the Protection of Freedoms Act allows for the operator to pursue the keeper of the vehicle if no serviceable name and address is given for the driver.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 only applies to England and Wales."


"My ticket has not been issued within 14 days – does that make it invalid?


The timeframe of 14 days only applies if the operator is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the operator has not mentioned the use of the legislation within their notice, then they do not have to stick to the timelines stipulated within the Act. This usually applies to tickets issued using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition).



So basically they are correct I suspect as the way they are now sending out parking charge notices, they are using the POFA to make you name the driver but not for them to adhere to the 14 day rule of sending out charges !

Any advice would be helpful as I was going to appeal to POPLA however I dont think I have a leg to stand on.

Thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 09:46
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 10:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Firstly they can never make you reveal the driver, nor is there any presumption that the keeper was driving. Any alleged contract (assuming it is contract and not byelaws) is always with the driver.

However, under certain conditions they can pursue the keeper for the driver's unpaid parking charge.

There are many conditions to meet including delivering within 14 days. Outside that they can still pursue the driver (if they knew who that was).

Additionally, the land must be relevant - if byelaws apply then PoFA cannot.

So, did the first PCN claim keeper liability? (I presume not?)

If you have not revealed the driver and you have a POPLA code and they haven't complied then it's a dead cert winner at POPLA...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 10:05


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loladog
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 14:16
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



Hi, no I didnt identify the driver and yes I am going to appeal with POPLA. Its worth the £32 extra just to see if I win, it was 11 seconds all because we turned left which pointed to a 15 minute free drop off zone that when you get there didnt make sense where it was.

Only ever had one ticket ever and paid it straight away as I knew I was in the wrong but this one made me angry as that area is confusing and hate to think of the money these guys make by the confusion they cause.

Thanks for replying
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 14:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Its worth the £32 extra just to see if I win,

What? You make it sound like a challenge. It isn't.

We ALWAYS beat APCOA at POPLA. It's easy peasy and no-one pays them a penny and they rarely contest.

You only need to search this forum or MSE (or Google, if easier) the words Luton Airport APCOA POPLA and copy a 2018 one (NOT OLDER).


QUOTE
Only ever had one ticket ever and paid it straight away as I knew I was in the wrong

Not good. Stop doing that, even if bang to rights. Private parking firms are not worthy of your money under ANY circs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 16:58
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you weren't the driver and can no doubt prove it with airline stubs and therefore they cannot take action against you, as you were a mere passenger in the car. The are not using POFA and therefore they cannot claim against the keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loladog
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 08:40
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



Thanks for all the comments I will post once I have the outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 09:06
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



It would be safer to post your draft appeal for comments first
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loladog
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:34
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



I was so keen to get this over with I entered my appeal straight away and today had a reply. See contents below:

CASE SUMMARY
Parking Terms:
Terms or Restrictions of parking are signposted along the approach road to this site; as well as within
designated parking areas.
No stopping to drop off/pick up OR waiting is allowed outside of the said areas which includes bus
lanes/stops, laybys etc, at any time.
Stopping or waiting in red lines is not permitted.
All notices are issued in line with the BPA guidelines, of whom APCOA are an approved operator.
APCOA do no work, issue or seek payment under PoFA.



The driver made an appeal to APOCA that was rejected as:
a) The CCTV images provided shows the driver stopping to drop off a passenger; adjacent to
the Mid Term car park within which 15 miuntes free parking is offered.
b) The apeallant states that she was not the driver as she was cathing a 7:10 am flight on the
date of the contrevention. The apellant is seen leaving the vehicle, and is therefore aware of
whom was dirivng her.
c) This notice has not been issued under PoFA, in order for it to arrive iwhtin 14 days.
d) The driver was not forced to stop by any other road user; failing to enter the free authorised
parking area.
e) Restrictive signage can be seen displayed on the approach to this area, as can directional
signage.
Signage is either lit, or of a reflecive nature; in line with the BPA guidelines.
f) This site and it’s signage has been inspected by the BPA: and has been confirmed to be fully
compliant.
g) This notice was correctly issued under the BPA’s guidelines and the Bye-Laws that apply,
given below.
h) The apellant and Registered Keeper has failed and refused to comply with the indicatrion to
provide driver details as per clause 3.5.


