PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

APCOA ticket at Elstree & Borehamwood Station
iamiam
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 8 Apr 2014
Member No.: 69,958



My partner received an APCOA "Parking Charge Notice" at Elstree & Borehamwood station car part because she forgot to pay one day.

Now, after reading a number of APCOA threads here, am I right in thinking that to avoid paying she may potentially be involved in lengthy correspondence with APCOA, POPLA and even a debt collection agency and that this might go on for six months? Because if so, one may take a view that it's a lot easier just to pay £50.

There is a sense of unfairness, however, because one often pays for this car park but does not use it (to avoid forgetting it's best to pay in advance... but what happens then if you wake up ill and don't go to work - or if the car park is full - they don't give your money back!). So there is a temptation to fight on principle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,903
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Its only a few letters, albeit - yes - it's a long drawn out process.

Also, paying them is essentially funding their business for the future hounding of innocent motorists.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:38
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,890
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



It's almost certainly 'winnable' but will require effort. It could be argued whether this effort is worth £50 of your time but only you can decide that?


--------------------
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
anon45
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 10:15
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,112
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 10:38) *
It's almost certainly 'winnable' but will require effort. It could be argued whether this effort is worth £50 of your time but only you can decide that?

APCOA don't normally 'do' court, as far as I understand it. This could change if Beavis loses, but, even then, APCOA would still have the 'not relevant land' hurdle, being a railway car park, meaning that they would have to prove the identity of the driver, albeit only on the balance of probabilities. If the OP is RK, then this should be straightforward to defend, since he wasn't driving. If the OP's wife, as driver, is RK, then it would be more difficult.

If the OP really doesn't want to put any effort in at all, one option could be to ignore [but never ignore court papers], albeit that this might be seen as unreasonable if APCOA do file a claim.

This post has been edited by anon45: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 10:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 11:54
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



QUOTE (iamiam @ Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 10:30) *
Now, after reading a number of APCOA threads here, am I right in thinking that to avoid paying she may potentially be involved in lengthy correspondence with APCOA, POPLA and even a debt collection agency and that this might go on for six months? Because if so, one may take a view that it's a lot easier just to pay £50.

On what extra-terrestrial scale of difficulty is paying £50 easier than ignoring a few letters?

APCOA are eminently ignorable, they don't "do" court, and they're even less likely to do so where it's "not relevant land" (governed by railway byelaws) so there is no keeper liability. Debt collectors are even more ignorable, they are utterly powerless.

Remember, everyone who caves in and pays these scum companies does a great disservice to their future intended victims. If everyone refused to pay they'd all be out of business in a fortnight.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 12:36
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,890
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Ok, ok, ignoring is an option. But they do have 6 years to bring claims however unlikely that is.


--------------------
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
iamiam
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 06:49
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 8 Apr 2014
Member No.: 69,958



In the past I've used the simply ignore route and after 6 months or so the letters stop. I am made of sterner stuff, however: my partner would fret.

Actually APCOA are not too bad - in the past when I've made mistakes I've simply called / emailed them and got refunds.

Thanks to all for the comments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 07:23
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,926
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



is the station car park subject to byelaws


--------------------
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
Benny.T
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 08:57
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



I'm currently dealing with a Byelaw PCN for a similar incident. If it is Byelaws, then only the land owner can take you to court over this. I didn't get the window PCNs myself so 'ignored' but 3.5 months later a letter came through from the landowner bribing me to pay or face magistrates court. I'm going to be writing all sorts of letters asking for proof of contravention, who the driver was etc etc until 6 months times out and they can't bring it to court smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 10:16
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,089
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
I'm going to be writing all sorts of letters asking for proof of contravention, who the driver was etc etc until 6 months times out and they can't bring it to court


Very reasonable of you. The Mags get fed up with anyone that has not been reasonable - especially when they are not clear about the legal basis of the claim and switch backwards and forwards.

The clarity of the information is within the control of the TOC and there is no excuse for a company with its resources not to be able to answer these questions accurately without confusing a lay person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 12:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,449
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 13:36) *
Ok, ok, ignoring is an option. But they do have 6 years to bring claims however unlikely that is.

6 months if railway byelaws apply.....


--------------------
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
iamiam
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 16:04
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 8 Apr 2014
Member No.: 69,958



QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 08:23) *
is the station car park subject to byelaws


I don't know and it's precisely the hassle of having to figure out this sort of thing that it would be nice to avoid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 16:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



QUOTE (iamiam @ Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 17:04) *
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 08:23) *
is the station car park subject to byelaws


I don't know and it's precisely the hassle of having to figure out this sort of thing that it would be nice to avoid.


It will say on the letter if they're doing it under byelaw 14 or contractual breach etc. Easy way to check is just look on the T&C's at the station
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 16:28
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,089
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



Or read the Franchise Agreement Govia signed when they took it over. 661 pages ohmy.gif

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...e-agreement.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 21:32
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,112
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



QUOTE (Benny.T @ Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 17:11) *
QUOTE (iamiam @ Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 17:04) *
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 08:23) *
is the station car park subject to byelaws


I don't know and it's precisely the hassle of having to figure out this sort of thing that it would be nice to avoid.


It will say on the letter if they're doing it under byelaw 14 or contractual breach etc. Easy way to check is just look on the T&C's at the station

TOCs often *claim* in their letters to have issued a 'byelaw 14' penalty ticket, or to threaten a byelaw 14 prosecution if the ticket is unpaid, but, in virtually all cases, this is just a bluff designed to intimidate the RK into paying, and no such prosecution (nor any civil claim, for that matter) will ever result. I am not aware of a single proven case where an OP has been prosecuted under byelaw 14 after not paying a ticket originally issued by a PPC, as opposed to one directly issued by a TOC such as Northern Rail.

If the T & Cs refer to 'contractual breach', then it would seem pretty conclusive that their 'byelaw 14' threats are hollow, and arguably fraudulent. Even if the T & Cs refer to 'byelaw 14', this does not necessarily mean that a byelaw 14 prosecution is at all likely, especially with the likes of APCOA, who don't 'do' court at all anyway, at least not at the moment.

This post has been edited by anon45: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 - 21:32
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: Wednesday, 12th August 2020 - 23:55
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.