parking fine robin hood airport

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me so far, but I would normally also include a request for the contract with the landowner, since VCS do not own the land. Otherwise they have no standing to make contracts with drivers nor to pursue their charge in their own name in the courts, as creditor (which is a strict requirement of the CoP). As in the case of VCS v Ibbotson (May 2012) and in the recent case of ParkingEye v Sharma (October 2013) where neither parking company could show they had the required status.

You could add that the first the keeper was aware of this matter was a letter which arrived xx days after the event (there was no postal PCN received). VCS are required to show that a compliant NTK was issued in time, by producing an exact copy of both sides (all wording) and you reserve the right to raise further issues with POPLA when you see this purported NTK in the 'evidence'. If they cannot show it then they have breached POFA 2012 and the BPA CoP.

unhappychappie

Hi how is this now? and do I have to post all the letters I have wrote to vcs and the letters they have sent to me as proof?


As theregistered keeper, I was first made aware of this matter with a letter whicharrived 80 days after the alleged event (there was no postal PCN received). VCSare required to show that a compliant NTK was issued in time, by producing anexact copy of both sides (all wording) and you reserve the right to raisefurther issues with POPLA when you see this purported NTK in the 'evidence'. Ifthey cannot show it then they have breached POFA 2012 and the BPA CoP. I would like to appeal this notice on thefollowing grounds:


1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. Not relevant land.
3. Signage not compliant with the BPA code of practice and not forming acontract with a driver.
4. Failure to identify the creditor.
5. Failed to comply with initial request for a Popla code.

1. Charge not a genuinepre-estimate of loss.

The demandfor a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount,and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by theLandowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore anunenforceable penalty. I do not believe that any damage, obstruction or material loss wasincurred and that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum implemented by VCS as a revenue-raiser in advance. It does notrepresent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss flowing from the incident.
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.

2. Not relevant land

For theavoidance of doubt, I have not given the details of the driver on the day. On Airport land 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' underPOFA. There is no registered keeper liability. VCS will need to provideevidence, 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.VCS should also supply a full copy ofthe contract, acceptable in law, between them and the land owner whichdemonstrates their authority to pursue claims for damages on the approachroads.

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 a BPA-compliantcontract with the landowner at this site which specifically enables them toenforce parking tickets through the courts in their own name as creditor. In VCS v HMRC their typical contract failed in this regardso VCS will need to show POPLA that theircontract with this Airport is specifically, fullyBPA compliant. This will require the actual contract being submitted to POPLA,not a vague witness statement which would not be admissible in court and cannotbe checked for details/dates/relevance/signatory etc..



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 xxxxx some 50 days after myinitial appeal “Payment of £60 is outstanding and is to be received within ouroffice by xxxxxxx. If the payment is not received by this date the amountpayable will increase to £100 payable. Failure to comply may result in theissue of court proceedings whereby further costs will be incurred.” I wrote tothem again xxxxxx requesting a popla code which I then received on the xxxxxxxsome 81 days after my initial appeal and request for a popla code.

thank you all for any comments or help.

Coupon-mad

do I have to post all the letters I have wrote to vcs and the letters they have sent to me as proof?

Nope, not really but if you submit it online to POPLA you CAN add any attachments you wish.

''VCS are required to show that a compliant NTK was issued in time, by producing an exact copy of both sides (all wording) and you reserve the right to raise further issues with POPLA when you see this purported NTK in the 'evidence'.''

should be, of course, worded as I:

''VCS are required to show that a compliant NTK was issued in time, by producing an exact copy of both sides (all wording) and I reserve the right to raise further issues with POPLA when I see this purported NTK in the 'evidence'.''

And I would have this as a separate bullet point:


5. No contract with landowner/no standing to bring a claim to pursue this charge

''As the operator is not the landowner, I contend that they have no standing to form contracts with drivers nor to pursue their charges. VCS [STRIKE]should also[/STRIKE] are required to supply a full copy of the contract, acceptable in law, between them and the land owner which demonstrates their authority to pursue claims for damages on the approach roads. The contract must be contemporaneous, dated, BPA Code of Practice compliant and must extend to VCS the legal interest and status to pursue charges in their own name as creditor, in the courts. I believe no such contract exists and will not accept a witness statement alleging such a contract exists. I contend that VCS are acting merely as agents with an agreement between themselves and the Airport which has no impact on a driver and no status to allege a driver has breached a contract, nor to show any losses, as was found in Case No. 3QT62646 Parking Eye v Sharma, Brentford County Court, 23rd October 2013 ''


(only leave the titles in bold of course, in your submission to POPLA. I have simply bolded the 'new' suggestions).

