VSC Robin Hood Airport Doncaster PCN

krco86

Hi everyone,

As anticipated my appeal was rejected. Below is a copy of the letter I sent:

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to you regarding the parking charge notice XXXXXX issued to vehicle XXXX XXX on 23/10/2013.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the signage supposedly bearing the contract to access to the "privately operated access roads" at Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Airport does not have any terms & conditions on it. It is also not readable from a moving vehicle, and so not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.

Airport land is also not 'relevant land' under the Protection Of Freedom’s Act 2012 so no registered keeper liability applies and you have made no loss as a result of the alleged incident making your charge punitive, unjustifiable and unenforceable. I require you to either cancel the charge forthwith or provide me with a POPLA code so that I can refer the matter to POPLA.

If you reject this challenge the keeper requires within 35 days a POPLA verification code to appeal independently, per Version 3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The keeper has nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the POPLA code.

The challenge will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time-frame stipulated above.


Regards


I have received a letter back saying they acknowledge my appeal however its entirely the motorists responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the terms and conditions.


It also states that I confirmed that I stopped to pick up passengers which is not the case from the above letter. Nowhere did i state stopping to pick up passengers. They have therefore rejected the appeal and provided me with a POPLA code stating they will not accept any further appeals and to pay £60 before 11/12/13 otherwise it will rised to £100.



Any help as to what to do next to make sure the wording is correct for a POPLA appeal?


Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Here's a good one a poster wrote earlier (found by searching the forum for VCS):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63885577#Comment_63885577

Easy.

krco86

Thanks for your reply Coupon-mad the link is very useful. I have copied the appeal from the link and adjusted it slightly to meet my case. There are a couple of extra points I was wondering if anyone thought it might be useful to add in? My original charge letter for the alleged offence (23/10/13) was dated 28/10/13. On this original letter I was given 14 day discount period (£60 instead of £100). After my appeal was rejected (27/11/13) I have been given until 11/12/13 to pay a discounted £60 (another 14 days) unless I choose to appeal to POPLA in which case I must pay the full £100 should my appeal not be successful. This in itself makes me question their terms and conditions.
Also they stated in the rejection letter than I have now admitted to stopping to pick up passengers which I never did. I assume by me sending an appeal admits to me stopping but nowhere have I stated who was driving or that I picked up passengers.


Is it worth adding these two points in? Or will this not make a difference to the appeal to POPLA? Are POPLA independent to these companies, I’m assuming they are an independent panel and don’t have any bias towards these companies?



Below is a copy of my POPLA appeal, any tips or comments from anyone would be much appreciated!



[FONT=&quot]On [/FONT][FONT=&quot]23/10/2013 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I was the registered keeper of a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] xxxxx registration number XXXX XXX. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On [/FONT][FONT=&quot]29/10/2013 I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) for allegedly breaching car park terms and conditions of access to privately operated approach roads leading to Doncaster Sheffield Airport.

On 30/10/13 I wrote a challenge to this notice, [a response dated 14/11/13 confirming receipt was received on the 15/11/13]. In that challenge letter I contested various points including: whether the land in question was, in fact, ‘relevant land’ as defined by the Protection 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 the Notice 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 on entry to the privately operated roads was deficient and unclear.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The response letter dated 27/11/13 failed to address the points above in addition to others raised.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I dispute the parking charge for the reasons set out below. Please note that, although I dispute the whole basis of the parking charge, my main concerns, as registered keeper, are:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]''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.''[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) Whether the land in question is ‘relevant land’ as defined by POFA.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If not, has VCS had any authority to obtain my (Registered Keeper) details from DVLA. In addition, I also believe that POFA only allows for Keeper liability in parking facilities and that this does not apply to ‘No Stopping’ zones.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

On Airport land no keeper liability generally applies at all, due to local byelaws taking precedence. All the land and surrounding approach roads are Airport-owned and covered by Byelaws (link removed for forum rules) 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 Airport authorities, that this land is not covered by byelaws and that POFA does apply in ‘No Stopping’ zones if the Notice is to be pursued against myself as the registered keeper. 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 of who the driver was and has not provided any evidence that they are entitled to recover the charge from the Keeper, the charge should be dismissed.

