VCS reject appeal

nigelbb

mc303m wrote: »

everything I have researched relates to people in car parks or PE I cannot find anything relating to trespass on a clear way, I understand the pre estimate loss, and I understand the "contract" but did I enter into a contract as I was parked on a road? I need help plz
thank you

It is nothing to do with parking but the principle is the same. The fiction that VCS claim is that you entered into a contract with them (presumably to drive along the road) by reading their signs saying 'No stopping' & that their claim for £100 is damages for breaching that contract. They claim the same thing for car parks that you saw the signs & so entered into a contract (this time for parking) & that when e.g. you overstayed the 1 hour free parking that you breached the contract & so owe them £100 damages. It's utter bollox in both cases.

Stroma

Well they have signs saying no stopping , but you have to stop and read them, so you get an invoice for doing so.

mc303m

is the appeal ok?

Guys_Dad

Split the first point into a couple of paragraphs for easy reading.

Are you sure you don't want to include a signage paragraph? ( I have read your reasons).

mc303m

should I go back tomorrow and look at the signage?

Coupon-mad

mc303m wrote: »

should I go back tomorrow and look at the signage?

No don't bother if it's like the signs already shown in the Google link before. You do need a signage paragraph, seeing as this is like a road rather than a car park and the signs are few and far between, how could the driver have seen them when very ill?

You could use this:


3. Misleading and missing clearway signage - no contract with driver formed
The contravention says 'parked on a clearway' which is a misleading term because a Local Authority term 'urban clearway' means nothing on private land. If VCS intended this apparently private road to mimic an urban clearway as a no-stopping zone, they must make that obvious to drivers with accepted lines & signs - which were completely omitted.

I have now been to this site and can see that this Operator used standard VCS signs: unreadable and overly-busy, small-font with blue & yellow colouring (their normal car park version from all appearances). Such signs were sporadically placed and certainly do not communicate 'clearway' to drivers as they do not follow the Dept for Transport rules for such signs (in the Highway code it is a yellow clearway sign with times and a blue circle with red line or cross, repeated regularly and FACING oncoming traffic). It is accepted that on private land the TRSGD2002 does not apply as such, but to completely omit universally-understood versions of 'clearway' signs and simply to place their normal signs where drivers in moving traffic cannot read them, means that VCS have failed to inform a driver sufficiently to allege any breach occurred.

The roadway looks to all intents & purposes like public highway (it is certainly not a car park) yet VCS have simply painted yellow lines at intervals, plus they have placed misleading, unsigned laybys which give the appearance of a road where cars certainly can pull over and stop. The VCS signs - such as they are - have been placed on poles, high up at right angles to the road and could only have been seen if a driver actually stopped near one and got out of the car to read it. This driver did not as he was taken very ill (the driver suffers from ischaemic heart disease and had an angina attack whilst driving, had to pull over to rest and seek medical help). Even an able-bodied driver would never have understood VCS' flawed signage at this place in this private road, to mean 'clearway'.

In fact a Blue Badge holder can park on double yellow lines on (real) public highway for up to 3 hours and in the instance the driver did exactly that due to illness, and managed to display their Blue Badge. The driver had no idea this could possibly be a contravention. The signage is fundamentally flawed and non compliant with the BPA code of practice. No contract was therefore formed with this driver as there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance of terms.

Finally I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

This concludes my appeal.

Guys_Dad

Not necessary really and danger of getting a ticket for stopping again. Have a look at the Prankster's blog and his point on signs. The specification is in the BPA CoP and you should just include reference to this and say that the signs don't meet the spec. They then have to prove they do.

See the signage paragraph in the thread you got the other 2 points from.

mc303m

wow, thank you CM and to the other posters for all your help, so this is the final draft, is this ready to submit online?
thank you so much.


Dear POPLA
Appeal verification code xxxxxxxxxx VCS PCN number xxxxxxx

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 on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.


1. I require the contract with the landowner is produced, as VCS are not the landowners and I contend they have no legal standing to pursue this charge.

2. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

3. Misleading and missing clearway signage


1.No valid contract with landowner
It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.

In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.
It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner.

I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

2.The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
This charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. So the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be possibly enforceable. VCS in this case cannot possibly justify £100 as a genuine pre-estimate of loss, if it was , why would they offer me a reduction from £100 to £60?.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. Parking charges cannot include tax-deductible business costs for running a parking company, such as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership fees, postage, etc. It shouldn’t be recoverable as it is being enforced purely as a penalty. these PCNs represent the only profit for VCS and it is clear that they cannot be operating at a permanent loss.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

3. Misleading and missing clearway signage - no contract with driver formed
The contravention says 'parked on a clearway' which is a misleading term because a Local Authority term 'urban clearway' means nothing on private land. If VCS intended this apparently private road to mimic an urban clearway as a no-stopping zone, they must make that obvious to drivers with accepted lines & signs - which were completely omitted.

I have now been to this site and can see that this Operator used standard VCS signs: unreadable and overly-busy, small-font with blue & yellow colouring (their normal car park version from all appearances). Such signs were sporadically placed and certainly do not communicate 'clearway' to drivers as they do not follow the Dept for Transport rules for such signs (in the Highway code it is a yellow clearway sign with times and a blue circle with red line or cross, repeated regularly and FACING oncoming traffic). It is accepted that on private land the TRSGD2002 does not apply as such, but to completely omit universally-understood versions of 'clearway' signs and simply to place their normal signs where drivers in moving traffic cannot read them, means that VCS have failed to inform a driver sufficiently to allege any breach occurred.

The roadway looks to all intents & purposes like public highway (it is certainly not a car park) yet VCS have simply painted yellow lines at intervals, plus they have placed misleading, unsigned laybys which give the appearance of a road where cars certainly can pull over and stop. The VCS signs - such as they are - have been placed on poles, high up at right angles to the road and could only have been seen if a driver actually stopped near one and got out of the car to read it. I did not as I was taken very ill (I suffers from ischaemic heart disease and had an angina attack whilst driving, had to pull over to rest and seek medical help). Even an able-bodied driver would never have understood VCS' flawed signage at this place in this private road, to mean 'clearway'.

In fact a Blue Badge holder can park on double yellow lines on (real) public highway for up to 3 hours and in the instance, (I) the driver did exactly that due to illness, and managed to display their Blue Badge. I had no idea this could possibly be a contravention. The signage is fundamentally flawed and non compliant with the BPA code of practice. No contract was therefore formed with myself and VCS as there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance of terms.

Finally I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:
''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''
This concludes my appeal.

Coupon-mad

Yep, you could add the word 'No' before the word 'valid' in the first title for point 1 but if you have already submitted it then don't worry as the meaning is clear anyway.

esmerobbo

You can go back and read the signs without getting another charge as VCS have them on Dunlop road which is a public highway.

Have a request into the council way they are there.