DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64002--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: bethlclap
Date: March 24, 2025, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached is the redacted front side. I have three of these in
sequential order from the 12th to the 14th.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 64003--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: bethlclap
Date: March 24, 2025, 6:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the reverse side. Please let me know if the other two
are required as well to assist. Thank you.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 64005--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: b789
Date: March 24, 2025, 8:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The one that you havee shown us the front of is not PoFA
compliant. Just check the dates of the alleged contravention and
the issue date of the NtK. Assume two ‘working days from the
date of issue. If that date is more than 14 days from the date
of the alleged contravention, then the notice has not been given
within the relevant period and is therefore not fully compliant
with all the requirements of the Act.
Besides, that point, the wording on the NtK is also not PoFA
compliant. Simply appeal each PCN as the Keeper with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. APCOA has relied on contract law allegations 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 NtK can only hold the driver liable.
APCOA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64007--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 25, 2025, 1:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You'll need to submit a separate appeal for each. Once you've
done so, keep a close eye on your spam folder for their
responses. They'll probably cancel them.
#Post#: 116315--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: Victor
Date: April 19, 2026, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reluctantly I have paid this fine due to the fact I have no
confidence in your company to listen to my appeal without
incurring further charges. The alleged offence took place on
23rd March 2026, the ticket was issued 4th April, and the ticket
was in the post 11th April. Obviously, this reduces my appeal
time.
Burleigh Court has a parking problem whereby the car park is too
small for the conference centre, and I often take my wife to the
swimming pool as she is recovering from a stroke, although not
serious enough for receipt of a blue badge.
As you may be aware, there are legal requirements that must be
met regarding the signage used in any car park. The British
Parking Association Code 2012 (necessary for compliance with the
BPA Approved Operator Scheme) along with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sets out required content that
must be included on signs.
Signs must be large enough and easily understood.
Parking signs must be written in such a way that they can be
understood easily (no legal jargon) and must be big enough to
see and read with legible wording.
The Code states that signs must be at least 450 mm x 450 mm and
must be easily seen by drivers as they arrive on a site. There
needs to be a specific sign at the entrance to the car park that
summarises the rules in place and notifies the driver that
specific terms and conditions will apply inside.
It is important that there are enough signs around a site to
ensure people have had every opportunity to see them. If a
driver can credibly make the case ‘I couldn’t see any signs,’
then signage is inadequate, and they can rightly have a parking
charge appealed.
In view of this, let us have a look at the Burleigh Court car
park.
Upon entering the car park, there are no specific signs at the
entrance to the car park that summarise the rules and conditions
in place and notify the driver that specific terms and
conditions will apply inside.
The only sign is this one which does not contain the prescribed
information. Again, it is only 400 mm square, which is 50 mm
short of the required size. Clearly unacceptable, especially to
non-native visitors to the complex.
Looking further into the car park, there are many signs like the
ones shown below, but they are only 300mm square, which is 150mm
short of the minimum required regulation.
T
If my presumptions are correct, any previous fines for parking
in this area are incorrect.
Regarding the parking charge, it is written in somewhat a
hostile manner.
I look forward to your reply before passing it on to the BPA
complaints department.
Regards, Chris Lewis
#Post#: 116319--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 19, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your choice, but
--- Quote ---
> We've so far never seen APCOA take a case to court, but they
do have up to 6 years to raise a claim.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 116320--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 19, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=8948]Victor[/member] - what is your relationship to the
original poster?
If you are seeking advice on your own case, please start your
own thread (although if you have paid up, that is largely the
end of matters)
#Post#: 116326--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Loughborough University
DIR By: Victor
Date: April 19, 2026, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there,
Thanks for your fast reply. Dealing with APCOA is like slamming
shut a revolving door. I am just venting my anger and
frustration with these cowboys rather than requiring assistance
with my claim as I caved in and paid up as they were not relying
to my emails. Basically Burleih Court carpark signage does not
meet the requirements of the BPA standards for carparks but they
still are issuing parking tickets. The parking charge tickets
are written in a most unfriendly manner and take eleven days
between the alleged offence to issuing the ticket and a further
three days to arrive on my doormat. In which time I am liable to
have repeated my alleged offence. This has reduced my appeal
time whilst threating me to miss out with their generous fifty
percent discount for early payment. Another trick these bandits
employ is the payment site has compatibility issues whereby the
pay screen can appear not to recognise your parking ticket. All
in all very poor company as shown in their trust piolet ratings.
Regards Victor (I don't believe it)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page