Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: APCOA ticket at Elstree & Borehamwood Station
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
iamiam
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.
ManxRed
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.
Jlc
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?
anon45
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.
dandyman
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.


Jlc
Ok, ok, ignoring is an option. But they do have 6 years to bring claims however unlikely that is.
iamiam
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.
bama
is the station car park subject to byelaws
Benny.T
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
emanresu
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.
The Rookie
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.....
iamiam
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.
Benny.T
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
emanresu
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
anon45
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 is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.