Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email to the Data Protection Office at APCOA Parking (UK).
In line with GDPR, we require identification as we need to be satisfied that we know the identity of the requester before supplying any personal information.
Within guidance provided by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) under 'what to expect after making a Subject Access request' it states "ID checks are sometimes needed to check you are the person asking for the information and to protect your personal information. When asked for ID, you should provide it."
The GDPR legislation also states that “The controller should use all reasonable measures to verify the identity of a data subject who requests access, in particular in the context of online services and online identifiers.”
As advised previously, once your identity has been verified, any identification sent is then securely deleted from our system, the documentation is not retained.
Please also be advised that the timescale for responding to a SAR does not begin until we have received the requested information.
For more information on identity verification, please view the ICO guidance by visiting https://ico.org.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Jack Speakman
Thank you for your patience whilst this has been investigated.
• Why are you, an unregulated private parking company, issuing fake “Penalty Notices” designed to mislead motorists into believing you possess statutory or criminal enforcement powers which you clearly do not?
APCOA operate under and are regulated by the British Parking Association (BPA) and agree to adhere to the sector single code of practice.
We can confirm that this Penalty Notice is issued as a civil matter. The penalty notice system is an established mechanism designed to address breaches of the railway byelaws in a way that is proportionate and fair. These notices are not intended to suggest criminal intent or prosecution at the outset but to offer the opportunity to resolve matters without escalation. Should the recipient fail to engage or resolve the matter, criminal enforcement under Byelaw 14(1) may be pursued.
• Why are you attempting to rely on Railway Byelaws to justify civil enforcement of minor parking indiscretions, despite knowing full well that such matters do not fall within the scope of criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1)?
•Additionally, your use of the term “Penalty Notice”, coupled with the implied criminal consequences, is highly misleading. You are not a prosecuting authority, and your notice cannot be lawfully construed as anything more than a speculative civil invoice. Its presentation—suggesting legal obligation and criminal liability—appears to constitute a breach of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, namely:
“False representation made dishonestly and with intent to make a gain or cause loss.”
In other words, this was an attempt at extortion by deception.
The term “Penalty Notice” is used because the breach of railway byelaws, such as unauthorised parking, constitutes a potential statutory offence. This is entirely different from a private parking charge, as our notices pertain to statutory enforcement of the byelaws, which may involve criminal liability in some cases. The presentation of the notice reflects the legal process in place, and it has been reviewed and approved to ensure compliance with the applicable legal standards.
• Why are you directing recipients to a private appeals process in circumstances where you are claiming a statutory breach? Appeals panels have no jurisdiction over alleged criminal offences.
It is important to clarify that while the alleged breach may indeed involve a potential criminal offence under the railway byelaws, the appeals process we reference is an administrative review mechanism designed to ensure that the matter is properly investigated, and the correct party is held accountable.
In accordance with the enforcement procedures under Byelaw 14 of the Railway Byelaws, the appeals process is a non-judicial review that allows recipients to challenge the validity of the charge based on the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach. This process provides an opportunity for the train operating company or relevant authority to review whether the penalty notice was appropriately issued, and for any mitigating factors to be considered.
It is important to note that this appeals process does not alter or replace the statutory provisions under the byelaws. If the matter proceeds beyond the appeals stage, it may be referred for criminal prosecution if deemed necessary. The appeals process, therefore, acts as a preliminary step in ensuring that no unfair or incorrect penalties are applied, rather than replacing or overstepping the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system.
Any decision made by POPLA is only binding on the car park operator and therefore the use of this independent appeals service benefits the consumer/motorist.
• Why are you asserting that you have a legal basis to infer vehicle ownership from DVLA registered keeper data, when this is explicitly contradicted by the front page of the V5C and by DVLA guidance?
• Why are your communications inconsistent as to who you believe is liable—at times addressing the keeper, at other times the driver or “owner”—with no coherent explanation?
Our access to DVLA data is governed by the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, which permits APCOA to request the registered keeper’s details for the purpose of enforcing parking terms and conditions or pursuing relevant offences.
While the V5C document does indicate that being the registered keeper is not proof of ownership in itself, there is a legal presumption that the registered keeper is the owner of the vehicle unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is reflected in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which defines an “owner” as the person by whom the vehicle is kept. In the case of a registered vehicle, this is presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.
Accordingly, when investigating a breach of the railway byelaws, and in the absence of any information suggesting otherwise, it is both reasonable and appropriate for us to correspond with the registered keeper as the presumed owner of the vehicle. Under contract law, only the driver can be liable as they are present when the parking contract is both offered and accepted. However, under the Railway Byelaws, it is made clear that the owner is the liable party.
• Why are your communications inconsistent as to what contravention is even alleged to have taken place?
The Penalty Notice clearly states that the Penalty Notice was issued for the offence of "Use of private car park without making a valid payment". Whilst payment was made for the parking session, the payment is deemed as invalid as the incorrect tariff was paid.
The ANPR systems captured the vehicle entering Bedford Station car park at 07:31:29 meaning that the full one day tariff of £11.30 was due, however, as payment was only made at 13:08:38 the incorrect tariff of £4.60 was paid due to the off peak tariff being activated at 10:00am.
• What failing occurred that allowed your customer service team to ignore straightforward questions from a customer attempting to resolve the matter?
• Why do different members of your staff have conflicting views on what information it is appropriate to disclose to a customer?
The chat transcripts have been reviewed by APCOA management and has been found to be below the high standards that APCOA work to. As a result, an internal investigation has been conducted and a conclusion is that the fails were due to insufficient training of the customer service agents who handled your queries. The agents involved have now been given the required additional training.
Whilst we’re unable to comment on internal processes and their outcomes, rest assured the level of customer service given to all customers, and the conduct of all APCOA staff is a top priority and as such, we are treating this matter extremely seriously.
APCOA would like to take this opportunity to thank you for bringing this to our attention and also offer our sincere apologies for the less than satisfactory level of customer service that you received on this occasion.
• Given I was told that information was disclosed to me which "shouldn’t have been", what assurances can you provide that my personal data—and that of your other customers—is being handled lawfully and securely?
• On what lawful basis under the UK GDPR are you processing and storing my personal data?
We can confirm that your personal data has been redacted from the below cases:
Please see below links to both APCOA's privacy policy and data protection policy which outline how APCOA handles your personal data.
APCOA Privacy Policy - https://www.apcoa.co.uk/privacy-policy/
APCOA Data Protection Policy - https://www.apcoa.co.uk/index.php?id=6296
If you have any concerns or queries relating to how APCOA have handled your details, you can contact our Data Protection Office via email on DPO@apcoa.com
Kind regards,
Complaints Handler
APCOA
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email to the Data Protection Office at APCOA Parking (UK).
Please complete the attached form and return in order that we can provide the requested information.
Please be advised that you are not obliged to complete this form to make a request, but it’s helpful for us to know what you’re looking for so we can respond fully and promptly. Although the completion of this form is not a requirement, proof of identification is still required. The timescale for responding to your request will start when we receive this.
Yours Sincerely,
Dear [Name],
We are currently reviewing the points raised in your complaint and a full response will be issued to your complaint in due course.
Thank you for your patience during this time
Kind regards,
[Name]
Complaints Handler
APCOA
@b789 Thank you so much for your reply. The front page of the Charge Notice was on my OP, and the second page is now attached to this one. I've not complained to the university yet - if you think that is the best port of call, I can do that, but it'd be hard to do so without identifying myself, if that'd be an issue later.....?
@ disgruntchelt Thanks loads re the offer on signage - I'll keep that in mind, it's v kind of you!