The operator should also be able 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. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The driver has not been identified, VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge; the registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Doncaster Sheffield/Robin Hood Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3) Signage/Contract.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]VCS has sent a copy of the notices that they post 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 no chance of safely reading the content of such a complex sign without stopping and, secondly, it demonstrates that there are no specified Terms and Conditions displayed on them.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] As it is necessary for the driver to stop their vehicle in order to read the terms and conditions before being able to consider them and whether to agree thereby breaching the terms and conditions the signs erected at this location are none compliant with the BPA code of practice.

The original PCN stated that it was issued for allegedly breaching car park terms and conditions of access to privately operated approach roads leading to Doncaster Sheffield/Robin Hood Airport. The driver did not see any contractual information (such as full Terms 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 situated at the end of the approach roads.

In their response, VCS says “..it is entirely the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the Terms and Conditions of use for the airports private access roads. The roadway in question is part of a high security zone and as such motorists are clearly advised not to park, stop or wait on double yellow lines, red routes zones or roadways at any time.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I do not believe that there was ever any form of contract in place (for instance, there were no readable terms and conditions, thus no acceptance or agreement) and therefore there was no breach.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I also 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 specifically, is 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 against details/dates/relevance/signatory etc. As VCS are not the owners of this land they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract, a witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4) That if the PCN issued to Keeper was ‘in Lieu’ of a Notice to Keeper it was defective in not specifically naming ‘The Creditor’ as required by POFA.

A specific flaw with the Notice issued 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 the Notice has indicated that a payment is required to be made to VCS, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, maybe VCS or some other party. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and this Notice does not.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The BPA code of practice contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, the secret camera van does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that VCS have failed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. They will need to show evidence to the contrary on every point, and explain how this hidden camera van can be compliant when this is not a car park, it is a road, and there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the use of a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a van fitted with a hidden camera, patrolling land which is not a 'car park' and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Many thanks.
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

The first point you made is quite standard for a PPC, to re-offer the discount as they want to scam people into paying rather then costing the PPC money by winning against them at POPLA. So I wouldn't mention it.

But the second point should be included where your initial paragraphs talk about receiving their reply on 27/11 but you need to be very careful with your wording not to imply who was driving suddenly! So I would put:

The response letter dated 27/11/13 failed to address the points above in addition to others raised. It appears to be a template response to any appeal because it wrongly says that I have admitted to stopping and picking up passengers which is utterly incorrect, did not happen and in any case I am appealing this as the registered keeper not the driver.



Oh, and you need to get rid of the speech marks around point #1.

krco86

Thanks Coupon-mad I have added this in. Do I need to send a copy of all the letters they have sent me along with my original appeal letter to POPLA? Hopefully this will be enough to see them off and drop the charge.

Coupon-mad

No, read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/popla-november-2013-newsletter.html

...and anyway you will win with that POPLA appeal; VCS can't answer some of those points.

krco86

Thanks for the link, very useful. I was just wondering if sending the picture of the sign, which VCS sent me, where there arent any T&Cs, would have been useful. However, reading that site POPLA will request all this from VCS. I will print this and stick it in the post today.

Cant thank you enough for the advice and links!

krco86

Hi,

I sent my appeal to POPLA on 3/12/13 and received a letter on 9/12/13 stating POPLA had received my appeal and that they would consider my case on or around 27/1/14. I have heard nothing from anyone since. Is it normal for a decision to be delayed for so long? Are POPLA overrun with appeals? There was another user on this forum who was appealing against VCS at Doncaster Airport about 7 days before I did and had a decision quite a while ago.

Redx

email them and check, my relative was waiting long past the due date and when emailed they had done it weeks before the due date

krco86

I have received the evidence that VCS have sent to POPLA with the terms and conditions and why they are charging me. Having read though I was under the impression from other posts on here that they had to send a breakdown of the full costs. In the evidence they have sent me they state "the PCN is a reasonable charge for liquidating damages following a breach of the parking contract and we contend that it is not 'unreasonable, excessive or punitive'." It goes on to say that they have calculated the GPEOL as £96.48 as they incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the T&Cs and doesn't include operational or day to day costs or any costs of an appeal to POPLA.

Is this standard wording and standard to not give a full breakdown and just to state their loss is £96.48? Also if that is the case why did they give me the option to pay £60 in the first 14 days. If that is true they would still be £36.48 out of pocket hypothetically. My appeal seems to have dragged on a while as it was issued 26/10/13.