another VCS case - Robin Hood Airport

Kate1899

hello, I'm new on forum. I've received a PCN from VCS for £60 for "Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited". Car was parked for 2-3 minutes on bus lay-by on the road approaching to RHA.
I've decided to appeal and I'll be grateful if you can advice me. I have read probably all the posts about this process, so I know that I need to send appeal to VCS, get POPLA code and appeal with them.

My first step will be this "soft appeal" to VCS. Please let me know if it's enough or should I add something else.


"Dear VCS,

In reference to the invoice xxx dated xxx, the keeper denies all liability to your company as it is an unlawful punitive charge, thus a penalty! The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by yourselves and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because you have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss, as such you should now cancel the charge.

If you reject this challenge the keeper requires a POPLA verification code for them to appeal independently.

Yours Faithfully"


Thank you for all advice and I hope that it will be another successful case.

Folkiedave

Looks fine to me.

Wait until you get the Notice to Keeper. Then make the "soft appeal".

Take a look at this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75758

RHA and Liverpool are both owned by Peel Holdings. VCS are the same parking contractor. I suggest you should get the same outcome!!

Umkomaas

Folkiedave wrote: »

Looks fine to me.

Wait until you get the Notice to Keeper. Then make the "soft appeal".

Take a look at this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75758

RHA and Liverpool are both owned by Peel Holdings. VCS are the same parking contractor. I suggest you should get the same outcome!!

I think the OP has received the NtK.

OP - have you received a letter in the post from VCS, please confirm the heading on it.

Kate1899

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think the OP has received the NtK.

OP - have you received a letter in the post from VCS, please confirm the heading on it.

Thank you for replies. Yes, I've received letter in the post and it's Parking Charge Notice, almost same as at link posted by Folkiedave.

Is my "soft appeal" correct in this case ?

thank you

Umkomaas

Kate1899 wrote: »

Thank you for replies. Yes, I've received letter in the post and it's Parking Charge Notice, almost same as at link posted by Folkiedave.

Is my "soft appeal" correct in this case ?

thank you

Yep, soft appeal is good to go. Whatever you send in a soft appeal almost always results in a rejection (don't feel 'rejected' as a result, it's just part of the game you need to play in order to get your POPLA code).

Then we can get down to business. Meanwhile, put your time waiting for your code to good use by reading up on (most recent) POPLA Decisions here

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

and here

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

to find out the things that win POPLA appeals. Come back when you get your code - don't do POPLA alone, we will help you fine tune to give you the best chance of success.

Umkomaas

Kate1899 - you might want to have a look at this from PePiPoo, it's been going on for some months now, but the most recent posts will be of real interest to you.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75758&st=0

Folkiedave

Since both Robin Hood Airports and Liverpool Airports are owned by the same company - and since both employ the same PPC - there is a good chance that both threads should have identical advice. Make sure you read them both to get a full understanding.

Kate1899

hello again and thank you for advice. My "soft" appeal has been rejected. Here is my POPLA appeal. I would appreciate any advice. thank you.

"

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Limited
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Sep-2013
Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013
Alleged Contravention: Stopping on a Roadway where stopping is Prohibited.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:


1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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.

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, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.


2. Not relevant land

Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.


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

I believe the signs and any core 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 all the requirements I have listed below.There are no low-positioned, clear signs on entry to this road which would have communicated the terms & conditions of stopping there to a seated driver in moving traffic. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage,including ''The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. VCS have a duty to make the terms so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means that the elements of a contract have not been met. To suggest a breach of contract, VCS also needs to show that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which they cannot do as it is clearly untrue. The idea that any driver would accept these terms to pay this charge knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. The truth is that the driver did not see, understand nor accept the alleged terms. VCS may claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park but this doesnot meet the BPA Code of Practice rules nor the requirements for consideration when forming an alleged contract.It is fact impossible to read the terms and conditions of the contract without stopping.


4. Failure to identify the creditor.

The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2) (h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply 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 purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of anycharge from the keeper.


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 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

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

"

Hawkeye_86

Kate i wish you luck in your appeal, please let us know how you get on. I parked in the same bus stop for two minutes at just gone midnight two weeks ago and along came the PCN. It is a ridiculous charge and my appeal to VCS has just been posted. I will join the thread and let all know progression

Greatest_Player

Good luck Kate, you seem very well versed here.

Just remember, no matter what POPLA decide, it is not binding for you (you keeper OR you motorist). Your argument would stand up in court come the day of the race but that is HIGHLY unlikely. VSC know better than to try that again following their humiliation vs Ibbotson in 2011; they tried to justify their losses by citing running costs such as staff clothing, plastic wallets to attach to windscreens, training of recruits, Christmas dinner and dance at Hilton, receptionists on maternity, etc etc etc. You get the picture, judge laughed it out of court.

Coupon-mad

I did write a paragraph for POPLA appeals about 'no stopping zones' which cites POPLA's own Annual Report 2013 and can be mentioned after a general point about unclear signage:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63785239#Comment_63785239

MrsG1980 has added it to her 'signage' point at the end instead so it flows from that paragraph:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4787317

Also on that same thread I have suggested that VCS v Ibbotson is added where PE v Sharma (and PE v Gardam, a newer case!) are shown in an appeal. Seeing as your case is against VCS you must rub their noses in it by citing Ibbotson!

HTH