VCS Parking Charge Notice - Listerhills, Bradford

Coupon-mad

Yep we know. They have 35 days but that's not set in stone either.

Katybelle_D

This one?

[EMAIL="steve.c@britishparking.co.uk"]steve.c@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]
Steve Clark
Head of Operational Services
British Parking Association
Stuart House
41-43 Perrymount Road
Haywards Heath
West Sussex
RH16 3BN

Katybelle_D

So I've got the following, what do you think? Again, many thanks for your assistance, without your informed knowledge I would not know that they were in the wrong re: the POPLA code. Super advice!!

Letter to V/C/S:


In reply to your letter dated ??December 2013 the registered keeper has reported V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltdfailure to adhere to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice andParking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Newsletter November 2013 which statethe following:



“Verification code
Operators must, on every occasion, include the verification code in theirrejection of representations. Therecipient of the rejection should not have to ask for it. Failure by an operator to provide averification code in their rejection letter is a breach of the Code ofPractice, sanctionable by the BPA.

Rather than just a reference, the verification code should be clearlyidentifiable as such, for example:
Your verification code, which you will need to appeal to POPLA, is XXXXXXXXXX.
Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appealform, it must still be in the dated rejection notice/letter. If it is not, andif the issue arises, it may then be difficult for the operator to show exactlywhen the verification code was provided to an appellant” POPLA(November 2013).

The registered keeper awaits thereply from BPA regarding this and request that recovery of the PCN charge is eithercancelled forthwith or put on hold until a reply is received from BPA.

Letter to BPA:


I writeregarding V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd and an issue regarding the companyfailing to adhere to both the BPA Code of Practice and Parking on Private LandAppeals (POPLA) newsletter issued in November 2013. I quote:

“Verificationcode
Operators must, on every occasion, include the verification code in theirrejection of representations. Therecipient of the rejection should not have to ask for it. Failure by anoperator to provide a verification code in their rejection letter is a breachof the Code of Practice, sanctionable by the BPA.

Ratherthan just a reference, the verification code should be clearly identifiable assuch, for example:
Your verification code, which you will need to appeal to POPLA, is XXXXXXXXXX.
Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appealform, it must still be in the dated rejection notice/letter. If it is not, andif the issue arises, it may then be difficult for the operator to show exactlywhen the verification code was provided to an appellant” POPLA(November 2013).

As registeredkeeper of a vehicle they issued a PCN to on ?? September 2013 I wrote tochallenge the ticket and stated in the letter that I wished to have a POPLAcode by return with their decision. Unfortunately, they have not done this and as a result have requestedthat I notify them within 14 days of their letter to exercise my right toappeal to POPLA and then they will provide a verification code and relevantforms. Please see letters enclosed.

I believe thatthey are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and POPLA newsletter guidanceand as a result would like further guidance on how to proceed.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me!

Katybelle_D

Thanks everyone. Will get them posted in the morning and also e-mail them :-)

Again much appreciated, you're stars! :T :A

Katybelle_D

The saga continues... I now have a POPLA code and an appeal form and have been advised by BPA to appeal. My next question is... is there a template on this forum for a POPLA appeal?

Thank you for your continued assistance.

Regards

bod1467

All linked from the NEWBIES thread.

Coupon-mad

It's called 'How to win at POPLA', a large colourful link, you can't miss it in the newbies thread...

Katybelle_D

Ok, so this is what I have cobbled together... Your thoughts on it are very much appreciated! :-)


POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Vehicle V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14days) for the alleged contravention of parking in ‘a restricted area in a carpark’ at LiXXXXXXlls SXXXXce Park, BrXXXrd. The issue date on the invoice is XXXXXXXX.


As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the followinggrounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

2. Theamount of the charge is disproportionate

3. Noauthority to levy charges

4. NoCreditor identified on the Notice to Appellant

5.Signage

6. Notparked in a restricted area in a car park

7.Unlawful Penalty Charge

8. PhotographicEvidence

9.Business Rates

10.Summary


1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demandfor a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive,unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to theloss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares thatthe charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.



