parking fine robin hood airport

Folkiedave

unhappychappie wrote: »

This is the letter they sent and there is no popla code.



Please note that liability for this PCN lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the Parking contravention was observed. it is, however, not made clear within your correspondence that you were the driver of the vehicle on the day in question and therefore we are at present unable to process your representations for this reason.

The following options are available:

1. confirm to us in writing, that you were the driver of the vehicle on the day in question. This MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and surname) and a valid FULL UK ADDRESS FOR SERVICE.

They lie. I am assuming you replied to the Notice to Keeper and asked for a POPLA code.

There answer is wrong and they know it because you can ask for a POPLA code AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER.

Steve Clark (Head of Operations at BPA Ltd). wrote to me:


v I would refer you to Clause 22.14 of the Code which states ‘Drivers and Keepers may appeal against a parking charge to POPLA’ – I contend that this clause lays out the intentions of the Code as far as appeals are concerned – namely that both drivers and keepers can appeal.

v There can be no doubt that either the driver or the vehicle keeper can appeal after a Notice to Keeper has been issued.

He confirmed that this message had been sent to all members of BPA Ltd. in an email to me on July 22nd 2013.

Complain to the DVLA that they have sent out a misleading letter to you.

Elizabeth M Symons <Elizabeth.Symons@dvla.gsi.gov.uk>

You might check the dates of when they sent out their letters at Parking Cowboys.

BUT - write back to them again - but as the registered keeper - and ask again for a POPLA code.

They are easy to beat there and you cost them around £120.00!! It's a win -win situation.

unhappychappie

Folkiedave wrote: »

They lie. I am assuming you replied to the Notice to Keeper and asked for a POPLA code.

i did, and i will complain to DVLA

zzzLazyDaisy

NAME
ADDRESS
DATE

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Dear Sirs

Parking Charge Number xxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number xxxxx


I am the Registered Keeper and I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the above parking charge.

On [date] I raised an appeal with your company, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, against the above parking charge.

By a letter dated [date] you informed me that you were unable to proceed with the matter as I had not confirmed that I was the driver on the day in question, or otherwise identified the driver.

This is a clear breach of clause 22.4 the BPA code of conduct and you may wish to note that I have made a formal complaint to Steve Clarke of the BPA, and the DVLA, concerning this matter.

I now expect you to issue a verification code in order that I might pursue this appeal to POPLA. If I do not receive the code within 14 days, I shall make a further complaint to BPA and DVLA about your conduct in refusing to supply a POPLA code in accordance with the terms of the BPA Code of Practice.

Alternatively you may choose to simply cancel the parking charge.

Yours faithfully

PRINT NAME

unhappychappie

Thank you all for your advice and input i have decided to reply as follows and would appreciate any advice and feedback thanks.


Dear Sir/Madam,

‘Notice to Keeper’ ref number

I am the Registered Keeper and I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the above parking charge. On xxxxxxxx I raised an appeal with your company, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, against the above parking charge.

By a letter dated xxxxxxx some 51 days later, you informed me that you were unable to proceed with the matter as I had not confirmed that I was the driver on the day in question, or otherwise identified the driver.

This is a clear breach of clause 22.4 the BPA code of conduct and you may wish to note that I have made a formal complaint to Steve Clarke of the BPA, and the DVLA, concerning this matter.

I now expect you to issue a verification code in order that I might pursue this appeal to POPLA. If I do not receive the code within 14 days, I shall make a further complaint to BPA and DVLA about your conduct in refusing to supply a POPLA code in accordance with the terms of the BPA Code of Practice.

It is clear from your Notice of xxxxxxxx and letter of xxxxxxx that you issued it with a view to pursuing keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers).

I write to challenge the Notice and to inform you that VCS has failed to meet the strict requirements that might have enabled you to pursue this matter with myself (the registered keeper) if this had been 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA (which I contend it is not). In summary, you have issued a defective Notice to attempt to claim from me a charge for which I have no liability.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be divulging the details of the driver on the day so do not send me your standard time-wasting response pretending that you have to know who was driving. The BPA have recently reminded firms in your 'industry' that this 'name the driver' response is not acceptable - you and I both know your only options within your industry CoP are either to accept my challenge now or reject it and provide me with a POPLA code immediately.

On Airport land no keeper liability generally applies at all, due to local Bylaws taking precedence. All the land and surrounding approach roads are Airport-owned and covered by Bylaws and, as such, the Airport is not 'relevant land' under POFA. There is no registered keeper liability. You will need to provide evidence, substantiated by the Airport authorities, that this land is not covered by Bylaws if the Notice is to be pursued against myself as the registered keeper. Without that, you have no cause to have obtained by data from the DVLA and certainly no further cause of action.

