I am very stressed about this...

On 30/06/14 I parked in my local station car park (Apcoa run) and due to the one and only machine being broken I used the phone number. I've used twice before (for this capr park) and have an account with them (but park in several APCOA car parks and also Dashparks car park so have no idea what the codes are). As always, as it is the quickest method, I photographed the sign so that I could use to call and quote the code.

I duly called and was confused as it was asking for a higher payment than I expected but I paid as I believed it was better to pay and ask for the money back than get fined (Previous problem with Dashparks at another car park taught me this;. I assumed their system wasn't working correctly). At no point in the automated call did they refer to the station by name. That evening I sent an email via the 'contact us' asking for the excess money to be refunded. The next day I received a reply saying that I was charged for another station. Very confused.

Fast forward another couple of days and a PCN arrives. I finally googled the 4 digit codes and realised I had put the code in for the wrong station. Upon investigation of the signage I realised (one of) the signs in the car park and the one I had used had the wrong code on it.

I duly appealed (maybe the letter was not enough to the point) advising that their signage was incorrect and that at no time did the automated call advise that I was paying for the wrong car park.

It was 'unsuccessful'!

Now do I appeal to POPLA or are they likely to reject - googling suggests many reasons not to do so.

My husband has written a letter direct to APCOA (for me to sign) as below:

Thank you for your letter of July 21st. Having taken legal advice, I have no intention of paying any further charge or appealing to a third party. Therefore if you wish to initiate court proceedings I encourage you to do so.

Since you have already acknowledged in writing that I paid you an amount in excess of the parking charge on the day in question, and I have photographic evidence of your signage error that caused my payment to be misallocated to your Hatfield facility, I have no doubt whatsoever that you would be completely unsuccessful in any court action. If you were, you would in any case only be entitled to recover any loss, and since your error resulted in my overpayment, you actually made a profit.

Please also note that until such time as you do succeed in having a court issue a judgement against me, there is no debt to recover, therefore your threat to engage a debt collector constitutes an offence under Section 40(1)(a) of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 and I would advise you not to repeat it.

Please do not send any more threatening letters, as it is a criminal offence to do so.

Is this the right way to go about it?

I don't want threatening letters/bailiffs calls etc (as it will stress me out no end) and I can't believe they haven't admitted the sign was incorrect (it has since been removed). I am concerned about a CCJ being issued against me due to getting a mortgage etc but I can't believe I don't have a case. I want to make a stand, not capitulate and pay these revolting people for an easy life.

Help!

Did you get a validation code for POPLA in the rejection letter?

If so, then this is the way forward and the charge will get cancelled.

Are byelaws mentioned on the sign or the letter you got in the post ( Notice To Keeper) ?

Did you get a validation code for POPLA in the rejection letter?

 

If so, then this is the way forward and the charge will get cancelled.

 

Are byelaws mentioned on the sign or the letter you got in the post ( Notice To Keeper) ?

Yes, to the verification code and no to the bye laws - does that make any difference?

Yes, to the verification code and no to the bye laws - does that make any difference?

Actually, I think there might have been bye laws on the main sign (not the one with the code on it though). I'd need to check our photos/go to the station to check this.

Yes, to the verification code and no to the bye laws - does that make any difference?

Yes, it makes a difference. You have the easy way of getting this charge cancelled through POPLA.

Can you post up what the rejection letter said please?

How much is the parking charge notice for as well?

Your appeal to POPLA is based on the law , which means that the charge they are claiming has to be a genuine estimate of the loss caused by the vehicle parking. Of course you paid, so no loss has occurred and any reasonable company or industry would acknowledge that.

But this is the private parking industry...

Have a read round the forum for successful POPLA appeals, it really is easy to win!

I have things to do now but shall return later..

Yes, it makes a difference. You have the easy way of getting this charge cancelled through POPLA.

 

Can you post up what the rejection letter said please?

How much is the parking charge notice for as well?

 

Your appeal to POPLA is based on the law , which means that the charge they are claiming has to be a genuine estimate of the loss caused by the vehicle parking. Of course you paid, so no loss has occurred and any reasonable company or industry would acknowledge that.

