VCS ticket from Robin Hood Airport

Poohandpiglet

A long wait!

I have now received the 'rejection of appeal' letter and been supplied with a POPLA code. This was actually received 37 after the emailed appeal but 35 after they received the letter that I followed up with.

The rejection didn't really answer the specific questions raised - it said:

a) It is the motorist’s responsibility to adhere to the Terms andConditions for the use of these roads…
b) Signage clearly states No Stopping at Any Time and that it is the motorist’sresponsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware of these Terms andConditions…
c) The OPERATOR operates under Common Law under the Laws of Contractand Trespass.
d) That it is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter and useprivate land for authorised uses, does so in full and tacit acceptance of theTerms and Conditions in operation.
e) That these Terms were breached when the driver stopped, resultingin the issue of a PCN…
f) The OPERATOR says ”We can confirm that the charges for this Noticeare set in place by the land owner whom OPERATOR manages the access road onbehalf of, and that …these are in line with BPA CoP.

I assume that the POPLA appeal will concentrate on whether the land in question is 'relevant land' and that the PCN/NtK did not specify a creditor but also challenge the signage and the rationale leading to a disproportionate charge.

Any help gratefully received - I will post a POPLA reply once I get my head around it!!

Umkomaas

Have a read of these to start the POPLA ball rolling for you:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=17

Read the most recent ones to give you the best feel for what is working currently.

Key points are:

1. Signage
2. Lack of proprietary interest in the land
3. No contract with landowner to bring charges, especially to court
4. Genuine pre-estimate of losses
5. The 'relevant land' angle and whether byelaws or RTA applies (I don't admit to being too knowledgeable on this particular point, but there are threads dotted around on Railways and Airport threads - try a 'search' on these).

HTH

hoohoo

I would also add that:

POFA 2012 only applies to parking on private land, and does not include 'no stopping'. Therefore keeper liability does not apply and only the driver may be held liable. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right to name the driver(s). As the operator has neither named the driver nor provided evidence who the driver was, the charge should be dismissed.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337
See post #314 where a similar decision was made when POFA 2012 did not apply

Poohandpiglet

Hi again
I've done a little reading around and taken some advice from here - thanks again - is the text below OK to use for my POPLA appeal? Do I need anything else or have I got it completely wrong?

Thanks in anticipation of helpful comments.


Name
Address
Date
Notice to Keeper xxxxxxxxx
POPLAVerification Code zzzzzzz

Summary:

On noticedate I was the registeredkeeper of a vehicletyperegistration number xxxxxxxx

On DATE 0 I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) for allegedly breaching car park terms and conditions of accessto privately operated approach roads leading to Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

On DATE 1 I emailed a challenge to thisnotice (followed by a letter in the next post), an automated emailed responseconfirming receipt was received on the same date. In that challenge letter (attached)I contested that the land in question was, in fact, ‘relevant land’ as definedby the Provision of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which I believe it is not, andasked them to provide evidence to the contrary. I also pointed out that the Noticeissued to the Keeper was defective as it did not specifically identify ‘theCreditor’ as required in paragraph 9(2)h of POFA and that the signage on entryto the privately operated roads was deficient and unclear.

Seventeen days after the email I received a ‘holdingletter’ from VCS assuring me that the challenge was receiving their attention.

Thirty seven days after the email I received areply to the challenge stating:

a) It is the motorist’s responsibility to adhere to the Terms andConditions for the use of these roads…

b) Signage clearly states No Stopping at Any Time and that it is the motorist’sresponsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware of these Terms andConditions…

c) VCS operates under Common Law under the Laws of Contract andTrespass.

d) That it is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter and useprivate land for authorised uses, does so in full and tacit acceptance of theTerms and Conditions in operation.

e) That these Terms were breached when the driver stopped, resultingin the issue of a PCN…

f) VCS says ”We can confirm that the charges for this Noticeare set in place by the land owner whom VCS manages the access road on behalfof, and that …these are in line with BPA CoP.

I dispute the parking charge for the reasonsset out below. Please note that, although I dispute the whole basis of the parkingcharge, my main concerns, as registered keeper, are:

1) Whether the land in question is ‘relevant land’ as defined by POFAand, if not, whether VCS had any authority to obtain my (Registered Keeper)details from DVLA. In addition, I also believe that POFA only allows for Keeperliability in parking facilities and that this does not apply to ‘No Stopping’zones.

