PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

APCOA ANPR-enabled location, Autopay didn't work, appeal rejected
QuackingPlums
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 15:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



Hi,

I am the (registered?) keeper of a couple of vehicles that are registered to my APCOA Connect account, which are regularly parked at an APCOA ANPR-enabled railway station car park. All of these vehicles are registered for Autopay.

I replaced one of these vehicles in December and updated my APCOA account immediately. The driver(s) of these vehicles have continued to use that car park since then.

Last week, I received the first of several PCNs as the keeper of the new vehicle. I have been receiving a steady stream of PCNs ever since (three so far) for each day that the new vehicle has been parked at that location.
The dates on the PCNs are as follows:
Date of issue: 14/2, date of contravention: 14/1
Date of issue: 14/2, date of contravention: 15/1
Date of issue: 20/2, date of contravention: 25/1
EDIT: I just checked the PPC ticket flow chart - do all of these contravene the requirement to serve notice within 14 days or is it different for railways?

I first contacted APCOA customer services, thinking it was a simple clerical error, and was advised to just appeal each one via the website so that they can correct it, which I have done for three PCNs so far.

The first two have now been rejected, with the exact reason as follows:
-----
At the time the ANPR Cameras observed your vehicle they noted that it was parked without a valid payment, therefore it was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park and a Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they have a valid payment for the entire time that they are parked in the car park and that this payment is made straight away when parking. We have checked the machine reports for the date in question and many transactions were made throughout the day and there is also the option to pay using APCOA Connect or online. All payment options are advertised on site, multiple signs within the car park inform drivers a notice will be issued with a PCN if they fail to make a valid payment.
-----
This looks like they've ignored the fact that the vehicles are registered with Autopay (the website shows my vehicle in my "VEHICLE DETAILS" list) and are referring to the regular app and phone mechanisms.

I've spoken to customer services again, and the first agent told me that the only remaining action I can take is to appeal via POPLA, because my appeals have already been rejected. Should I do this right away for all of my PCNs or just the ones that have been rejected? Is it worth continuing with my appeals to APCOA at all if I receive further PCNs?

I've also spoken to a second CS agent who says that he will check with his supervisor and get back to me. I have no idea if this will reveal anything promising.

Is this likely to turn into a nightmare? I can't remember which car is parked there on which days and by whom but there is potential for there to be a ticket winging its way to me for every day over the past month that the new vehicle was parked at that location. I get that it's the driver's responsibility to ensure a valid payment exists but it was my impression that I had done exactly that for all vehicles for which I am the keeper. The website certainly does not give me a reason to believe that it has not worked.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

This post has been edited by QuackingPlums: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 16:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 15:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 09:05
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



For the benefit of this and future discussions about Hanborough station car park, here are the APCOA signs on display around the car park. I've only just noticed that it states full terms and conditions are available at the entrance to the car park - I will have to look at that the next time I pass this station.
I'm sure the white-on-light-blue colouring is intentional to make it harder to read.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 09:20
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 14:29) *
Nothinbg in that text suggests a penalty under byelaws. Parking notice, notice to owner, penalty notice - which terms are used?

I've attached a suitably anonymised copy of the PCN/NTK below now but yes, it states "Parking Charge Notice" at the top. It also states that this is a "notice … to the registered keeper" a little further down.

QUOTE
The reason for the effort is that byelaws contolled land means no chance of Keeper liability, but thta was thrown away anyway.

Ok, so given that I am hitting a brick wall with being able to confirm with 100% certainty that this is byelaws-controlled land, I'm going to interpret this as a dead end. sad.gif

QUOTE
Appeal to POPLA under
- vehicle was registered on AutoPay one dates X,Y days before the first parking charge
- Autopay states it is in use at all ANPR controlled APCOA car parks
- this car park is ANPR controlled, and therefore the agreement to use Autopay is in force
- a failure in Autopay OR ANPR (You do not lknow where the error occurred; do not presume) meant that no account was debited, and this was the operators fault, not the appellants
- no charge would have been issued had thei systerm worked as advertsed and promised (include Autopay info here, do NOT make them go to a website link ANYEWHER, include a screenshot) and so the PCN was not issued correctly> the appeal must be upheld, as an appellant cannot be responsible for tjhe failure of an operators systems.

