Apcoa parking contravention charge notice

[DMHODDER]

Hi,

 

I'm new to this group, so sorry if I have posted something incorrectly.

 

I recently received a PARKING CONTRAVENTION CHARGE NOTICE from APCOA for 04-Not parked in a designated parking area.

 

The carpark was full and I parked my car at the end of a line, where I was causing no obstruction whatsoever, there just happened to be no parking bay for my car. I also paid for my ticket.

 

APCOA are requesting I either pay £50 in 14 days or £75 within 28 days else in the event of non-payment, APCOA will apply to the DVLA for registered vehicle keeper details to facilitate the recovery of this debt.

 

I would like to know if anyone has any experience with this and what I actually should do, i.e. pay the ticket, challenge it on grounds of non-obstruction or simply ignore it (the later seems to be the best way to deal with it from reading other like questions)

 

Can anyone help please - thanks?

[Jamberson]

Ignore it would be my advice, and what I would do if it were me.

 

You've posted this in a section which is for local authority tickets, which are very different. This would be better in the private parking enforcement section.

[ims21]

Thread moved to Private Parking Forum.

[peanutsallergy]

I'd appeal. then appeal to POPLA if it's rejected.

POPLA should allow the appeal on a technicality as the discount for early payment doesn't conform to BPA guidelines of at least 40%.

[Bazooka Boo]

Ignore it, you owe nothing, they can do nothing, less for sending reams of deforestation through your door threatening the earth will end if you don't fall for their idle threats and pay for their tea and biscuits.

[DMHODDER]

Ignore it, you owe nothing, they can do nothing, less for sending reams of deforestation through your door threatening the earth will end if you don't fall for their idle threats and pay for their tea and biscuits.

 

Thanks for the reply - how sure are you that they can do nothing? Is this a legal loop hole? I've seen threats with County Courts before, but not DVLA, is this a wording change to make people believe that they are for real now?

[DBC]

It's nothing to do with the DVLA. What gives you that idea? The only thing the DVLA do is to supply the name of the registered keeper. Nothing else.

[Jamberson]

It's not a "loophole", you just don't owe them a penalty. They can claim you do, and threaten you, but at the end of the day, they can't make you pay if you just refuse - so what can they do?

[peanutsallergy]

It's not a "loophole", you just don't owe them a penalty. They can claim you do, and threaten you, but at the end of the day, they can't make you pay if you just refuse - so what can they do?

 

Take you to court.

 

So it's only fair to advise the op that they can do this.

It's unlikely, but several PPC's have been doing this recently, and certainly more than previously.

[DBC]

They haven't actually been taking people to court so far. They have just issuing court papers. That's the difference. This appears to be just another part of the threatogram chain, and when a proper defence is put forward then the PPC backs down. That's happened with UKCPS, Minster Baywatch to name just two. So please stop frightening this poster.

[peanutsallergy]

Stop sugar coating it and treating the op as an idiot, to be used as fodder in your quest against all PPC's.

None of the surge of court papers issued recently have made any progress beyond entering a defence within the 28 days yet.

 

No PPC has even got to the stage of "backing down" in the recent cases.

 

So please tell them the whole truth, as we do on this forum, and let them make their own informed decision.

Not what you want them to make based on half the facts.

[DBC]

You are contradicting yourself. Quote "take you to court .... several PPC's have been doing this recently,"

 

"None of the surge of court papers issued recently have made any progress beyond entering a defence within the 28 days yet"

 

So have they actually taken them to court or not?

[peanutsallergy]

You can tell them ongoing cases don't count as they haven't been heard yet, I'm not even going to entertain an idiotic pedantic argument with you, the op has the facts and can now make an informed choice.

[dx100uk]

the point of matter here is the reason for the speculative invoice...

 

that being

not parked within lines etc

 

as ANY road marking are PURELY garaffitii on private land

and have no statute in law anyhow.

 

and the fact the no PPC has never taken anyone to court for parking outside of lines

 

pigs will fly.

 

dx

[DMHODDER]

You can tell them ongoing cases don't count as they haven't been heard yet, I'm not even going to entertain an idiotic pedantic argument with you, the op has the facts and can now make an informed choice.

 

Ok - thanks for your thoughts - from a legal perspective, does anyone know where I stand without adding the emotions into the case?

[dx100uk]

as post 5 ignore!!

 

dx

[DMHODDER]

as post 5 ignore!!

 

dx

 

Ok - According to the Protection of Fredoms Act, it "seems" that APCOA have a right to determine who is the owner of the registered vehicle that was parked outside bays in a private land car park.

 

I think this effectively means that APCOA can charge the registered owner even if they weren't the person driving the car. The actual person driving the car enters a "Contract" by parking in the private land carpark which will effectively be passed on to the registered owner.

 

This seems to be a fairly recent bill that the govenment has passed, so I'm wondering if this does affect my circumstances at all and if I SHOULD pay the charge.

 

Is there anyone legal here that knows the answer to this?

[dx100uk]

no it changes nothing

 

there are many threads on the 'new' APCOA here

 

go have a read.

 

dx

[DBC]

This is a good summing up of the "new law":-

 

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

[DMHODDER]

This is a good summing up of the "new law":-

 

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

 

Ok - so how do I find out if the parking charge notice I have received is "legal, enforceable or valid"?

[DBC]

A Parking charge notice is just an invoice. Nothing more or nothing else.

[Homer67]

It is an unenforceable demand, nothing else. The change to the law does not make it any more enforceable, you can either send the standard prove you have authority to charge and cease and desist letter or ignore it.You may need a strong will to ignore as the letters do look very convicing and will threaten all sorts from taking your money to court baliffs taking your children - all hogwash and bluster and will not happen.

[firstclassx]

Out of interest, was this at a railway station or railway property? Different circumstances could apply.

[dx100uk]

not unless it was the RAILWAY COMPANY that issued the speculative invoice no change

 

dx

[firstclassx]

not unless it was the RAILWAY COMPANY that issued the speculative invoice no change

 

dx

 

ACPOA staff can issue a Byelaw 14 ticket if acting as an agent of a railway company, as per Railway Byelaw 25(1). This is in the same way as Northern Rail use G4S to do (train ticket) checks at rail stations and prosecute hundreds as a result for Byelaw 18.

 

 

 

ACPOA never, as far as I know take anyone to court, civil or criminal. They could though, but then wouldn't make a profit as the (criminal) fine would go to central funds, not them

 

ANYWAY

Regardless, it was a general question whether the ticket was issued at a railway station. Not the specifics of Byelaws.