On Airport land no keeperliability generally applies at all, due to local byelaws taking precedence. Allthe land and surrounding approach roads are Airport-owned and covered by Byelaws (link removed for forum)and, as such, the Airport is not'relevant land' under POFA. There is no registered keeper liability.VCS will need to provide evidence, substantiated by the Airportauthorities, that this land is not covered by byelaws and that POFA doesapply in ‘No Stopping’ zones if the Notice is to be pursued against myself asthe registered keeper. As the keeper of the vehicle Idecline, as is my right to name the driver(s). As the operator has neithernamed the driver nor provided evidence of who the driver was and has notprovided any evidence that they are entitled to recover the charge from theKeeper, the charge should be dismissed. The operator should also be able tosupply a full copy of the contract, acceptable in law, between them andthe land owner which demonstrates their authority to pursue claims for damageson the approach roads.

2) That if the PCN issued to Keeper was ‘in Lieu’ of a Notice toKeeper it was defective in not specifically naming’ the Creditor’ as requiredby POFA.

Aspecific flaw with the Notice issued is that it fails to include specificidentification as to who 'the Creditor' may be. This is misleading and notcompliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst theNotice has indicated that a payment is required to be made to VCS, there is nospecific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be VCS or some otherparty. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that'The Creditor is….' and this Notice does not.

3) Signage/Contract. VCS has sent a copy of the notices that theypost within the area that the alleged ‘offence’ took place. This is useful as,firstly, a motorist proceeding normally into and through the area would have nochance of safely reading the content of such a complex sign without stopping and, secondly,it demonstrates that there are no Terms and Conditions displayed on them.

Theoriginal PCN stated that it was issued for allegedly breaching car park terms andconditions of access to privately operated approach roads leading to DoncasterSheffield Airport. The driver did not see any contractual information (such as fullTerms and Conditions) on any signs when entering the roads leading to the airport,presumably these are only available to read in the car parking areas situatedat the end of the approach roads.

In their response, VCS says “..it is tritelaw that a motorist choosing to enter and use private land for authorised uses,does so in full and tacit acceptance of the Terms and Conditions in operation.These Terms and Conditions are in operation from the moment a person entersonto private land.”

I cannot believe that motorists are expected,by some mystical process, to have accepted Terms and Conditions that they havenot had the opportunity to see and read!

They go on to say that ”..should the motoristbreach these Terms and Conditions or commit trespass….we are entitled to seekdamages from the motorist….as indicated on the signage…”

I do notbelieve that there was ever any form of contract in place (for instance, there wereno readable terms and conditions, thus no acceptance or agreement was possible) andtherefore there was no breach. Furthermore, I do not believe that any damage,obstruction or material loss was incurred and that the charge levied is purelya sum agreed in advance and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.It is also unreasonable and unfair. If VCS believes otherwise they must be ableto show a full breakdown of the genuine pre-estimate of loss for the charge tobe enforceable.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

That's a very good start.

Personally I wouldn't re-state their letter for them (they will send it in to POPLA anyway as part of their evidence). So would strike out:

''Thirty seven days after the email I received a reply to the challenge [STRIKE]stating[/STRIKE] which did not address my points of appeal.

[STRIKE]a) It is the motorist’s [/STRIKE][STRIKE]
responsibility to adhere to the Terms andConditions for the use of these
roads…[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]b) Signage clearly states No [/STRIKE][STRIKE]
Stopping at Any Time and that it is the motorist’sresponsibility to ensure that
he/she is fully aware of these Terms andConditions…

c)
VCS operates under Common Law under the Laws of
Contract andTrespass.

d) That
it is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter and useprivate land for
authorised uses, does so in full and tacit acceptance of theTerms and Conditions
in operation.

e) That these Terms were breached when the driver stopped,
resultingin the issue of a PCN…

f)
VCS says ”We can confirm that the charges for this
Noticeare set in place by the land owner whom VCS manages the access road on
behalfof, and that …these are in line with BPA CoP. ''[/STRIKE]



And you need a paragraph to require VCS to show that they have a BPA-compliant contract with the landowner at this site which specifically enables them to enforce parking tickets through the courts in their own name as creditor. In VCS v HMRC their typical contract failed in this regard so VCS will need to show POPLA that their contract with this Airport is specifically, fully BPA compliant. This will require the actual contract being submitted to POPLA, not a vague witness statement which would not be admissible in court and cannot be checked for details/dates/relevance/signatory etc..