Also inclued
- signage; state if this site is NOT autopay enab;led (Have you confirmed either wya?) then there are no signs stating so, but there IS ANPR logos in use and so the promise to use Autopay is conveyed.

Standing
- standard you aver they have no authority to operate under the precise name found on the site. give company name and registration unmmber. Just in case the actual contract is wiuth someone else! and they have no authority to go to court. pretty sure Apcoa do NOT have permissoin to sue in their contract.

I dont say pay

Thanks for this. I just don't quite understand what you mean by the last section about 'standing'.
6) Do you mean that I state within my appeal to POPLA that APCOA Parking UK Limited has no authority to operate? There's no company registration number shown on the signage but a quick check on the APCOA website shows that their full details are APCOA Parking (UK) Limited, Registered in England and Wales with company number: 2572947

Thanks again!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 10:42
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



If you think the signage is poor there may be an appeal point here for you to try as well. Check the BPA Code of Practice https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu...anuary_2018.pdf

APPENDIX B
Contrast and illumination
There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background.
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times

The more appeal points you include, the more POPLA have to refute. You only have to have one of your appeal points upheld for a successful win. Good luck.


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 12:02
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



6) I mean they have no contract from the landholder, as they likely do not own the land. They are required to have one, see the BPA code of practice

IF in doubt, you search.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 15:32
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 12:02) *
6) I mean they have no contract from the landholder, as they likely do not own the land. They are required to have one, see the BPA code of practice

IF in doubt, you search.


When I searched the GWR website previously, I found a page that stated that the car park at this station is operated by APCOA. That would indicate to me that they are contracted by GWR to enforce parking. I can't see them showing me this written letter of authorisation, even if I ask for it. Not within any timeframe where I could still appeal, anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 16:12
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You're mistaken, again!

You appeal to POPLA
That aappeal requires them to show their landholder contract
IF they dont show it, they should lose the appeal.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 16:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 17:07
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



I did some further searching around this station and have 'discovered' the full terms and conditions on a tiny (A5?) sign near the entrance. I don't think this affects this particular case but it's amusing anyway - how is anybody supposed to read this?!:


Also, so in following the advice above of having as many points in my appeal as possible, here is my draft POPLA appeal wording.
I'm sorry that I still don't quite follow all of the points that have been made in this thread but have done my best given many hours of searching through this and other sources of advice. I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement:

PCN No: XXXXXX
POPLA Code: XXXXX

As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from APCOA Parking (UK) Limited. I submit the points below to show that the driver is not liable for the parking charge:

1. I am already registered for Autopay at this station, as shown by the confirmation email addressed to me below, which states that Autopay is in force AND that I do not have to pay by any other means.
{image of email confirmation that Autopay registration was successful}
Contains the following important (in my opinion) wording:
CODE
Thank you for registering for APCOA Connect Auto Pay, your registration was successful.

Please remember that now you have registered your vehicle with Auto Pay you do not need to pay by any other means (IVR, Web, Smart Phone, SMS) in the Locations listed below for the registered vehicle.

If you need to add further vehicles to your account, please log into My Account on the APCOA Connect website https://www.apcoaconnect.com and add the additional vehicles.

Please remember to update your accounts payment details, if your payment details expire you could be issued with a Parking Notice at the location you have parked.

You may now park using AutoPay at any of the following locations:
<snip>
Great Western Railway : Hanborough
<snip>

Yes, the vehicle registration isn't shown, but hence my next point:

2. The 'vehicle details' screen confirms that this vehicle (for which the parking charge has been issued) has been added in accordance with the instructions in the above email:
{screenshot of the APCOA CONNECT vehicle details screen with list of all registered vehicles - does not show dates of registration but see below}

3. The vehicle was successfully parked at another location using APCOA CONNECT on January 12, 2019 (as shown in my APCOA receipts and history page) - 2 days before the alleged contravention, thus indicating that APCOA acknowledges that the vehicle was registered at the time of the alleged contravention.
{screenshot of the APCOA CONNECT parking history screen, showing successful billing when parked at another location}

4. The payment details are valid and have not expired, which can be verified from the 'my details' screen of the APCOA CONNECT website:
{screenshot of APCOA CONNECT my details screen with valid credit card details}

5. I have complied with all requirements for Autopay to be active and no charge would have been issued had the ANPR and Autopay systems been working as advertised and promised. The appellant cannot be held responsible for the failure of the operator's systems.

