PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Luton Airport APCOA PCN, Luton Airport APCOA PCN
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 21:15
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



Hi everyone,

I have just received a letter from APCOA at Luton Airport, dated 4th November 2019. The alleged contravention "Dropping off or picking up outside designated areas" occurred on 11th October 2019. From my research I understand the Notice to Keeper must be delivered within a maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach.

The back of the letter makes clear they do not know the name of the driver. From another post I understand that Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore as the Registered Keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land.

The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park Signs are clearly displayed throughout the area'. However the driver didn't enter a car park therefore surely the driver has not entered into a contract with them? Furthermore, as per my understanding, nobody was dropped off or picked up at the location where they are claiming. There were not any signs designating the area as a "No Stopping Zone" nor any signs visible in any of the pictures they have provided.

Finally, I believe the fine of £95, reducing to £55 if paid in 14 days, is punitive and bears no resemblance to any loss to the contractor and is therefore not allowed under the Consumer Rights Act.

I would really appreciate it if someone can advise whether I am indeed on the correct lines and how best to structure my appeal.

I have uploaded the letter received in the hope that will aid responses.

Many thanks

This post has been edited by 12_CarParkHelp_12: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:07
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Car_Park_Query.pdf ( 259.89K ) Number of downloads: 16
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 21:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 596
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Edit your post at once: any actions of the driver should be written to not hint at their identity, e.g. "However the driver didn't enter a car park". You are right that by both byelaws making it non-relevant land and by the >14 period, they can't hold the keeper liable for the actions the driver, who they don't know.

The punative argument was thrown out by the Supreme Court in Beavis in 2015, so don't go there.

You should give Ostell's standard reply:

QUOTE
Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, supplying notice within 14 days and non-relevant (bylaws) land. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 04:32
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,349
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (12_CarParkHelp_12 @ Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:15) *
I have just received a letter from APCOA at Luton Airport, dated 4th November 2019. The alleged contravention "Dropping off or picking up outside designated areas" occurred on 11th October 2019. From my research I understand the Notice to Keeper must be delivered within a maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach.

Your understanding is half right, that 14 days only applies for the notice to the registered keeper, so for certain cars or were there has been a recent change of RK or address it can arrive outside that 14 days and still be sufficient to hold the keeper liable. If APCOA know or find out who was driving it's also irrelevant.

QUOTE (12_CarParkHelp_12 @ Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:15) *
The back of the letter makes clear they do know the name of the driver.

I think there is a NOT missing from that sentence?

QUOTE (12_CarParkHelp_12 @ Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:15) *
Therefore as the Registered Keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land.

Correct, hence the recommended 'bogoff' appeal supplied above.

QUOTE (12_CarParkHelp_12 @ Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:15) *
The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the car park Signs are clearly displayed throughout the area'. However I didn't enter a car park therefore surely I have not entered into a contract with them?

Pretty much that, APCOA signage at airports is well known as being a case study for 'the worst signage imaginable'.

QUOTE (12_CarParkHelp_12 @ Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 22:15) *
Finally, I believe the fine of £95, reducing to £55 if paid in 14 days, is punitive and bears no resemblance to any loss to the contractor and is therefore not allowed under the Consumer Rights Act.

Loss is still potentially a winning legal point, but the Supreme court ruling in Beavis means it's pointless trying to use it at this stage, arguments as to why it may or may not apply to a particular case fall outside a POPLA's assessors ability to comprehend (cope) since new POPLA doesn't use legally trained assessors. It has nothing at all to do with the CRA though, but years of (often apparently contradictory) case law around enforceability of contract terms.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 09:58
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



Thank you both for such quick and detailed responses. I've submitted my appeal so fingers crossed!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 10:08
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,047
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Erm, what? You hadnt even shown us an appeal first - what did you submit?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 13:04
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



Ostell's standard wording as referenced above
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 15:06
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



Hi,

So I have now received a reply from them rejecting my appeal, which is attached. Is what they have said correct? namely the following paragraph:

"Regarding the timeframe you have referred to, this only relates to a PCN that has been issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This PCN has not been issued under this Act, and therefore the timeframe you have referred to is not applicable in this instance.

Please note that the PCN has been issued in line with the guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA) in their Code of Practice, and the timeframes differ to those set out in POFA 2012."

The driver also assures me that there were no signs in the area. This is evident in the pictures.

They also say I have reached the end of the their internal appeals procedure. Are they allowed to do this?

What are my options now, if any?

Any help is massively appreciated.
Thank you!

This post has been edited by 12_CarParkHelp_12: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 15:07
Attached File(s)
Attached File  combined2.pdf ( 236.66K ) Number of downloads: 7
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 15:40
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,047
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



"allowed"? Of course. Theres no regulation. You should be aware of this.

Your obvious step is to appeal to POPLA an dwin, as they have stated they cannot chase the kepeer. Easy.

Show us your appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 15:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 596
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Most of what they say is technically correct, but they are pointedly avoiding the issue that as keeper, you no longer have any liability.

You now submit an appeal to POPLA and win on (lack of) keeper liability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 16:24
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



So taking pointers from a different thread, I've drafted the following appeal. Any thoughts/comments greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Written_Challenge_Draft.pdf ( 75.22K ) Number of downloads: 5
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 16:34
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,047
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You have not stated the obvious first bit
this is not relevant land
You need that upfront and centre. THere can NEVER be keeper liabilty there

You also didnt work in that they have also admitted they cannot hold the keeper liale using POFA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 16:35
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,349
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Where does it detail why they can’t use PoFA in your case?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 17:11
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



Okay so I've worked in the two points which I hadn't copied over from the other thread. I think these points are relevant. However must admit I am getting slightly confused along the way as some of it feels contradictory in points 1) and 2).

In paragraph two of the attached, I have amended the wording as copied from the original thread, and applied it to this case. Hopefully the final sentence "The inference therefore is that the PCN must have been issued under byelaws." is relevant to include and helps my case, rather than hinders it?

Are the additional paragraphs added correct and is there anything else missing?

Many thanks
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Written_Challenge_Draft_v2.pdf ( 161.76K ) Number of downloads: 1
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 17:25
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,047
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I wouldnt even suggest they issued it under byelaws. It doesnt help

Make it simple

This is not relevant land as it is both a public highway, to which the RTEs apply AND it is covered by Byelaws if the Operator claims the RTEs dont apply
So
POFA2012 schedule 4 does not apply and there is no keeper liability
This is confirmed by the operator who has confirmed they are not attempting touse POFA2012 to hold the keeper liable

AS you are appealing as keeper, and there has never been any admission as to the drivers identity, the appeal must be upheld. POPLA has no choice in this matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12_CarParkHelp_1...
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 17:50
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,525



Thanks for the simple summary, that's really useful.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, are you saying I should just use the wording in your previous reply, in my appeal on the POPLA website. Or should I add anything else?
Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 19:02
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,047
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, you create a standard length appeal including all usual items.

However you make it absolutely crystal clear , at the very start, the status of this land

Is there anything you dint understand abiut this argument?
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: Tuesday, 10th December 2019 - 23:39
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.