And I think I would put this paragraph much higher up - as this is a likely winner:

[STRIKE]Furthermore,[/STRIKE] I do not believe that any damage, obstruction or material loss was incurred and that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum [STRIKE]agreed[/STRIKE] implemented by VCS as a revenue-raiser in advance. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss flowing from the incident. VCS cannot argue that this charge is made up of tax-deductible business costs because these would exist even if no cars stopped and got a ticket that day. It is also unreasonable and unfair; an unenforceable penalty dressed up as an imaginary loss, and as such, it breaches the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. If VCS believes otherwise they must be able to show a full breakdown of the genuine pre-estimate of loss. [STRIKE]for the charge to be enforceable.[/STRIKE]

Poohandpiglet

Thanks again for your support C-M, I've modified the appeal with your suggestions. Is it in the right format for an online appeal to POPLA and does it contain enough material? I'm assuming that if I submit online, I will be able to either paste this in to an online form or attach it to the submission - I was expecting to send this and the original challenge letter to VCS.


Name
Address
Date
Notice to Keeper xxxxxxxxx
POPLAVerification Code zzzzzzz

Summary:

On notice date I was the registeredkeeper of a vehicletyperegistration number xxxxxxxx

On DATE 0 I received a Parking Charge Notice(PCN) from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) for allegedly breaching car park terms and conditions of accessto privately operated approach roads leading to Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

On DATE 1 I emailed a challenge to thisnotice (followed by a letter in the next post), an automated emailed responseconfirming receipt was received on the same date. In that challenge letter(attached) I contested that the land in question was, in fact, ‘relevant land’as defined by the Provision of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which I believe it is not,and asked them to provide evidence to the contrary. I also pointed out that theNotice issued to the Keeper was defective as it did not specifically identify‘the Creditor’ as required in paragraph 9(2)h of POFA and that the signage onentry to the privately operated roads was deficient and unclear.

Seventeen days after the email I received a‘holding letter’ from VCS assuring me that the challenge was receiving theirattention.

Thirty seven days after the email I received areply to the challenge which did not address my points of appeal/challenge.

I dispute the parking charge for the reasonsset out below. Please note that, although I dispute the whole basis of the parkingcharge, my main concerns, as registered keeper, are:

1. Signage/Contract. VCS has sent a copy of the notices that theypost within the area that the alleged ‘offence’ took place. This is useful as,firstly, a motorist proceeding normally into and through the area would have nochance of safely reading the content of such a complex sign without stopping and,secondly, it demonstrates that there are no Terms and Conditions displayed onthem.

The original PCN stated that it was issuedfor allegedly breaching car park terms and conditions of access to privatelyoperated approach roads leading to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. The driver didnot see any contractual information (such as full Terms and Conditions) on anysigns when entering theroads leading to the airport, presumably these areonly available to read in the car parking areas situated at the end of theapproach roads.

In their response, VCS says “..it is tritelaw that a motorist choosing to enter and use private land for authorised uses,does so in full and tacit acceptance of the Terms and Conditions in operation.These Terms and Conditions are in operation from the moment a person entersonto private land.”

I cannot believe that motorists are expected,by some mystical process, to have accepted Terms and Conditions that they havenot had the opportunity to see and read!

They go on to say that ”..should the motoristbreach these Terms and Conditions or commit trespass….we are entitled to seekdamages from the motorist….as indicated on the signage…”

I do not believe that there was ever any form of contract in place (forinstance, there were no readable terms and conditions, thus no acceptance oragreement) and therefore there was no breach.

I do not believe that any damage, obstructionor material loss was incurred and that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum implemented in advance by VCS asa revenue-raiser. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate ofany loss following from the incident. VCS cannot argue that this charge is madeup of tax-deductible business costs because these would exist even if no carsstopped and got a ticket that day. It is also unreasonable and unfair; anunenforceable penalty dressed up as an imaginary loss, and as such, it breachesthe Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. If VCS believesotherwise they must be able to show a full breakdown of the genuinepre-estimate of loss.