6. Additionally, As APCOA Parking (UK) Limited does not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.
{image of terms and conditions signs from previous post that mentions "First Great Western" by name (has since changed to be GWR but is that significant?)}


[for PCNs where I did not inadvertently use "I" in conversation when I meant "the driver"]
7. As this car park is a railway car park, owned by Great Western Railway, it is therefore covered by Railway Byelaws, for which there is no keeper liability. I submit that this PCN was issued incorrectly.

I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld.

How's that?

This post has been edited by QuackingPlums: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 17:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 14:56
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



Any strong opinions on my draft before I submit? I think I've included everything that has been discussed so is there anything that I've worded badly or should omit entirely?

The first PCN is due now so I think it's make-or-break time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 08:30
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



Last attempt to get some feedback/opinion before the first of my POPLA challenges goes in.

Thanks for all your help so far, and fingers crossed I've done enough to challenge this absurd situation at a level that will provide me with a favourable outcome.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 11:10
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



remember POPLA is NOT binding on you, at all. It only binds th eoperator

If you have covered all the bases, then get going.
We're too busy to scrutinise POPLA appeals. Its far beyond what this forum can cope with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 11:39
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



Ok, well thanks very much for your input so far in any case.

Just a final point before I hit send - do I need to quote the relevant section from the BPA code of practice against every point of appeal?

I have the BPA document here and am just checking if it works for or against me to quote it.

Thanks again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 13:00
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes. It is evidence led. Include this inline with the allegaiton, not in an yappendix

All pictures have to be incoluded, no liniks to websites etc. All in one, single document.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 14:38
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



First POPLA appeal has gone in (thanks for all your help!), but I've been doing some further reading in the meantime to understand NTK requirements since it now looks like I'll have to appeal every incident.

I'm looking at BPA 33.3, which states that the NTK must be served as soon as possible:
QUOTE
no more than 14 days of obtaining the details from DVLA and within 35 days of the unauthorised parking event.

And POFA Schedule 4, paragraphs 9(4), 9(5), which states that for NTKs where no notice to driver has been served:
QUOTE
the NTK must be delivered [to the registered keeper's address] within … the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.


So this implies that APCOA needs to obtain details from the DVLA *AND* issue the NTK within 14 days, which they have not done for any of my NTKs so far.

For the majority of my cases:
* No notice to driver had been served because they used their ANPR system
* The NTKs all reached me over thirty days after the alleged parking event (with the exception of one that was 26 days)
* I have not explicitly named the driver in my appeals

For these cases, my understanding of the keeper liability requirements is that they have not been met and therefore keeper liability does not apply. In my POPLA appeal I have stated that the keeper liability requirements have not been met and therefore keeper liability does not apply.

7) In 4 of my cases so far, the NTK was ISSUED in excess of 35 days after the alleged contravention date. Is the BPA guidance binding? Should these simply be appealed at APCOA level that they have not been correctly issued or do I submit this to POPLA?

8) In one of my appeals to APCOA (when I was still assuming that they will simply recognise their error and correct it), I mentioned that "I am concerned that I will continue to receive PCNs for all the days I have parked…" when I simply got tired of typing out 'the car was parked' in full - would they have grounds to interpret this as me having identified the driver? If so, do I have any other options here, beyond the points I've already looked into regarding signage, correct working of systems as promised?

9) Lastly, just to get it clear in my mind, am I correct that IF I can get GWR to confirm that they own the land THEN Railway Byelaws apply, which means that there is no keeper liability whether or not APCOA has satisfied the POFA requirements for keeper liability?

Thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 15:28
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



Good luck with these appeals, Quacking. Add to your appeals that the NtK was received xxx days after the parking event so no keeper liability applies. The adjudicator may agree it’s pertinent, if they don’t, there’s nothing lost.

Definitely quote the relevant BPA Code of Practice where it applies.

Throw the kitchen sink at each appeal, adding in as much info as you can. The more you allege, the more POPLA has to refute.


