APCOA - Theale train station Parking Ticket - help

[dimmickc4]

Hello all,

I am hoping for a little help.

I received a parking ticket from APCOA for parking with no ticket at Theale train station. This happened on May 20 2015, The ticket was issued at 11:43.

Without really reading anything I put in an appeal to APCOA, I knew from reading papers never to pay up for private land.

 

My appeal:

I admit this was very basic but I knew they would reject anything I put so did not really try.

I am a regular Theale Parker and use the APCOA app to pay for my parking.

On the date in question I parked at my usual time of 07:20, as normal once I boarded the train I tried to pay for my parking at a price of £4.20. However, the app would not let me, I kept getting a "system Error" message.

I kept trying but thought as I am on the train where I do not get good signal I will try again in approx 30 minutes when I get to London. With full 4G I tried again with the same result, headed to the tube so I could get to my office. More and more attempts to no avail (I do have several screen grabs of the error message) I was then in meetings from 9am until 2. When I came out of my meeting (no phones allowed in the meeting) I was finally able to pay for parking at a cost of £2.80.

Upon getting to my car at 17:20 I found I had been given a ticket, the ticket was issued at 11:43am.

I immediately tried calling them, no luck so I mailed them, probably not a good idea without research but anger got the better of me. I wrote a short version of the above:

"Hello,

I parked at Theale car park today between 7:20 and 17:20. I had tried several times to pay via your iPhone app, but continued to receive the error message:"System error - There has been an error processing your request. Please try again later. I tried every 5 minutes for 2 hours with no luck. As I was at work I had to stop and go into meetings. I tried again after at approx 14:00 as was able to get the parking. I have screen shots of the error messages and the train tickets to prove I was in London at the stated times. I release I have not paid the full amount (2.80 vs 4.20) I am prepared to pay the difference but as this was no my fault that is all I am prepared to pay."

 

A few days later, as expected I received their rejection notice;I called them. They said to appeal to POPLA by copying and pasting what I had sent to them to POPLA. I did this (stupidity I know!) The POPLA appeal is due on July 1st.

 

Today (June 15) I received a mail from APCOA with their evidence, what I would expect, pictures of the signs and it states their app was working on the day! No proof of this though just their word. it also says that I can submit further evidence to POPLA directly but before I do I would like some help.

 

The points I want to cover would be:

 

- the app was not working - I don't care what they say, for 2 hours I tried but it didn't work. To their point about calling the number- I use the app so I don't have to pay for the call! I couldn't call anyway as I did not have the number or signal to get it while commuting. Then at the office I was in meetings.

 

- The signage. They provided pictures in their evidence showing the terms and conditions. However, in the main sign next to the pay machine it does not state that payment has to be made immediately, no, this line is found 80 feet in the opposite direction, 8 feet in the air. Part of my argument would be it says I have to pay on the main sign, not when I have to pay. Are we expected to walk around the car park checking all the signs to make sure we know all the terms? I would liken that to signing a contract when a page has been left in a draw!

 

One more point on this, after the person from APCOA said to me on the phone I would of had 30 minutes grace period to make the payment, the sign says it has to be made immediately, contradiction? Also the observation time and ticket issuds time are exactly the same at 11:43 should these not be different?

 

- finally the £100! There were lots of spaces, at least 100. In no way was my parking stopping anyone from having a space. I eventually was able to pay for the space albeit at a reduced rate. But had I have been able to pay it would have been only £1.40 more so why £100? This seems punitive to me. I am more than prepared to pay the difference plus a small fee for their trouble, a payment of £10 but no more.

 

I will do whatever it takes to fight this.

 

Any help people can give would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

Chris

[Beesnees]

I'm no expert, but here are a few pointers until one of 'em comes along.

 

So you were done by Uncle Sam? Dude, anybody but them. So now they're exporting their cowboys to us as well huh? Still, the fact that they are a private company is in your favour. You made a rookie error in immediately identifying yourself as the driver. Next time (if there is one), wait for the NTK (Notice to Keeper) before responding in the 3rd person - eg, '....the driver...' But all is not lost.

 

Firstly, our beloved experts will want to see a redacted copy of the NTD (ie the ticket). Make sure you remove all personal & car ID info by editing in (eg) Paint. Someone will give you the link if you don't know how.

