Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: bs2024 on December 07, 2024, 05:04:37 pm
-
Everything in that letter is a lie. Their "Penalty Notice" is not real. You don't seem to understand that it is simply an "offered contract" which is not enforceable under any circumstance.
It was not a Penalty Notice. It is simply an unlawful attempt to extort money from you. You were never under any legal obligation to pay APCOA what is in effect, a bribe for them not to take out a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court. Because the "offered contract" has nothing to so with statutory law, they are not allowed to use the terminology with wording that includes "criminal", "penalty" and "fine".
If you really want to do anything about this, you should report APCOA to Action Fraud. This scam has been going on for many years and, unfortunately, many tens of thousands of Sheeple simply pay the scammers out of gullibility, ignorance and fear... hence the "extortion".
APCOA have NEVER, ever prosecuted any one in a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court. Why not? Because a) they can't because they have not issued a real Penalty Notice and b) even if it were a real Penalty Notice and they were successful, they would not receive a penny as any payment goes to the public purse.
So, believe all you want that you deflected them because of their ANPR or whatever, you have simply been suckered into wasting your time by responding to them. Try and get them to provide a copy of their contract with the Train Operating Company for that station and I will bet £100 that they have no authority to issue Penalty Notices at all.
-
In response to DWMB2, I did contact DVLA for a subject access request and the reason given for releasing information to APCOA is: Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park
This reason seems to be a standard one when requested by car parks.
-
Hi all,
For the interest of this community I provide next an update on the successful appeal regarding the PN.
Notice how the appeal reply letter attached does not indicate the reason for APCOA to cancel and close the PN. It most certain is related to my reply with the text advised previously, including the fact that the car was not at the carpark during the duration they stated. Clearly they have an issue with their ANPR system.
I am also amazed that they just end the letter saying: 'Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience that the matter has caused'
Taking into account the time involved to deal with this issue, and the stress caused by their threatening language if I did not pay and noticing that it was all based on false accusation due to their faulty ANPR system, would I be able to pursue a compensation? Is this a matter for Trading Standards or there is a more suitable Ombudsman?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You are giving it legitimacy by even suggesting that it is either a real PN or a PCN
I'm not sure I agree that pointing out, in addition to the underlying issues with the whole scheme, that their ANPR system is also naff would imply any belief that the scheme was in any way legitimate.
But I agree that the ultimate conclusion will be the same, so I'm not particularly precious.
The point about DVLA has triggered a thought... If you're suitably curious, you could send the DVLA a Subject Access Request to provide details of who has accessed your keeper details and for what purpose. It'd be interesting to see what reason APCOA used with DVLA.
-
Thank you all for your help.
In addition to the very helpful text supplied kindly by 'b789' above, I was planning to follow it up with a simple paragraph stating that the entry and exit times provided on the PN are not complete.
"Furthermore, the car was not parked at the premisses during the time of entry and exit provided on the PN letter. In fact, the car was only there for a few minutes for drop off and pick up, well within the allowed free time as per the signage at the carpark due to the extensive road works around Aldershot train station. I would be happy to provide evidence of this at the Magistrates Court."
Please do let me know if this additional text is acceptable or how would you word it.
Again thank you so much for your help and support.
Best regards,
BS
I would not add to the appeal. You are giving it legitimacy by even suggesting that it is either a real PN or a PCN. It is neither.
Also, adding what you are suggesting will not make one single iota of difference to the outcome, which will be nothing except a load of DRA letters before it all stops and they move on in search of more gullible victims.
-
It's all part of the scam. Let them waste £35 on a POPLA appeal. The outcome is going to be exactly the same whether an appeal is submitted or not.
APCOA had no right to request the Keeper details for the reasons stated above by @H C Andersen. They cannot rely on the KAODE contract. A separate complaint to the DVLA pointing out the reasons they have obtained your DVLA data unlawfully. The DVLA are bound to investigate and respond. It will be interesting to see if or how they excuse APCOA.
And IMO does not fall within the scope of the Code of Practice because it's not managed under contract law, therefore APCOA did not have lawful authority to request the RK's details.
Which is also why POPLA have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a fake PN which is not a PN at all.
The BPA, POPLA and APCOA are all conniving to scam motorists out of money by this unlawful practice.
-
Thank you all for your help.
In addition to the very helpful text supplied kindly by 'b789' above, I was planning to follow it up with a simple paragraph stating that the entry and exit times provided on the PN are not complete.
"Furthermore, the car was not parked at the premisses during the time of entry and exit provided on the PN letter. In fact, the car was only there for a few minutes for drop off and pick up, well within the allowed free time as per the signage at the carpark due to the extensive road works around Aldershot train station. I would be happy to provide evidence of this at the Magistrates Court."