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:40
Post #35


Member


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



Forget what the BPA say about a NTK. What matters is what POFA states, that's the law and that's what matters
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 09:06
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 21:40) *
Forget what the BPA say about a NTK. What matters is what POFA states, that's the law and that's what matters


If I understand correctly, the POFA paragraph I quoted above states that the NTK must be served within 14 days for keeper liability to apply, which seems to contradict the BPA code of practice. So if I simply quote the POFA paragraph and refuse to name the driver, they can't use BPA as a defence? If this is correct then it looks like this is will be the legal argument that will win all of these cases (where a driver has not been identified) because they've ALL been sent after that 14-day deadline.


Going back to my question (8) then, does what I said in an informal query via the APCOA appeal form constitute my having named a driver for that particular case?:
QUOTE
"I am concerned that I will continue to receive PCNs for all the days I have parked…"

As mentioned before, at this point I was naively thinking they would recognise their mistake, correct it and just charge my account what was owed. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 12:39
Post #37


Member


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



If POPLA find a failure to comply with POFA then that's usually an automatic acceptance of the appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 17:58
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



It looks like APCOA is sticking to its guns that I am not registered with Autopay.

They have submitted their letter of authority but it's out of date. I think this is my obvious response in this instance (can they counter at this point and provide a valid letter?), but I suspect it's just an error on their part that they submitted the wrong one. I have about a dozen more PCNs to appeal so they'll probably get their act together by the time I appeal those.

Interestingly, it does say that GWR authorises them to take legal action.


I'm still very confused about the NTK dates and BPA guidelines from my posts above.

10) If the NTKs have arrived after 35 days from the (alleged) unauthorised parking event, is that grounds for demanding APCOA waiver them for not following the BPA code of practice?

11) If the ANPR NTK was issued later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked then the requirements for POFA and keeper liability have not been met and therefore I can simply state that "APCOA has not met the POFA requirements for keeper liability and that I won't be naming the driver as is my right"? Am I better off doing this at POPLA stage rather than the APCOA stage above?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 07:52
Post #39


Member


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



So that's a witness statement stating that, in the opinion of the writer, a contract exists. That letter is dated 3 years ago and therefore the mention of the period of the contract is probably correct and therefore the evidence they have provided is showing that no current contract exists. This is to your advantage as they have failed to show that a current contract exists. You must point this out.

You must answer their submission to POPLA and note your objection to every statement that they make. If you don't query a statement then it is taken that you accept it.

The witness statement itself is not contemporaneous to this matter and you require the actual contract to be exhibited. I wrote that then had a thought that not demanding the current contract is probably advantageous to you as they have shot themselves in the foot with that out of date witness statement. Things could change for the rest of the PCNs but you will just have to wait and see.

If the driver has been identified then relying on POFA has no advantage.

The NTK is purely an invoice and there is no restriction on the submission of an invoice.

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 08:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
QuackingPlums
post Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 08:57
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,053



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 07:52) *
So that's a witness statement stating that, in the opinion of the writer, a contract exists. That letter is dated 3 years ago and therefore the mention of the period of the contract is probably correct and therefore the evidence they have provided is showing that no current contract exists. This is to your advantage as they have failed to show that a current contract exists. You must point this out.

Thanks for the confirmation.

QUOTE
You must answer their submission to POPLA and note your objection to every statement that they make. If you don't query a statement then it is taken that you accept it.

APCOA is still insisting that my car is not registered on Autopay, and are using a picture of a screen that "I should have seen if I were successfully registered" as proof. I maintain that I received that screen, but there is no way of checking on the site whether their systems were faulty at the time of registration - they claim that my evidence of being registered is simply that the car is known to them, but not to Autopay. Is there a legal response I can put together to express that I don't accept their evidence?

QUOTE
If the driver has been identified then relying on POFA has no advantage.

The NTK is purely an invoice and there is no restriction on the submission of an invoice.

I have a dozen or so PCNs now (and they're still coming). They were all issued via ANPR and therefore no driver has been identified. I've submitted three 'appeals' to APCOA where I naively assumed they'd find the fault and correct it. I did not explicitly name the driver in any of those appeals but I did express concern that this error could affect "all the times I have been parked". I've only submitted the first two to POPLA (the third is due next week).
Given that the driver has not been identified and these are all NTKs, do either the BPA 35 day clause or the POFA 14 day clause apply? Do I challenge APCOA near to the 28 day deadline and state that they haven't met either BPA code of practice or POFA requirements for keeper liability, and that I won't be naming the driver?

As ever, I'm very grateful for your continued input and advice.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:23
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