Humberside Airport PCN

Skalaberg

Hi. Got a PCN in the post today from VCS for stopping at humberside airport to pick someone up. Although underneath the pictures it suggests I was a minute looking at the actual time stamps I was 24 seconds. Should I pay up for this?

Any advice much appreciated.

Skal

ps.. I have tried to upload an image of the notice but as a new user I am not allowed

Coupon-mad

Errrrm did you actually read any threads from today first?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4812413

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63673396#Comment_63673396

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4744792

Easy to appeal and win at POPLA as is covered on every thread on this entire parking forum. Do some reading of threads, you will learn it all.

Skalaberg

Sorry.. yes i did read other threads. I also took note that I should start my own thread as each case may be individual.. sorry if I have misunderstood this.

There is alot of info to take in but I get the feeling that airports (humberside in particular) are a special case due to certain byelaws?

should I appeal on GPEOL grounds and NO registered keeper liability, because such sites are NOT 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012 to VCS or not mention anything of the sort to them and request a popla number?

Coupon-mad

Sorry, your OP read as if you hadn't seen other threads but now I see you have done plenty of reading about byelaws and GPEOL!

SPOT ON WITH THE APPEAL PLAN, YOU GOT IT! Mention it all.

:T

EDIT, just remembered, here's one I wrote earlier that you can adapt:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62895446#Comment_62895446

That thread also shows the OP's POPLA appeal now submitted, which should win.

HTH

Skalaberg

Many thanks for that. I shall adapt it and send it off. Will keep you posted.

Skalaberg

Well today I received my rejection letter and Popla paperwork from these cowboys. I based my appeal the link kindly provided by Coupon mad above.

This is the response I got..


We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) on the 8th November 2013 in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

We can confirm that DVLA records indicate that you were the registered keeper of the above vehicle on the date the contractually agreed terms and conditions were breached. In the PARKING CHARGE NOTICE it clearly stated that you had 28 days to either appeal, settle the notice by making payment, or provide a serviceable name and UK address for the driver so that we may pursue them. Despite this request, a full name and serviceable address for the driver has not been provided.(DO I HAVE TO PROVIDE THIS?)

Please be aware that as you have failed to provide us with the full name and UK serviceable address for the driver within the 28 day period stipulated on the PCN,(AGIAN DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?) we are now within our rights to recover from the registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

With reference to the comments made within your correspondence, we would make the following comments:

Whilst we understand your concern at receiving a notice, 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. such actions may also pose an obstruction or danger to other road users. There are numerous warning signs in place along the private access roads and we attach a copy of the signs for your reference.(ATTACHED WAS A PHOTOCOPY OF THE WORDING)

In response to your comments, we can confirm that on 29th October 2013, the driver stopped the vehicle in a prohibited area. Please be advised that our signage located throughout the area clearly state "No stopping at any time". It is the motorists responsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware and compliant with the terms and conditions of this area.

Vehicle Control Services Ltd operate in Common Law under the Laws on Contract and Trespass. It is trite law 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 the person enters onto private land. It follows that should the motorist breach the Terms and Conditions or commit a trespass to the land, we are entitled to seek damages from the motorist to the value of the charges as indicated on the signage on site. On the day in question, your vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice becuase it breached this contract, and the relevant charge is consequently recoverable under Contract Law. Please be advised that a person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so, or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract.Where the notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd and accepts the terms set out in the notice by proceeding to stop. It follows that should a motorist breach the terms and conditions in operation we are entitled to seek our damages (I DIDN'T DAMAGE ANYTHING) as clearly detailed on the signage displayed throughout the facility.

We can confirm that the charges for this notice are set in place by the land owner whom Vehicle Control Services Limited manages the access road on behalf of, and the charges are in line with the British Parking Associations Code of Practice for Parking Enforcement on Private Land and unregulated Private car parks. The code recommends that the maximum parking charge shall not exceed £100.00. As our charges follow this guideline they are deemed reasonable. It does state on the PCN that if the notice is paid within 14 days of the PCN being issued, the amount is reduced to £60.00. We would refer you to the transcript of a recent decision in the case of parking eye v. Mr Kevin Shelley (2013).

We can confirm that you did enter into a contract with Vehicle (I DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN CONFIRM THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER ADMITTED TO BEING THE DRIVER, ONLY THE REGISTERED KEEPER) Control Services. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implication, a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Limited and accepts the terms set out in the notice by proceeding to park. Please find enclosed a photograph of the terms and conditions which you contravened by stopping in a prohibited area. (NO PHOTOGRAPH ENCLOSED, JUST A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SIGNAGE WORDING)

We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and your appeal (representations) is therefore rejected. We will not accept any further appeals.

