APCOA Parking Ltd - Train Station PENALTLY NOTICE |
APCOA Parking Ltd - Train Station PENALTLY NOTICE |
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 21:29
Post
#1
|
|||
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 17 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,495 |
Hi,
I have had a good look through the forum and would just like some advice on how best to proceed as I have read contradicting information (or interpreted some wrong). One of my cars received a “Parking Penalty Notice” envelope tucked under the windscreen wiper with the “PENALTY NOTICE” pictured below after being parked at a train station car park. The parking is usually paid for using the Ringgo app and the driver had thought they had extended the session from the previous day to cover the day of the notice. On the train back they actually realized they didn’t and purchased the parking in a panic but it wouldn’t let them do the whole day, only from that time (the app apparently didn’t make that clear though and this is only assumed from the price). The driver thought that the car park was run by the local council and would be the standard £25 fine if they had checked the car and would have happily paid it as it was an honest mistake and they may have even got away with putting this amount through expenses at their work. They actually come to find it being the standard £50 these third parties like to hand out and is finding it a little bit harder to swallow, especially after stupidly paying on the app before finding out it had already been ticketed. The driver would much rather give the full £85 to a charity then pay the £50 to this type of ‘company’ and actually this is what they intend to do if I can overturn it. Some quick points I have seen in other threads just to cover it off now:
My questions are these:
Thanks very much in advance Sorry just trying to upload pictures but seems to keep failing on one of them. This post has been edited by bearybarney: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 21:22 |
||
|
|||
Advertisement |
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 21:29
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Apr 2019 - 16:52
Post
#21
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 17 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,495 |
Just thought I would give an update,
I took the advice above and didn't appeal until the RtK came through the post. Its getting on for two months and I havent had anything, not sure if is backlog but i would have thought it would have been here by now if it was going to go that way. Cheers all for your help anyway |
|
|
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 18:08
Post
#22
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 17 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,495 |
Hi again,
Well I spoke too soon. I received a notice to keeper through the post (attached). Interesting it seems to contain a typo, unless it is some other level of legal grammar: "You may are legally liable for this offence..." It does confirm this is under the Railway Byelaws. Would the right course of action to be to now respond around the 26th day (recorded delivery?) stating I wasn't the driver and a small spelling error to stall for the 6 months? Thanks in advance This post has been edited by bearybarney: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 18:45 |
|
|
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 19:30
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 334 Joined: 1 Jul 2014 From: east sussex Member No.: 71,587 |
My goodness. That letter is riddled with lies:-
1. “An offence has been committed”. No. That’s for the Magistrates’ Court to decide. Until then the driver is presumed innocent - see article 6 (2) European Convention on Human Rights. So the most they can say is “We have reason to believe an offence has been committed.” 2. “You may/are legally liable for this offence even if you were not the driver at the time.” The opposite is true. Only the person in charge (driver) can be liable for a Byelaws parking offence. 3. “The owner …means the person by whom the vehicle is kept…..”. Complete rubbish. Have a look at the front of the log book. There it says in big letters: “This document is not proof of ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle.” There is no presumption in law that the keeper is the owner. 4. “APCOA is entitled to pursue you through the Magistrates Court by way of a private prosecution for payment of the Penalty Charge”. Prosecute the owner? For what offence exactly? It’s not an offence to not pay their unenforceable penalty. Nor is it an offence to be the owner of a vehicle parked in breach of the Byelaws (otherwise finance companies who are the legal owners of cars under HP agreements could be prosecuted). 5. “The notice issued to the car ..was an invitation to you to settle your liability for a Penalty Charge…” That sentence is self-contradictory. An invitation can be accepted or refused and cannot itself give rise to any form of liability. 6. “…That offer is still open”. Since when did it become a criminal offence to turn down an offer? 7. “The information may be retained for up to 6 years following the completion of processing.” No. Personal data can only be kept as long as it is needed for the purpose for which it was obtained. After 6 months the legal basis for processing it (pursuing the driver for breach of the Byelaws) comes to an end. Not only that, this is the first Notice to Keeper. Under par 22.1 of the BPA code of practice they are obliged to give drivers and keepers the chance to appeal. So if they refuse to allow you to appeal as keeper, and thus deny you access to POPLA , you should complain to both the BPA and the DVLA. And yes, if you were not the driver you should tell them so. This post has been edited by dramaqueen: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 04:34 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 16:58
Post
#24
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 17 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,495 |
Thanks @Dramaqueen,
Should I mention the items you have highlighted in my response to them? or is it not worth it? I guess I should at least object to them retaining my data though so it will be destroyed after the 6 months is up? Thanks |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 18:35
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 334 Joined: 1 Jul 2014 From: east sussex Member No.: 71,587 |
For now, I would just say you are appealing as keeper; you were not the driver; and as keeper you have no liability under the Byelaws. Their purpose for processing your data is therefore at an end, it is causing you distress, and accordingly they must delete your data forthwith and confirm they are doing so.
The POPLA appeal (if they give you access) will be worded differently. That catalogue of wrong-doing above is just to reassure you they are the ones who are treading on thin ice. If they persist, these points will also form the basis of a claim against them for a) breach of the Data Protection Act for using your personal details without a lawful basis; and b) misleading and aggressive actions contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2009 as amended. This post has been edited by dramaqueen: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 18:36 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 20:04
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
Have just been looking them up regarding another matter |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 20:14
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 334 Joined: 1 Jul 2014 From: east sussex Member No.: 71,587 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:10 |