But this is the private parking industry...

 

Have a read round the forum for successful POPLA appeals, it really is easy to win!

I have things to do now but shall return later..

Thanks - all help is gratefully received. I am also going to log off now as the kids are up. will come back this evening.

The rejection letter said:

Date 21/07

Thank you for your letter dated 30/06. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise that your appeal has not been successful on this occasion.

We would like to take the opportunity to advise you that although you had purchased a valid parking session for the Hatfield Car Park this would not cover you for the Welham Green Car Park. The terms and conditions of the car park clearly state that a valid payment should be made for the parking when leaving your vehicle in the car park. As your payment was for the incorrect car park your payment was not valid. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they have purchased parking for the correct amount of time as well as the correct car park.

Pictures of my car with date and time

Taking into consideration the above mentioned information we are satisfied that the above notice was correctly issued and therefore still stands as such we must advise that your appeal has been rejected.

You now have a number of options;

1.) Pay the parking notice at the discounted price of £50 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the PCN will increase to £85. You can pay by the following methods xxxx

2.) Make an appeal to POPLA - using the accompanying form. Your POPLA verification code is xxxx. Please be advised if you opt for independant arbitration of your case, the PCN will increase to £85.

3.) If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action against you.

Therefore, do I have grounds on:

Incorrect signage? (THEY provided an incorrect sign)

Genuine pre-estimate of loss (They are asking for £85 when actually I paid £6.60 for a circa £3.30 charge)

Threat to engage a debt collector (Section 40(1)(a) of The Administration of Justice Act 1970)

Anything else - I understand that it is good to put as many reasons as possible - I've been looking at what I can but nothing I can see is similar to my appeal where they had just put up the wrong sign.

Thanks in advance

Your POPLA appeal should be roughly:

As registered keeper vehicle reg xxxxxxxx, I am not liable for this charge.

The land in question is not relevant land for schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 to be evoked.

Write a short resume of what the driver did and the (double) amount that was paid to park on the site.

State signage was inadequate.

As twice the correct fee was paid for parking on the site was paid, then no loss has occurred.

Please can a APCOA provide a full breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that this charge must represent.

Please can APCOA show that this charge is not punitive.

I'd like to see any evidence that answers that appeal...

edit: did you identify yourself as the driver in your initial appeal?

Your POPLA appeal should be roughly:

 

As registered keeper vehicle reg xxxxxxxx, I am not liable for this charge.

 

The land in question is not relevant land for schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 to be evoked.

 

Write a short resume of what the driver did and the (double) amount that was paid to park on the site.

 

State signage was inadequate.

 

As twice the correct fee was paid for parking on the site was paid, then no loss has occurred.

Please can a APCOA provide a full breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that this charge must represent.

 

Please can APCOA show that this charge is not punitive.

 

 

I'd like to see any evidence that answers that appeal...

 

 

edit: did you identify yourself as the driver in your initial appeal?

Thanks Armadillo - I will start drafting a letter.

I am confused re 'schedule 4 of the POFA'. I had a read of this and around this... Am I right in thinking that the railways byelaw is likely to pertain to this land as it is First Capital Connect land. There is nothing specifically on any of the signs or any of APCOA's correspondance. A sign mentions they are an 'agent' for first capital connect so that probably covers any of that off.

I don't understand what schedule 4 means in my case:

As a background - I have an account with APCOA for a couple of other 'pay by phone' instances so they would have my details to send the form from there so would never have to contact the DVLA.

Funnily enough, I am not the registered keeper (my husband is) and I wasn't driving (my husband was). However, I was the one who called as the account is registered to my mobile.

Does any of that make any difference.

I consider myself a fairly intelligent person but I am struggling with legal-ease here.

Do I have grounds to also appeal on the 'no contract to issue' terms - APCOA mentioned on their sign that they are 'agents to FCC'?

I also feel but don't know if it can be backed in law that they are trying to 'unfairly get money from me' when they know the sign was wrong and have since removed it. Is there any legal basis to this?