I also require VCS 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. InVCS v HMRC their typical contract failed in this regard so VCS will need toshow POPLA that their contract, with this Airport specifically, is fully BPAcompliant. This will require the actual contract being submitted to POPLA, nota vague witness statement which would not be admissible in court and cannot bechecked for details/dates/relevance/signatory etc.

2. Whether the land in question is ‘relevant land’ as defined by POFAand, if not, whether VCS had any authority to obtain my (Registered Keeper)details from DVLA. In addition, I also believe that POFA only allows for Keeperliability in parking facilities and that this does not apply to ‘No Stopping’zones.

On Airport land no keeper liability generally applies at all, due tolocal byelaws taking precedence. All the land and surrounding approach roadsare Airport-owned and covered by Byelaws (link removed for forum rules) and, as such, the Airport is not 'relevantland' under POFA. There is no registered keeper liability. VCS will need toprovide evidence, substantiated by the Airport authorities, that this land is notcovered by byelaws and that POFA does apply in ‘No Stopping’ zones if theNotice is to be pursued against myself as the registered keeper. As the keeperof the vehicle I decline, as is my right to name the driver(s). As the operatorhas neither named the driver nor provided evidence of who the driver was andhas not provided any evidence that they are entitled to recover the charge fromthe Keeper, the charge should be dismissed.

Theoperator should also be able to supply a full copy of the contract, acceptablein law, between them and the land owner which demonstrates their authority topursue claims for damages on the approachroads.

3. That if the PCN issued to Keeper was ‘in Lieu’ of a Notice toKeeper it was defective in not specifically naming’ the Creditor’ as requiredby POFA.

Aspecific flaw with the Notice issued is that it fails to include specificidentification as to who 'the Creditor' may be. This is misleading and notcompliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst theNotice has indicated that a payment is required to be made to VCS, there is nospecific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be VCS or some otherparty. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that'The Creditor is….' and this Notice does not.



Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Personally I would take this paragraph and put it as point no 1 on its own, called 'No genuine pre-estimate of loss' then re-number your other points:

''I do not believe that any damage, obstruction or material loss was incurred and that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum implemented in advance by VCS as a revenue-raiser. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss following from the incident. VCS cannot argue that this charge is made up of tax-deductible business costs because these would exist even if no cars stopped and got a ticket that day. It is also unreasonable and unfair; an unenforceable penalty dressed up as an imaginary loss, and as such, it breaches the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. If VCS believes otherwise they must be able to show a full breakdown of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.''

Apart from that, see if it all fits in the inline submission box for appeals (you may get an error code if not, or at the very least you need to check that the acknowledgement from POPLA quotes your entire wording back at you! We have seen cases where the long appeal has been chopped off as the word-count is restrictive, and th OP hasn't noticed. The acknowledgement will show you what's been submitted.

Attachments like the original appeal and any letters or photos of a sign can be attached separately as the online appeal will show.

If it gets tool complicated or if unsure, send it by post as well with a hard copy POPLA form, stapled to the front.

Whether you submit it online or by post, ensure that the 10 digit POPLA code is at the top of every page and every attachment.

Poohandpiglet

Thanks again, advice taken and appeal submitted.....another wait!

Poohandpiglet

Hi all
After weeks of waiting I finally heard from POPLA that this appeal had been allowed - on the basis of no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I'd like to thank everyone who helped and advised during this process - especially Coupon Mad, whose advice was invaluable.

Has anyone ever followed a successful case by asking the DVLA to look at whether owner details are being requested and released 'illegally' in these circumstances??

Thanks

Parking-Prankster

Please complain to the BPA and the DVLA that VCS are breaching the code of conduct by charging an amount that is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Just a brief one line complaint will do, no need for an essay; attach your POPLA judgement as proof.


If nobody complains then VCS will carry on regardless.


The addresses to use are:
[EMAIL="aos@britishparkingassociation.co.uk"]aos@britishparkingassociation.co.uk[/EMAIL]
[EMAIL="foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]


POPLA are meant to report breaches, but there are so many they have decided not to bother.


Incidentally I am now on VCS's case.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/vehicle-control-systems-bet-company.html


I am collecting the 'pre-estimate of loss' documents VCS use. If yours has a 'PCN Issue' category that did not end in 21 pence I would be very interested in a copy, because this is proof that they are faking the amounts.


If they used a witness statement I would be interested in that too.


Please send to [EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]