The BPAcode of practice states:



“19.5 Ifthe parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach ofcontract 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 punitive or unreasonable. I require V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. toprovide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated.I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost ofrunning the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of backoffice services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPALtd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.



I thereforerespectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate

The amountof the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is noneas this is a free car park) by V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. and is punitive,contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to bea penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for anyoverstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither canV?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day runningcosts in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever.The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable)against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to anyalleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council chargesfor all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is£2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40 byearly payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.



I thereforerespectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. No authority to levy charges

A parkingmanagement company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contractwith the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it isthe landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner toissue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges intheir own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority toissue charge notices.
I put it to V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. to provide strict proof toPOPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and Idemand that the V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. produce to POPLA thecontemporaneous contract between the landowner and the V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack ofownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contractto one that exists simply on an agency basis between V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on athird party customer.



I thereforerespectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant

Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” maybe is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated thatthe operator requires a payment to V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd., there is nospecific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires aNotice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and theNotice does not.



I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.

5. Signage

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site inquestion. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parkingcompany are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read orunderstand when driving up to this car park. Situated to the left side of a standard right hand drive vehicle, thesmall sign in a bramble hedge at the entrance of the car park, obscures thedriver from reading it properly. TheOperator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point -specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at theentrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when decidingto drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself,do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. Ibelieve the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of theterms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practiceappendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that provesotherwise.

I enclose aphotograph that demonstrate the entrance signage. The BPA Code of Practice atAppendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “Thesign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needingto look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrastbetween the text and its background, each of which should be a single solidcolour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a whitebackground, or white text on a black background”.



As a POPLA assessorhas said previously in an adjudication:


“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearlyenough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at thetime and location in question were sufficiently clear”.



The parking companyneeds to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, whichmeans that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a consciousdecision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionatefixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominalamount presumably due in a machine on site.



The idea that anydriver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.



I thereforerespectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed



6. Not parked in a restricted area in a car park

The Appellant was actually parked on the left hand side of CampusRoad facing away from the car park having turned around in the road and reverseparallel parked behind another vehicle. There are no signs directly to the left or right of the vehicle, only afootpath to the left. Nor are there anysingle or double yellow lines stating this is a restricted area. The vehicle in question was displaying avalid in date tax disc and was parked on a public road causing no obviousobstruction to the entrance to the ‘car park’ controlled by V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd.


7. Unlawful Penalty Charge

Since therewas no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been allegedfor a free car park or rather in this instance, a public road, it canonly remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawfulcharge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in severalCounty Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman(2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith(Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). Theoperator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, butchooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed anofficial parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.

8. Photographic Evidence

V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices . State that their Patrol Officerstatement details the vehicle as being parked in a restricted area, specificallystating, ‘Vehicle parked on entrance, no parking at any time’. Therefore in line with paragraph 22.3 of theBPA Code of Practice I request that Vehicle Control Services Ltd. provide photographicevidence of the vehicle parked on entrance. This photographic evidence must adhere to paragraph 31.1 of the BPA Codeof Practice and be clear and legible, must not be retouched or digitallyaltered and clearly show a date and time stamp confirming the incident inquestion. Furthermore I would V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd to explain how they define the entrance as beingseparate from the public road. Currently,there are no bollards, gates, lines or the word ENTRANCE painted on the road noris there a barrier to the car park. Thereforeit is vital that V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. produce evidence in response tothese points.

9. Business Rates

As this carpark is now being used for the purpose of running a business by V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd., which is entirely separate from any other business the car parkservices, and generates revenue and profit for V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd., Ido not believe that V?ehicle C?ontrol S?ervices Ltd. has declared the running oftheir business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and LocalAuthority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.



I put it to Vehicle Control Services Ltd. To provide strictproof that they have so registered the business they are operating at LiXXXXXXsSXXXce PXXk with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Ratesare being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation oftheir exemption from such Business Rates.

10.Summary

On thebasis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet thestandards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply withbasic contract law.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

That will do the job! Send it off now!