Thanks Armadillo - I will start drafting a letter.

 

I am confused re 'schedule 4 of the POFA'. I had a read of this and around this... Am I right in thinking that the railways byelaw is likely to pertain to this land as it is First Capital Connect land. There is nothing specifically on any of the signs or any of APCOA's correspondance. A sign mentions they are an 'agent' for first capital connect so that probably covers any of that off.

 

I don't understand what schedule 4 means in my case:

 

As a background - I have an account with APCOA for a couple of other 'pay by phone' instances so they would have my details to send the form from there so would never have to contact the DVLA.

 

Funnily enough, I am not the registered keeper (my husband is) and I wasn't driving (my husband was). However, I was the one who called as the account is registered to my mobile.

 

Does any of that make any difference.

 

I consider myself a fairly intelligent person but I am struggling with legal-ease here.

In your first post you said you parked.

Now you say your husband was driving...

You said that byelaws were not mentioned or on signage, then they might be on signage, but they are now not... ?

Apcoa have to contact the DVLA to know who to send the Notice To Keeper to.

Are you saying it was sent to you because you have the car registered on your account?

If the land is covered by byelaws then the POFA and POPLA should not be being used.

But you have a POPLA code, so the charge will get cancelled with the correctly worded appeal.

Firstly, thanks for replying and I am sorry if I have confused - I didn't mean to. My apologies. Its more that having researched I realise that I need to be more specific as these little things are part of the basis for the appeal.

To your first point - yes, my husband was driving (and registered keeper), my parking account. The first appeal was written in my name but I did not specifically say that I was driving (but I wrote as 'I made the call, I photographed the sign etc'). At that point I didn't understand the relevancy. I do now.

To the second point. The PCN was a windcreen PCN. What I was trying to ask was whether the 'schedule 4 of POFA' was irrelevant as they have my details through my account so could circumvent the DVLA anyway (had I ignored the windscreen ticket and waited for a NTK).

To your third point. I wasn't sure at first but this morning I checked all the signage in the car park and there is no mention of any byelaws (and since I have a POPLA code) makes sense so question answered. The land is covered under 'schedule 4 of the POFA'.

Lastly - since they have my details and although I did not say/not say I was driving in so many words - my original letter 'could' be construed that I was driving as it was my account and since I replied to the windscreen PCN - does 'schedule 4' apply anymore? Is this the main argument to schedule 4 or am I missing something completely.

I have done a lot of research this evening but its this point I am stuck on. I have 2 points in draft form on the POPLA appeal letter but am concerned that it looks a little light.

 

Fast forward another couple of days and a PCN arrives.

 

Now it was a windscreen ticket? Your account of what happened is very confusing....

Now it was a windscreen ticket? Your account of what happened is very confusing....

As I said, I'm sorry. This is not my natural habitat and I'm very stressed and upset about it. Please don't make me feel worse.

I have found it very difficult that an appeal has been refused when it was their sign that was wrong and I couldn't have paid for the right place. Any decent and upstanding person/company would see that.

Its hard to now be researching other things to make my appeal stronger and its taken a few Google searches to understand this.

I am completely frazzled, generally, at the moment so, again, I apologise if I've been slow on the uptake and been confusing.

You have all you need in post# 8 to win the POPLA appeal.

As you now say it was a windscreen ticket that you first appealed, then POFA is not being used.

But the land if the land is covered by byelaws, then a penalty charge notice should have been issued.

Also add that you wish to see, through sight of contract, that APCOA have lawful authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices.

You must include that you wish to see the breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that the charge must represent.

And proof that the charge is not punitive.

You have all you need in post# 8 to win the POPLA appeal.

 

As you now say it was a windscreen ticket that you first appealed, then POFA is not being used.

But the land if the land is covered by byelaws, then a penalty charge notice should have been issued.

 

Also add that you wish to see, through sight of contract, that APCOA have lawful authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices.

 

You must include that you wish to see the breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that the charge must represent.

 

And proof that the charge is not punitive.

Thank you . I appreciate.