Humberside Airport VCS

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

davejh wrote: »

i rang them and they dont want to know.

That matters not, concetrate on your popla appeal and you will win

davejh_2

im really struggling to figure out what to write.

Do i need to find out who owns the land and if they have a right to issue tickets or just say something like:

I am appealing because I dont think £60 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and VCS have the correct Contract/or enough interest in the land to issue and persue parkin tickets.

Dave

The_Slithy_Tove

davejh wrote: »

Do i need to find out who owns the land and if they have a right to issue tickets

No, you just claim it is not so, and then it's their problem to prove otherwise (which they can't)

davejh wrote: »

I am appealing because I dont think £60 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and VCS have the correct Contract/or enough interest in the land to issue and persue parkin tickets.

That's the gist of it, but you'll need to fill out the detail quite a bit (use the multiple examples available on this forum for the right wording).

davejh_2

OK can i use this one which is from someone in the very same situation as me at the same airport.

Can you advise what I should edit before sending it?

Thanks, Dave.

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'.

davejh_2

how about i just say I had my disabled mother-inlaw in the car and used her blue badge in the window, the cameras a rear facing and only have photos of the back of my car.

Edit probably wouldnt wash as have mentioned it to date

Coupon-mad

davejh wrote: »

how about i just say I had my disabled mother-inlaw in the car and used her blue badge in the window, the cameras a rear facing and only have photos of the back of my car.

Edit probably wouldnt wash as have mentioned it to date

NOPE.

Obviously you can use the long one you found that someone else has written. IT'S A STRONG, RECENT VERSION AND IT WILL WIN!

Submit it electronically to POPLA, don't bother with the form because of December postal delays (clearly you need to keep the form handy though as it has the code on it that you'll need to put in online). You may have to change browsers to make it work on the POPLA website but at least once that appeal has been submitted you can forget about it, safe in the knowledge POPLA have received a decent appeal. You'll get a decision in Jan/Feb 2014.

davejh_2

on the POPLA page which one do I pick? Im assuming the bold one?

1. I was not improperly parked.
   
2. The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount.
3. The vehicle was stolen.
   
4. I am not liable for the parking charge.

Thanks

nigelbb

davejh wrote: »

on the POPLA page which one do I pick? Im assuming the bold one?

1. I was not improperly parked.
   
2. The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount.
3. The vehicle was stolen.
   
4. I am not liable for the parking charge.

Thanks

All except 3 not least on the basis that VCS claim you were "allegedly breaching the terms and conditions of the use of the Privately Operated Access Roads at Humberside Airport" which is not parking therefore POFA does not apply as the claim is not for a parking charge even though they claim it is such. It's a charge for breaching the T&Cs of the Access Roads not a parking charge for breaching the T&Cs of a car park

Umkomaas

You can tick three of the four, obviously leave out the stolen vehicle one.

We have always given this advice when asked; it has not had any detrimental affect on appeal outcomes.

davejh_2

just to let you know I won the appeal thanks for all your help guys and gals!

Its good to know theres people out there willing to help others in ripoff britain

"It is the Appellant’s case that he is not liable for the parking charge sought as
the charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by his
breach.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in
other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge
must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The
estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking
terms.
The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as
they incur significant costs in managing this car park in order to ensure
motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any
breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes
a comparatively large ‘further process cost’.
I therefore find that a substantial proportion of the costs referred to do not
represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. Consequently, I cannot
find that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine preestimate
of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Marina
Assessor"