PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Heathrow T3 drop off PCN, Forgot to pay £5 when I dropped off
Karl Hants
post Sat, 2 Apr 2022 - 21:33
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 2 Apr 2022
Member No.: 116,164



I dropped off my nephew on 7th March at Heathrow Terminal 3. Didn't realise they had a drop-off charge until I got there. It was around 6 in the morning so assumed there would be an obvious payment method. There wasn't one so I got home, fell asleep and completely forgot. I got a PCN through the post, dated 14th March. I assumed that since this was an innocent oversight it could be rectified by me sending a polite response back, if only I had looked on this forum before responding!

I sent an appeal with the following reply:
I go to Heathrow very rarely and didn't realise there was a charge for drop-off until I got there. I did not know how to pay and assumed I would receive something through the post to pay for this charge. Instead I got this 'Parking Charge Notice'. I have gone on your website and paid the £5 charge, I could only pay for 17th March so I have attached the proof for this. I apologise for the oversight and will remember if I visit Heathrow again. This charge has now been paid.

Obviously did not do the trick, since they refused the appeal.

I think it's daylight robbery, to be asked to pay the charge of £40, I think now increased to £80. Can anyone help with recommendations on what I should do next or should I just pay the charge and put it down to a nightmare episode!

Any help / advice would be welcome.

This post has been edited by Karl Hants: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 - 21:38
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 24)
Advertisement
post Sat, 2 Apr 2022 - 21:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Nosy Parker
post Thu, 19 May 2022 - 05:21
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 889
Joined: 22 Jan 2022
Member No.: 115,469



Your point 2 about airport byelaws is irrelevant as you’ve admitted you were driving. This point is only useful when the case is about keeper as opposed to driver liability. I suggest you drop it

Your point 3 is a mashing together of 3 unrelated points. The penalty question (£80 is disproportionate to a £5 tariff) has got nothing to do with signage or relevant land. If you want to pursue the penalty point you need to explain why your case is different from Beavis. There’s no point banging on about relevant land because you’ve admitted you were driving.

Your best point is 7. In view of the outcome in my case, I would change my words “properly notified” to “even mentioned”. I don’t understand why you think the VCS case which is about VAT on parking charges is relevant to point 7 which is about adequacy of signage. Can you enlighten us?

This post has been edited by Nosy Parker: Thu, 19 May 2022 - 12:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karl Hants
post Sun, 22 May 2022 - 23:08
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 2 Apr 2022
Member No.: 116,164



Hi

@Nosy Parker; It goes to show that I haven't a clue when it comes to points of law!

However, good news, my appeal has been successful rolleyes.gif

POPLA assessment and decision; 19/05/2022
Verification Code; 0490872197
Assessor Name; Rebecca Appleton

Winning appeal point; Misleading and unclear signage
The £80 parking charge is not properly notified to motorists until they have already entered the drop off zone, i.e. after the parking contract has been concluded, and do not have the opportunity to leave the drop off zone without parking. Principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] QB 163.
In addition assessor Andy Prescott decided as recently as 20.4.22 (POPLA reference 0490392173) that the signs are inadequate in the following terms:
“‘I reviewed the signs in this case and must note the reference to a: “£80” PCN is written in a much smaller font than the conditions that precede it, particularly the requirement to pay £5 per visit which is significantly more prominent…. I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists.”

Photos submitted are taken static, reading all that detail on the move, in the dark is not possible!

Hence the most significant arguments not addressed, I request my appeal is upheld.'

Adjudication;
'While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage, I consider the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and is therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. For the reasons outlined above, I consider the PCN to be invalid and so, I must allow this appeal. All other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.'


Thanks for everyone's help and assistance, especially 'Nosy Parker'. Even though I didn't understand the points of law and I started off on the wrong foot I still managed to win with your help biggrin.gif

APCOA didn't have to make it so difficult, it was an honest mistake and I was happy to pay the £5 after it was brought to my attention. They knew it was my first breach when I tried to settle so if they had not been so pigheaded then all the time/effort plus the resources they used to get another failed result!

My lesson is; Do the research before replying in the first place and don't assume that the company will be pragmatic.


I hope this doesn't happen to anyone else (although I've a felling it will) but if it does then trust this helps others in a similar position.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nosy Parker
post Mon, 23 May 2022 - 04:24
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 889
Joined: 22 Jan 2022
Member No.: 115,469



Great outcome. Well done!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Mon, 23 May 2022 - 09:20
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Maybe APCOA will changed their signs (pigs will fly) but it may cost them too much.
Cheaper to fleece the motorist, but with this site they may make less money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 23 May 2022 - 09:51
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Mon, 23 May 2022 - 10:20) *
Maybe APCOA will changed their signs (pigs will fly) but it may cost them too much.

I don't think it's possible to fix with signs, it needs an entry barrier like many airports already used (like BHX).


--------------------
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

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 - 12:15
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