In addition, I would draw your attention to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (hereinafter CPUTR). No doubt your legal advisors will be able to explain the various issues which cause your flawed Notice to be a nullity in law. A specific flaw with your Notice is that it fails to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be. This is misleading and not compliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst your Notice has indicated that you require a payment to be made to VCS, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be VCSor some other party. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and your Notice does not.

If - rather than cancel this 'Notice' - you decide to fund my POPLA appeal, I will require in your evidence pack, a copy of your contract with the landowner which you are relying upon. If it is a redacted copy then there must still be evidence in the document which shows that the contract complies with the CoP and specifically allows VCS to pursue these 'charges' in their own name as creditor, in the courts. I will not accept a witness statement in this regard, since it would not be acceptable in a Court.

This contract document will be required in addition to the documentary evidence already mentioned above, namely contemporaneous evidence from the Airport owners that this approach road is not covered by Bylaws.

And I will require maps of the entire area, marked clearly with pictograms or notes showing every sign's position and the exact wording which was on the signs on the date of the alleged incident. As the registered keeper, I can tell you that the driver contends that the signage is unclear; being particularly deficient at the entrance to this road where it fails to inform full terms. Prominent, clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area you are now apparently claiming is a no-stopping zone, bearing in mind that this is an area of moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in VCS' typical unclear 'headings above small-print' style.

If you pursue the matter against me as registered keeper and issue any further correspondence or make any form of contact (except to cancel the charge or reject the challenge and send me details of how to appeal to POPLA) this will be considered harassment. In that event I will lodge an official complaint with the BPA Ltd and the DVLA AOS Compliance Manager, as well as with the Office of the Information Commissioner. I also reserve the right to forward a complaint to the relevant Trading Standards office concerning your commercial practices which which appear to be in breach of the CPUTR and the CoP.

Take formal notice that I will of course include your client (Airport owners) in any complaints and, in addition, they will be named as jointly and severally liable in any future court claim I may seek to lodge with MCOL, for damages for harassment and specific breaches of the above Acts.

I do not expect to receive a ‘generic’ template response and which fails to address the specific issues that I have raised with you. No further correspondence will be entered into, except a POPLA appeal which I will gladly submit if VCS choose to fund that stage. No further warning will be given if I pursue the matter through the Small Claims Track against VCS and your client at this site.

I therefore expect you to immediately cancel the ‘parking charge’ and inform me in writing that you have done so. In addition, VCS are required to remove my personal data (and that of the vehicle) from all formats of storage, immediately following cancellation, since you have no lawful excuse to keep a registered keeper's data under the circumstances.

Umkomaas

You seem to have covered all bases with them in this. Just one minor typo that I noticed.

On Airport land no keeper liability generally applies at all, due to local Bylaws taking precedence. All the land and surrounding approach roads are Airport-owned and covered by Bylaws and, as such, the Airport is not 'relevant land' under POFA. There is no registered keeper liability. You will need to provide evidence, substantiated by the Airport authorities, that this land is not covered by Bylaws if the Notice is to be pursued against myself as the registered keeper. Without that, you have no cause to have obtained [STRIKE]by[/STRIKE] my data from the DVLA and certainly no further cause of action.

Let us know how things progress.

unhappychappie

Umkomaas wrote: »

You seem to have covered all bases with them in this. Just one minor typo that I noticed.



Let us know how things progress.

Thank you and i will keep you all informed how ever it goes :j

Paddyathome

Hi,

I have bookmarked this post as I know a RK who is also still waiting a response from VCS and am keen to see how you resolve it as the RK may follow your course of action.

Below if a brief sequence of their events so far.

Date of Overstay 29/06/2013

NTK received Dated 10/07/2013 (11 days later) opened (Due to holidays) 16/07/2013

Challenge letter due by 7/08/2013 (28 Days). Challenge letter Email sent 21/07/2013. Challenge letter Follow up letter sent 22/07/2013

Reply required by (35 Days) 25/26 August 2013

Automatic email acknowledgment of challenge received 21/07/2013. With formal acknowledgment of challenge received 8/8/2013, letter dated 6/8/2013 (17 Days). This letter stated that the matter was receiving their attention and the RK should hear from them no later than 35 days from the date they received the challenge.