Section 63(4) of the Airports Act 1986:
63.4 In paragraph (i) of subsection (2) “airport official” means a person authorised by the airport
operator; and any such official shall not exercise any power under a byelaw made by virtue of that
paragraph without producing written evidence of his authority if required to do so.
APCOA’s letter of authority to enforce can be found attached.
The driver now appeals to POPLA on no additional relevant grounds.
APCOA have provided photographic evidence of the signage containing the restrictions displayed at
the site, which state: “Restriction Zone. No stopping at any time to drop off or pick up.” We have also
provided time stamped photographic evidence of the vehicle at the location in question. These show
a passenger being picked up or dropped off; in breach of the terms set.
A driver, who enters onto private land, does so freely and in full acceptance of the terms of parking
clearly displayed on the signage on site, and upon the Airport’s website.
Signage at this site is adequate and clearly displayed, in accordance to the BPA guideline, of whom
APCOA are and approved Operator.
It is the driver’s responsibility to familiarise themselves with the terms / restrictions of this site and
to advise their passengers accordingly as the driver will be held liable.


Attached Image
Attached Image


Um any advice.............as I thought I would be safe on the notice not arriving within 14 days and that the car was stopped for 11 secs and thought a grace period was allowed under BPAs rules. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 16:47
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



If that's the APCOA evidence to POPLA, you have seven days to send POPLA your comments :

APCOA has confirmed that the location is covered by the Airport Byelaws and is not relevant land in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
APCOA has also accepted that the appellant, the registered keeper, was not the driver
It therefore agrees that it has no right to recover any payment from the appellant and the Parking Notice must be cancelled
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:56
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 17:47) *
If that's the APCOA evidence to POPLA

Looks like it's the appeal rejection, not POPLA. However, their response can be used (against them) in the POPLA appeal. Nice of them to admit two separate facts which completely scuppers their own case.

This post has been edited by The Slithy Tove: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
unicorn47
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 12:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 May 2015
Member No.: 77,413



Quote from POPLA website.

"Byelaws

In September 2016, POPLA took the decision to adjourn all appeals relating to parking charges or penalty charges issued on land subject to byelaws. We did so after receiving challenges that we did not have a remit to determine a byelaw breach.

We accept that only a court can determine a breach of law."

As APCOA are claiming location is covered by Byelaws, how come POPLA are adjudicating on Airport claims but not Railway.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loladog
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 20:48
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



Thanks for all the feedback. You are quite right it was the reply from APCOA for evidence to POPLA.

So I will answer a few of their points and also will quote

"APCOA has confirmed that the location is covered by the Airport Byelaws and is not relevant land in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act
APCOA has also accepted that the appellant, the registered keeper, was not the driver
It therefore agrees that it has no right to recover any payment from the appellant and the Parking Notice must be cancelled"

Also does anyone know if a grace period does apply as they said they are issuing the charge through BPA guidelines, Im sure Ive seen something about a grace period?

Thanks to all for your input, cool.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 22:01
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



QUOTE
The driver made an appeal to APOCA


really ? ?
or did acpoa lie about knowing who the driver was


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loladog
post Sun, 15 Jul 2018 - 14:46
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



Yes I can see why you would say that, they took my word I wasnt the driver...............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
loladog
post Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 09:49
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,726



Thanks to everyone for their input this is what I received as a reply :

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the airport Byelaws do not apply to the road. The appellant says that the amount requested is a penalty and contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015. She says the operator has not complied with the provisions of PoFA 2012 when issuing the PCN, as the notice was received 27 days after the parking event. She says that the operator does not have the appropriate authority to issue PCNs on the land. She says the signage is not sufficient to form a contract.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, I cannot determine whether they have authority to issue PCNs on the site in question. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

So yes it was successful, ...........many thanks so at least I know now how to fight the next one !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 13:55
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Interesting comment 'or appointed agent.' Maybe POPLA appeals should now include proof of agency right up the line to the landowner.

Well done. Good result.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 14:27
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



POPLA has for some time accepted witness statements regarding the existence of a contract instead of producing the contract itself

IIRC recent changes to the BPA Code of Practice stop parking companies signing the statements themselves
They must be signed by a representative of the land-owner

This might be inconvenient

There's also the possibility that POPLA doesn't want to rule on a Byelaws issue

My understanding is that Airport Byelaws usually apply to the air-side roads, not the roads leading to the terminals that are covered by the Road Traffic Enactments

Well done
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:18
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here