 

Secondly, you may well need to follow up your POPLA appeal with an addendum citing both GPEOL (Genuine Pre-estimate of Losses) and invalid signage as additional grounds. The former addresses the punitive aspect of their 'speculative invoice', the latter puts the existence of any contract between you and APCOA in doubt.

 

Finally, you might also be asked by the expert/s to request sight of the contract that exists between APCOA and First Great Western. Land owned by Rail companies is often subject to bylaws that will take precedence over any contractual terms. But as I'm talking thru my backside, I could well be wrong.

 

If that doesn't provoke an expert backlash, I don't know what will.

[dimmickc4]

Thank you Beesnees

I had to identify myself as the driver because its a fleet car, and if they had received the fine they would automatically pay it, this way at least they have to deal with me and can no longer by default get the money. I will get a copy of the ticket and post it up asap.

[Beesnees]

But they were not the driver, so all the more reason not to pay. Administrative cop-out that plays right into the PPC's hands.

[ericsbrother]

Railway station car parks are normally covered by Railway byelaw 14 and 15 so the parking co has no grounds to ask for any money and they know it. The train operating co can prosecute you but as yet they ahve only tried this with taxi drivers and lost as the definitions of the byelays make it unlikely that a minor breach is braking the law.

[Beesnees]

So the OP doesn't need to post up a redacted copy of the NTD then? Just add 'no lawful authority' to his POPLA appeal 'by virtue of bylaws 14 and 15, which override any contractual relationship between the landowner and APCOA that purports to assign rights to issue charges for an alleged contravention of terms.'

[dimmickc4]

Thank you, that helps.

I have drafted my mail to POPLA please let me know if you think I should change anything:

Hello,

In regards to my Parking ticket appeal scheduled for July 1 2015 I would like to enter an extended defence.

 

1. The mobile App was not working for me, for almost 3 hours I tried multiple times with the same attached error message (screen grab off phone) No evidence has been provided that the app was working, Metadata, system logs only the Operators say so. I also have several witness that will attest to my attempts of trying to pay for the parking.

 

2.The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

 

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to any loss that would have been suffered to the Landowner. The reduced sum of £50 rises to £100 if not paid within 30 days of the date of their appeal rejection letter and therefore indicates that the initial sum is a blanket sum and not proportional to any actual costs incurred as a direct result of the alleged parking infringement. To date, APCOA have not provided me with a complete break-down of how this “charge” was calculated in the form of specific evidence relating to this car park and this alleged incident.

 

In the BPA code of practice, paragraph 19.5 states:

 

“If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.”

 

And paragraph 19.6 states:

 

“If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

 

I am aware of previous POPLA adjudications in which day to day running costs of the business (staff uniforms, signage, maintenance etc.) would have been incurred whether the alleged breach had occurred or not therefore these may not be included as a pre-estimate of loss. There is no machine for paying for parking on the site (it is a private, residential car park), and there was no loss or damage arising from the incident. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a “parking charge” is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

 

I would suggest that the actual loss incurred would be the difference to what was paid and the full day charge (£1.40) I will happily pay this amount for my mistake, but as the car would have been in the same place in either case, no further loss could have been incurred and had they allowed me to make this payment when I first contacted them no further action or “Loss” would have taken place in putting this appeal together.

 

3.Breach of BPA code of practice regarding grace periods.

 

Section 13.2 of the BPA code of practice states:

 

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

 

The PCN issued to me states the “time first seen” as 11:43 on the 20/05/15 and the charge “issue time” as 11:43 on the 20/05/15. It is clear that no grace period was afforded to me as recommended in the BPA code of practice. Section 13.3 states:

 

“You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.”

 

I strongly suggest that no such grace period was afforded to me and that UKPC has breached best practice set out by their regulatory authority.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

4. No Lawful authority - by virtue of railway bylaws 14 and 15, which override any contractual relationship between the landowner and APCOA that purports to assign rights to issue charges for an alleged contravention of terms.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[Beesnees]

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

You should remove the repetition at the end of the previous point (3).

 

UKPC has breached best practice

???

 

You mean APCOA, right?

 

Aside from some minor grammatical errors, looks ok to me. Maybe one of the experts will add their imprimatur.

[dimmickc4]

I have rectified those oversights

[ericsbrother]

Basically it is not "relevant land" under the PoFA so if they reject your appeal and it goes to POPLA they are stuffed. No keeper liability when this is the case anyway but again the byelaws do have something to say about that. However, as a ticket was purchased the railway co anrent going to get involved just because their pet parking cowboy has been rumbled.