Please do let me know if this additional text is acceptable or how would you word it.
Again thank you so much for your help and support.
Best regards,
BS
-
Which of these applies?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673b5b23ed0fc07b53499b10/mis546-giving-people-information-from-our-vehicle-record.pdf
Column 4, page 26.
None that I can see.
How did DVLA release the RK info?
Forget about details on site.
The Railway Byelaws 2005 ("the Byelaws"), which regulate the use and parking of vehicles in railway station car parks, permit ticketing. Under byelaw 14(3), a person using a railway station car park must pay the parking charges which are levied by the operator. Further, it is stated in byelaw 14(4)(i) that the owner of a vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty if it has been used, placed or left in contravention of byelaws 14(1) to (3).The ability to render a charge under byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts.
And IMO does not fall within the scope of the Code of Practice because it's not managed under contract law, therefore APCOA did not have lawful authority to request the RK's details.
You can ask for details of another vehicle’s registered keeper. You’ll need a ‘reasonable cause’, for example:
finding out who was responsible for an accident
tracing the registered keeper of an abandoned vehicle
tracing the registered keeper of a vehicle parked on private land
giving out parking tickets
giving out trespass charge notices
tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services
tracing people suspected of insurance fraud
IMO, there are grounds here for a complaint to the British Parking Association, cc DVLA.
IMO, DVLA should not have released your details. This arises because the applicant's (APCOA) right to apply in their own right is based upon them complying with the Code of Practice.
But IMO this only applies where operators are seeking to operate under contract law on land otherwise regulated under bylaws - see bottom of page 2 https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
But APCOA are making it clear that this occurred under Regulation 14 and not contract law.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf
-
If you're going to put an appeal in, personally I can see no harm in also throwing that point in - alongside all the other failings detailed by b789, even their ANPR system isn't working as it ought to!
If you are putting such an argument in show us your intended wording.
-
thank you for your detailed reply.
In my appeal should I mention the fact that they are not registering the car exiting and entering again few minutes after and before the camera pictures in the PN notice? the car would have been in the car park for less than the 20 free minutes allowed for drop off and pick up as signs indicate due to roadwork around the station.
-
It is not a real Penalty Notice (PN). It is a fake/fraudulent one. What it really is, is an "offered contract". They are offering you the choice of paying (bribing) them £100 and in exchange they will not prosecute you in the magistrates court for what they claim is a criminal matter.
They are unable to prosecute you in the magistrates court because they do not have the authority to do so. APCOA are an unregulated private parking company. Only the station owner, usually the Train Operating Company (TOC) or National Rail or TfL can prosecute anyone under railway byelaws.
If APCOA had the authority to issue a PN, they would be required to state which "authority" has given them the power to do so. They have not stated that on the fake PN.
POPLA requested clarification from the DfT back in 2018 on whether they could adjudicate on PNs. The DfT responded and stated in their correspondence:
The Railway Byelaws 2005 ("the Byelaws"), which regulate the use and parking of vehicles in railway station car parks, permit ticketing. Under byelaw 14(3), a person using a railway station car park must pay the parking charges which are levied by the operator. Further, it is stated in byelaw 14(4)(i) that the owner of a vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty if it has been used, placed or left in contravention of byelaws 14(1) to (3).The ability to render a charge under byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts.
The text in red is the important bit. Parking "offences" in England were decriminalised under the Road Traffic Act 1991, which transferred the enforcement of certain parking regulations from the police to local authorities.
The main changes were that parking "offences" previously handled by the police became "civil contraventions" enforced by local councils or private parking companies, rather than criminal matters dealt with in magistrates' courts. Local authorities gained the power to manage on-street and off-street parking enforcement through Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs). Private parking companies can only issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) which are solely civil matters dealt with under civil contract law.
This reform aimed to free up police resources for more serious matters and streamline the handling of parking contraventions through civil law.
Now, read into the bit of red text above... the term "penalty" in Byelaw 14(4)(i) should be interpreted as referring to a "charge or fee" rather than a formal penalty under criminal law. This interpretation aligns with the broader distinction made by the DfT between civil and criminal enforcement.
Byelaw 14(4)(i) allows for a financial liability placed on the owner of a vehicle for contraventions related to parking, which is more akin to a civil remedy (such as a Parking Charge Notice) than a criminal penalty requiring prosecution in the Magistrates' Courts. The term is distinct from the powers granted under Byelaw 24(1), which deals with criminal enforcement and is reserved for more serious breaches of the byelaws.
This approach supports the notion that parking-related matters should be handled as civil disputes, consistent with the decriminalisation of parking offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
So, APCOA has no authority to issue PNs. It also has no authority to prosecute anyone in the magistrates court. There has been no breach of criminal law yet they use language in their "offered contract" (which no one is obliged to accept) that is entirely unlawful in civil law.