unhappychappie

Thanks CM :beer: I have added the extra bullet point and edited the other accordingly would you like me to post the revised appeal or am I good send to popla now?:j

I cant thank you and others enough for your help and the time you spend checking through my drafts and advising it is gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to go as you have the usual 'killer points' that win at POPLA 100% of the time right now.

whe46

Hi
This is my first time in contacting this forum . On 25th November l received a parking fine stating that l had stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. This was a matter of 1 minute whilst my husband picked me up on one of the roundabouts.The fine is for £60 and l have 28 days to appeal this notice. The notice is issued by the vehicle control service. I wish to appeal this notice .Please give me some advice

unhappychappie

Ok peeps firstly sorry for not getting this win up here but with Christmas i just haven't had time until now.
secondly VCS were late in issuing their evidence pack to popla only a couple of days past poplas deadline which they say was allowed cos they phoned popla. anyway i received 2 emails from vcs one email had an attachment which was just a video of my car on the side of the road the other email said it should also have an attachment of evidence however it did not. i emailed popla and vcs to say there was no attachment but heard nothing from either until the decision was emailed to me from popla. i really wanted to see their evidence especially the relevant land defence. never the less i have won my appeal what i want to know is can i now use the money i have saved from this win to take vcs to small claims court to claim money for my losses, like time spent having to fight this illegal invoice and the stress caused having to fight this invoice.
of course any moneys i get will go to charity. i just feel i need to do more or maybe i could get another PCN from vcs and fight it only on the relevant land which would probably mean the end of VCS at airports if it is allowed.
any feedback welcomed and once again thank you all for your help and advice and to any noobs reading this DON'T PANIC your in safe hands i am proof of that.

Ivor Bigun (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)


Thee Operator issued parking charge notice number 123456789 arising
out of the presence at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads on 99 May
2013, of a vehicle with registration mark YXXXXXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered thee evidence of both parties and has
Determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee off London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded


 
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

Thee operator issued parking charge notice number VCC123456789 arising out of
The presence at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads on 99 May 2013, of a
Vehicle with registration mark Yxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the
Vehicle stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice is not a
genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage displayed at the site and the case summary provided as
evidence by the operator show that the amount of the parking charge
notice is a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach
of the parking contract..

In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the
operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as
a result of the appellant’s breach.. Amongst other things, the operator has
included costs such as write off allowances, which does not amount to a
genuine pre –– estimate of loss, as this is not a loss resulting from a breach. I find
that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss
suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach.

Considering carefully al l the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages
sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate
of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed

Assessor

Half_way

what i want to know is can i now use the money i have saved from this win to take vcs to small claims court to claim money for my losses, like time spent having to fight this illegal invoice and the stress caused having to fight this invoice.
of course any moneys i get will go to charity. i just feel i need to do more or maybe i could get another PCN from vcs and fight it only on the relevant land which would probably mean the end of VCS at airports if it is allowed.

While that would be/should be possible the ones you really need to go for are the airport first and foremost, as they are the principal and it is they who are responsible for the actions of their agents (VCS) with VCs being listed as second down the list.

In an ideal world the Airport should be forced to refund anyone who has paid VCS a parking charge, the sum of the parking charge+interest and a goodwill gesture ( ie a voucher to use at the airport/flight voucher ) by means of an apology as well as an offering to anyone who, like you has beat their agents at popla, coupled with a demand that the airport take all means possible to contact the victims of their agents by means of press adverts, writing to them etc etc.

Coupon-mad

You should email POPLA and say thankyou but also to flag up to the Chief Adjudicator that VCS never sent you their actual evidence/contract/written argument. Whilst in your case it no longer matters too much - as your appeal was allowed anyway - you wanted POPLA Chief Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, to know that VCS seem to have 'form' for doing this as the following is in the public domain:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/prankster-operator-guide-to-winning-at.html?showComment=1388691874939

Say you are concerned that VCS are (perhaps routinely) not sending appellants their evidence pack.

unhappychappie

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You should email POPLA and say thankyou but also to flag up to the Chief Adjudicator that VCS never sent you their actual evidence/contract/written argument. Whilst in your case it no longer matters too much - as your appeal was allowed anyway - you wanted POPLA Chief Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, to know that VCS seem to have 'form' for doing this as the following is in the public domain:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/prankster-operator-guide-to-winning-at.html?showComment=1388691874939

Say you are concerned that VCS are (perhaps routinely) not sending appellants their evidence pack.

I did email both popla and VCS when i did not receive their evidence pack but got no reply i will send another to popla lead adjudicator as you have suggested.

Thank you again mad coupon for your advice:j