Free Traffic Legal Advice

thank you ftla.uk. I did not know you existed. I am glad I found you. I have asked claude to make a letter for me using the templates I found on this forum plus adding some extra bits, but I don't trust AI yet. Can you guys help? I wonder if I should send it as it is or only keep point 1. I will update further about the claim once I have a reply.

I am writing as the registered keeper of [] to appeal against []. I deny that this charge is lawfully owed and request it be cancelled in full.

1. NO LIABILITY — AS DRIVER OR KEEPER
I am not obliged to identify the driver of the vehicle and I decline to do so. There is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion (VCS v Edward, 2023). APCOA cannot therefore pursue me as the driver.

Furthermore, there is no keeper liability in this matter. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 — which permits pursuit of a registered keeper — applies only to "relevant land" as defined in that Act. Stansted Airport does not constitute "relevant land" under Schedule 4. Keeper liability therefore cannot be invoked.

As APCOA cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court's process to issue a claim against me. I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to any unreasonable conduct.

2. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, if APCOA contends that a valid contract was formed: your T&Cs (clause 3.1) state payment method is "as specified on signage." This is a post-visit payment system (clause 2.2 — pay by 23:59 the following day), which is not intuitive. If signage did not clearly communicate this before entry, no enforceable contract was formed. I request photographic evidence of all signage at the point of entry and confirmation it was BPA Code of Practice compliant.

3. DISPROPORTIONATE CHARGE
In the further alternative, APCOA's own ANPR data shows the vehicle was present for 4 minutes (04:40:33–04:44:28) — consistent solely with a genuine express set-down. No loss was incurred. A £100 charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is not proportionate to any breach (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67).

4. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO PAY
On the date this charge was issued (), the registered keeper contacted APCOA by telephone to pay the £10 Express Set Down fee. APCOA declined. Issuing a £100 charge while refusing a £10 payment on the same day demonstrates the charge is punitive rather than compensatory, which is not permissible under private parking law.

CONCLUSION
I request [] be cancelled in full. If unsuccessful, I reserve the right to escalate to POPLA.

Thank you