APCOA have never, ever, ever, prosecuted anyone for a PN in the magistrates court because they are unable to do so and if they even tried, they'd be exposed as fraudsters. They will reject any appeal under any circumstances. They will refer the recipient to appeal to POPLA, who have zero authority to actually adjudicate on criminal matters, which this fake PN pretends to be about.
When POPLA reject the appeal, the only way that APCOA could try and recover any money is through the county court as a civil claim for debt. They would be exposed as scammers because the county court cannot adjudicate on a railway byelaw criminal matter.
The way they make their money in this fraud is by using language in the PN that mentions and threatens criminal prosecution and fines. For the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree, which is the vast majority of recipients of these fake PNs, they worry about a "criminal prosecution' and simply pay the scammers.
There are some people who advise on these parking matters who honestly believe that APCOA (and SABA) can really issue PNs but that they expire after 6 months from the date of the alleged offence. Whilst real PNs do have a statute of limitation of 6 months for the issuing "authority" to bring a prosecution in the magistrates court, APCOA, an unregulated private parking company is no "authority" and cannot bring any prosecution in the magistrates court.
So, here endeth the lesson. You have a couple of choices. You can simply ignore APCOA. I can say with 100% certainty, APCOA will not (cannot) prosecute you in the magistrate court. APCOA cannot issue a claim for debt in the county court as they can only do that for civil contract matters such as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which this is definitely not.
If you ignore them, they will get their useless and powerless debt collectors to send you letters which can be safely ignored. Use them as kindling. Eventually, they will give up and move on to lower-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will pay into the scam out of fear and ignorance.
Or... you can have a bit of fun with them and waste their time and money. You can appeal the fake PN and then make them pay £35 for their POPLA fee for a secondary appeal, which will also be rejected. Once the POPLA appeal is rejected, you will still have to go through the useless debt collector letters but, I can say with 100% certainty that they will eventually stop and that will be the end of the matter.
If you want to appeal, use the following, appealing as the Keeper only:
I am the registered keeper. APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Aldershot Station is not 'relevant land'.
If Southwestern Railway wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the station owner and your 'Penalty Notice' is not real and is simply an "offered contract". It is created for APCOA's own profit (as opposed to a real bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations (unlawfully using language that threatens criminal liability) of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your fake Penalty Notice which is, in reality, only an "offered contract", can only hold the driver liable. APCOA may be able to fool POPLA and so will incur a fee for an assessor to falsely adjudicate on an alleged criminal matter which would never see a prosecution because it would expose APCOA for the attempted fraud being perpetrated here. So you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and your money and cancel the PN.
When that is rejected, come back and I'll happily put together an appeal to POPLA that exposes their complicity in this matter.
FYI, I am currently advising an investigative journalist from a major UK broadsheet in an upcoming expose of this highly lucrative scam that has been going on for many years.
-
Yes of course. Please see attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It would be helpful if you could show us the notice - there are people looking into the issues with the APCOA set up at railway stations across the country, so the more examples we have of the way it works at various stations, the better.
-
Yes, I can confirm it is a Penalty Notice identical to those shared in this forum by others. If the scan of mine is necesary I will need to upload it later.
The point I am asking here is knowing that they missed the exit few minites later in the morning from the recorded entry, and the 2nd time entry few minutes after the recorded late afternoon exit. Should I acknoledge the PN letter by appealing to them explaining the situation or not bother and leave it knowing that I would win any court case?
-
Please confirm that what you have received is a PENALTY Notice (PN) and not a PARKING a charge Notice (PCN).
A picture of the notice would be better. Please read this thread for advice on how to post images:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
Please be aware that if it is a PN, it is a fraudulent attempt to get you to bribe APCOA. All will be explained when you confirm and show us the notice.
-
Hi,
I have just received a Penalty Notice from APCOA. It is a Notice to Keeper, indicating that the offence is 'Use of Private Car Park without making valid payment'. It just shows a pic coming in at the early morning and another coming out at the late afternoon. Interestingly, APCOA intentionally miss to show the car coming out few minutes after the coming in picture, and also when the car came in in the later afternoon few minutes after the exit picture.
Notice that due to roadworks for the last weeks around the station, the car park is free to use for pick up and drops (for 20mins) which is exactly what the car was used for that day.
Based on reading other posts here, I was intended to ignore the PN, however I wonder if it would be best to appeal directly to APCOA indicating the above? what do you recommend? I worry that by appealing I would be creating more trouble as it indicates acknoledgement of the PN letter.
Thank you for your help on this. This forum has been an eye opener.
Best regards,
BS