35 Days from 6/8th Aug is 10/12 Sept and the RK is still awaiting a response (55 days and counting).

Regards

Paddy

unhappychappie

Hello again

Today i got a rejection letter back from VCS complete with popla form and 10 digit popla code, so i guessing im near the business end of my appeal process so again i would appreciate any help in wording my appeal to popla. i can post the rejection letter they sent if needed or if you need any further information. thank you in advance for your help.
:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

unhappychappie wrote: »

Hello again

Today i got a rejection letter back from VCS complete with popla form and 10 digit popla code, so i guessing im near the business end of my appeal process so again i would appreciate any help in wording my appeal to popla. i can post the rejection letter they sent if needed or if you need any further information. thank you in advance for your help.
:rotfl:

How to win at POPLA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

HTH, take your pick (you will see a pattern to them and 'no pre-estimate of loss' wins most commonly).

unhappychappie

Hi peeps this is my draft of my popla appeal can you please give me feedback before I send it off I've had to do a lot of reading any advice greatly received.


1. Charge not a genuinepre-estimate of loss.


The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds anappropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have beensuffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive andtherefore an unenforceable penalty. I do not believe that any damage, obstruction ormaterial loss was incurred and that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum implementedby VCS as a revenue-raiser in advance. Itdoes not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss flowing from theincident.
The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for abreach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuinepre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, thatcharge cannot be or unreasonable.
I require VCS Ltd to provide a detailed breakdown of alleged losses and how theamount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings I refer POPLA to the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Mr RIbbotson (16th May 2012) which found that general business costs cannotconstitute a loss alsoprevious POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not beincluded in these pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.

2. Not relevant land

For theavoidance of doubt, I have not given the details of the driver on the day. On Airportland no keeper liability generallyapplies at all, due to local Bylaws taking precedence. All the land andsurrounding approach roads are Airport-owned and covered by Bylaws and, assuch, the Airport is not 'relevant land'under POFA. There is no registered keeper liability. VCSwill need to provide evidence, substantiated by the Airportauthorities, that this land is notcovered by Bylaws if the Notice is to be pursuedagainst myself as the registered keeper. Without that they have no cause tohave obtained my data from the DVLA and certainly no further cause of action.

3. Signage notcompliant with the BPA code of practice and not forming a contract with adriver.

I believe the signs and anycore terms VCS are relying upon were unclear in all respects. VCS needs to showPOPLA their evidence and signage map/photos which they might contend meet allthe requirements I have listed below. There are no low-positioned, clear signs on entryto this road which would have communicated the terms & conditions of stoppingthere to a seated driver in moving traffic. This is a breach of the BPA Code ofPractice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage,including ''The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers withouttheir needing to look away from the road ahead. VCS have a duty to make theterms so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means thatthe elements of a contract have not been met. To suggest a breach of contract, VCS also needs toshow that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which theycannot do as it is clearly untrue. The idea that any driver would accept theseterms to pay this charge knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. Thetruth is that the driver did not see, understand nor accept the alleged terms. VCSmay claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park but this does not meet the BPA Code of Practice rules nor therequirements for consideration when forming an alleged contract.It is fact impossible to read the terms and conditions of the contract withoutstopping.



4. Failure to identify the creditor.

The noticeto keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of theProtection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . Theoperator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor notsimply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of “The creditoris ..... ”. The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purportedcontract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have not fulfilled allthe requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of anycharge from the keeper. also forVCS to show that they have aBPA-compliant contract with the landowner at this site which specificallyenables them to enforce parking tickets through the courts in their own name ascreditor. In VCS v HMRC their typicalcontract failed in this regard so VCSwill need to show POPLA that their contract with this Airportis specifically, fully BPA compliant. This will require the actual contractbeing submitted to POPLA, not a vague witness statement which would not beadmissible in court and cannot be checked for details/dates/relevance/signatoryetc..



5.Failed to comply with initial request for a Popla code.

I contactedVCS on xx/xx/xx and clearly stated that I denied all liability totheir company and required a POPLA verification code for me to appealindependently as per the BPA Code of Practice. I had nothing further to add,and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it containsthe POPLA code. I would assume the appeal will be deemed accepted if there isno POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time frame.

VCSignored this requirement. Theytherefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They went on tofurther attempt to bully me by in a letter dated xxth month 2013some 50 days after my initial appeal “Payment of £60 is outstanding and is tobe received within our office by xx month 2013. If the payment is notreceived by this date the amount payable will increase to £100 payable. Failureto comply may result in the issue of court proceedings whereby further costswill be incurred.”
thank you in advance