In order to settle the Parking Charge Notice at a discounted rate, the payment of £60.00 is to be received within our office by 18th December 2013. If we do not receive the relevant payment by this date, the discounted payment will no longer apply and the charge will automatically revert to the £100.00 payable no later than 28days from the date of this letter.

You do have the option to appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service, which is an independent body. Details of how to appeal to the POPLA service are attached to this letter in the form of both guidance notes and an appeals form. Please carefully read the guidance notes, particularly those relating to grounds for appeal, It is important you note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, the discount offer will no longer apply and the full charge of £100.00 will be purseud should your appeal be rejected by POPLA. Further costs may be incurred should it be necessary for us to recover the outstanding charge using debt recovery and/or court action.


Well I must say I feel very intimidated by all this . Before I submit my POPLA appeal is there anything I should be wary of?.

Again Coupon Mad has been kind enough to outline an appeal below..

Dear POPLA
Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds.

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3)No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) No Contract with driver
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park



1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The parking 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. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. As VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.


2) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Humberside 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. 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) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
As VCS are not the owners of this land and as such 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. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.


4) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see 'misleading and unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever.


5) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' which is a misleading term because of its similarity to the Highways Agency term 'urban clearway'. If VCS intend this apparently private road to treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. Any repeater signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic and are sporadically placed if at all at this junction. So they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

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

''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.''



6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park
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'.

Am I OK to make some adjustments to this template and personalizing it a little? I really don't want to pay these thieves for stopping for 24 seconds.

Umkomaas

Don't be intimidated by this. It is a template appeal rejection from VCS - everybody gets one!

You are under absolutely NO obligation to provide any information about the driver. PoFA provides for the Registered Keeper to deal with this and appeal in their own right - which is what you are doing.

You can adjust the appeal template, but don't waste any time giving detailed mitigating circumstances - they won't help for a moment. You can just give a brief overview as an introduction, but you must hit hard with the technical detail, don't go watering that down.

You do need to be very careful with these two paragraphs I've spotted:

2) Appeal not handled within BPA code of Practice time limit
An appeal by the registered keeper was sent within the required 28 days of the date of the PCN. VCS ignored this appeal and sent a notice to keeper claiming the driver had not been identified. It is the right of the registered keeper to appeal and there is no requirement to identify the driver. VCS were sent a copy of the appeal upon receipt of the notice to keeper and at that stage should have cancelled the PCN as they had exceeded the time limit allowed to reply. There were no extenuating circumstances which could have led to their delay, so they have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the handling of appeals, which renders this charge unenforceable.

Were VCS 'late' with the paperwork in your case? If not, you will want to be careful here. Even if they were late, just make sure the paragraph fits precisely your circumstances.

Also

7) The alleged contravention did not take place.
VCS have provided an evidential photograph which allegedly shows the vehicle to be stationary at this location, the photograph taken at night shows a line of at least three vehicles with their headlights on. The vehicle is allegedly in this line although it is impossible to identify which vehicle it maybe. As VCS state the reason for preventing parking or stopping at this location is because to park or stop at this location causes to prevent an obstruction, I contend that the car was not just in a line of traffic and as such was unable to proceed without colliding with other traffic. There was no parking contravention at all.

Are these the facts of your case? If not amend to suit.

HTH

Skalaberg

Yes.. spotted those 2 that are not relevant to my case, but thanks for the heads up. I think for me the important areas will be ..

1 gpeol
2 relevant land
3 land owner contract

I shall draft a popla appeal and post here before I submit, once again thanks for the great advice I have had/founds so far.

Coupon-mad

Yep you'll probably win on one of those 3 points but do leave in the stuff about the hidden camera van and the point about the signage not facing the oncoming traffic (should be clearway signs repeated all along and facing the cars not parallel to the kerb). Those two points about 'ANPR' and 'Signs' make VCS have to send loads of evidence, takes tons of time digging out maps and photocopying, plus postage, only to lose against you!

Skalaberg

OK here's my draft popla appeal... anything i have missed?



Dear POPLA

Re PCN No xxxxxxxxx
Re verification code xxxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds.

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3)No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) No Contract with driver
5) Unclear signage
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park



1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss as no loss would have occured and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. As VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.


2) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Humberside Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws so POFA 2012 does not apply, additionally POFA does not apply because POFA relates to parking charges. By their own admission, the vehicle was not parked, simply "stopping on a roadway where stopping was [allegedly] prohibited". Therefore they must chase the driver, not the keeper. 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. As the operator has neither named the driver nor provided evidence who the driver was, the charge should be dismissed.


3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
As VCS are not the owners of this land and as such 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. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.


4) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see 'misleading and unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

5) Unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited'. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. Any repeater signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic and are sporadically placed if at all so they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

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

''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.''


6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park
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'.

Coupon-mad

That will win. Send it online to avoid postal delays.