[Beesnees]

I believe they've already rejected his appeal (now there's a surprise), so his win should now be a trivial matter.

 

EDIT: But does PoFA apply when he's already admitted to being the driver and disclosed his own ID, etc?

[DragonFly1967]

OK, just a couple more minor things.

 

This is a ticket from a railway station carpark, yet in your POPLA appeal, you refer to it as a private residential car park.

 

You might also want to work in the following under point 2...

 

If APCOA's Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss is £100. How can they possibly afford to lose £50 each and every time someone pays within 30 days? Or

If APCOA's Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss is £50, why are they attempting to charge me £100?

 

The Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss cannot be both figures and therefore cannot be genuine.

[dimmickc4]

Again corrections/alterations made (Thank you)

In regards to my Parking ticket appeal scheduled for July 1 2015 I would like to enter an extended defence.

 

1. The mobile App was not working for me, for almost 3 hours I tried multiple times with the same attached error message (screen grab off phone) No evidence has been provided that the app was working, Metadata, system logs only the Operators say so. I also have several witness that will attest to my attempts of trying to pay for the parking.

 

2.The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

 

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to any loss that would have been suffered to the Landowner. The reduced sum of £50 rises to £100 if not paid within 30 days of the date of their appeal rejection letter and therefore indicates that the initial sum is a blanket sum and not proportional to any actual costs incurred as a direct result of the alleged parking infringement. To date, APCOA have not provided me with a complete break-down of how this “charge” was calculated in the form of specific evidence relating to this car park and this alleged incident.

 

In the BPA code of practice, paragraph 19.5 states:

 

“If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.”

 

And paragraph 19.6 states:

 

“If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

 

I am aware of previous POPLA adjudications in which day to day running costs of the business (staff uniforms, signage, maintenance etc.) would have been incurred whether the alleged breach had occurred or not therefore these may not be included as a pre-estimate of loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a “parking charge” is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

 

I would suggest that the actual loss incurred would be the difference to what was paid and the full day charge (£1.40) I will happily pay this amount for my mistake, but as the car would have been in the same place in either case, no further loss could have been incurred and had they allowed me to make this payment when I first contacted them no further action or “Loss” would have taken place in putting this appeal together.

 

Final thought on the charges

If APCOA's Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss is £100. How can they possibly afford to lose £50 each and every time someone pays within 30 days? Or

If APCOA's Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss is £50, why are they attempting to charge me £100?

 

The Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss cannot be both figures and therefore cannot be genuine.

 

3.Breach of BPA code of practice regarding grace periods.

 

Section 13.2 of the BPA code of practice states:

 

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

 

The PCN issued to me states the “time first seen” as 11:43 on the 20/05/15 and the charge “issue time” as 11:43 on the 20/05/15. It is clear that no grace period was afforded to me as recommended in the BPA code of practice. Section 13.3 states:

 

“You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.”

 

I strongly suggest that no such grace period was afforded to me and that APCOA has breached best practice set out by their regulatory authority.

 

4. No Lawful authority - by virtue of railway bylaws 14 and 15, which override any contractual relationship between the landowner and APCOA that purports to assign rights to issue charges for an alleged contravention of terms.

 

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

 

Thanks and regards

[ericsbrother]

Put point 4 first. The rest become redundant thereafter if POPLA consider this point.

[dimmickc4]

Hi All,

An update, after a lengthy delay by POPLA reviewing my case I WON my appeal!

here is the response:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 20 May 2015, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that the appellant did not make a valid payment for their vehicle to remain at the site.

The appellant has made a number of submissions. However I will only elaborate on the one submission that I will be allowing this appeal on namely there was inadequate signage erected at the site. The appellant submits that there signage did not state that payment had to be made at the time of parking.

As the appellant has disputed being aware of the parking terms and conditions, the burden is on the operator to prove otherwise. Although the operator has submitted evidence of signage erected at the site which states that “payment must be made immediately”, no evidence has been submitted to show that these terms and conditions were erected near or around the appellant’s vehicle. Therefore I am unable to find that the appellant was fully informed of the parking terms and conditions. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

 

Thank you all

[ericsbrother]

glad your appeal was successful. I note that POPLA ignored the elephant in the room regarding the land not being relevant land for PoFA purposes and therefore byelaw 14 is the only method of claiming keeper liability.

Still, if the law was applied as it stands rather than as the parking co's wish it none of therm would be in business