IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Vehicle Control Services Ltd

Options
24

Comments

  • Cheers, I'd appreciate some comments.

    On the ..nd of September 2013 Vehicle Control Services Ltd issued this £60 parking charge (discounted from £100) for alleged ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’, for an alleged time period of 1 minute on the ..nd September 2013.
    Vehicle Control Systems Ltd have been challenged in writing on ..th October 2013. This challenge has not officially ben rejected but a POPLA code has been issued.

    The basis of appeal is as follows
    • DISPUTED CLAIM OF THE ALLEGED TIME OF ‘STOPPING IN ROADWAY’
    The Appellant believes the claim of ‘stopping in the roadway’ is unclear and disputed. The Parking Charge Notice (where it is disputed that the car was actually ‘parked’ and had not entered a car park) has two photographs from a CCTV system. Photo 1 shows a time stamp of 13:31:38 and photo 2 shows a time stamp of 13:31:40, a 2 second time lapse. The claim being made by Vehicle Control Services Ltd is based on a typed caption below each photo. Photo 1 typed 13:30:00 and photo 2 typed 13:31:00, a 1 minute time lapse, both times being inconsistent with the time stamped CCTV images.
    It is unclear that the car is actually stopped or parked, and the photos do not show a 1 minute stop scenario.

    The appellant requests that Vehicle Control Systems Ltd provide a full schedule of maintenance and calibration for this camera, and also demonstrate that the information gained by the use of CCTV is compliant with the Information Commissioner’s Office regulations, as required by section 21.4 of the BPA code of practice.
    • AN AMBIGUOUS CHARGE
    It is unclear from Vehicle Control Systems Ltd about what charge is being applied. Is it a ‘breach of contract’ where ‘damages’ are being claimed? Or a ‘contractually agreed sum’.
    It can’t be both, but it isn’t clear which charge is being applied.
    The PCN mentions ‘reasonable cause’ to believe a contravention of parking terms and conditions has occurred. If this is true, then it is assumed a breach of contract has taken place and ‘damages’ are being claimed. If damages are being claimed, these have to be a genuine ‘pre estimate of loss’.
    The amount of the charge (£60, discounted from £100 if paid within 14 days) is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. Vehicle Control Services Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss which cannot include business running costs (such as erecting the signs or paying for staff). Losses can only be claimed as costs resulting in the direct alleged action of ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’.
    The Appellant requests Vehicle Control Services Ltd to provide POPLA a full breakdown of this specific £60 (discounted from £100) charge relating to pre estimate of loss and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. The PCN is unenforceable if the pre estimate of loss cannot be demonstrated
    Example : How does an alleged 1 min stopping in roadway generate a loss of £60 (discounted from £100)
    The PCN, however, also mentions, quote: ‘The terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the car park are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and prominent places throughout’.
    This statement now sounds like the charge is a ‘contractual charge’, in which case
    The £60 (discounted) charge is an unfair term and therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 gives and indicative but not exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair.
    Schedule 2 (1) (e):
    'Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation'
    Regulation 5 (1) says:
    'A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if , contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'
    Regulation 5 (2) says:
    'A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term'
    The Appellant requests that if the £60 (discounted) charge relates to a ‘contractual charge’, that it is seen as punitive and bears no relation to the cost of parking as set out on the tariff of parking charges (see point 5 below, where it is clear that parking hasn’t taken place and no car park has been entered). The PCN is unenforceable if the charge is punitive against the standard tariff of the proposed contractual charge.
    Example : 24 hours in short stay = £30 Alleged 1 min stopping in roadway = £60 (discounted from £100)
    3. NO CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
    Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. Vehicle Control Services Ltd have not provided the Appellant with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from anyone, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of the title of the land in question. The Appellant does not believe Vehicle Control Services Ltd has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle stopping in the roadway, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. The Appellant puts Vehicle Control Services Ltd to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location. This would be in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier specifically evidencing the ability of Vehicle Control Services Ltd to pursue parking charges to the courts.

    The Appellant requests this to be scrutinised by the POPLA adjudicator.
    • INADEQUATE SIGNAGE (a)
    To be able to knowingly enter into a contract, and for that contract to be subsequently breached, as alleged by Vehicle Control Systems Ltd, the signage has to be clear and obviously understandable from the position of entering the private land. It is the Appellants contention that the signage is confusing for its intended purpose.
    From the position of a driver turning from the main public highway (subject to standard public highway regulations) and taking a left turn at the junction to enter the airport, there is no possibility to fully understand the proposed ‘contract information’ regarding a change in highway regulations, and subsequent private land statements and conditions. The junction design is more likely to allow a driver to see a sign flash past his left shoulder rather than noticeably ‘head on’. This first possibility of ‘missing’ the sign is the first failure of the signage to make its information clear, but according to Vehicle Control Systems Ltd this is their declaration of terms that is accepted by turning left from the main highway onto ‘private land’. Declaring acceptance of the terms of a contract in this manner, where entry to a car park has not taken place, but merely turning left from the highway onto the airport entrance, is challenged. No barrier or no speed restriction is place to allow acceptable reading and understanding of the sign, or to allow for any proactive way for the Vehicle Control Systems Ltd to enforce their claim of a contract being entered into.
    (b)
    The signage uses the image of a ‘speed camera’. The convention for traffic sign icons using this type of image is for ‘speed control’ and not to indicate the use or presence of CCTV cameras. The speed camera icon is not accompanied by any indication of a reduced speed sector on the airport roadway, considering it is an immediate left turn from a 60 mph highway onto a ‘smaller road’, the use of that image is confusing. It is not possible, at normal manoeuvring speeds, as stated turning left from a 60 mph highway onto the airport road, to be able to read the information next to the speed camera icon.
    Each icon is accompanied by at least 4 lines of ‘small text’ which is impossible to read and understand in a single action, and cannot form an acceptable ‘contract between two parties’ by the act of driving past it. It is disputed that Vehicle Control Systems Ltd can use this sign as a valid acceptance of contract by the act of driving past it as claimed in their PCN.
    The use of the above icon is confusing. It is not a convention to use this icon when mentioning CCTV, and this icon of a ‘speed camera’ is not accompanied by any mention of speed restriction, speed change or any speed control.
    A search on Google Images for ‘Mobile CCTV sign’ and ‘Mobile ANPR sign’ does not return ANY images that match or resemble the ‘speed camera sign’, for which search term Google returns many images of the above.
    Further to the signage issue, I can quote from the POPLA Lead Adjudicators report of 2013, page 26. In discussing ‘No Stopping Zones’, he states ‘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. In no way is it possible to read and understand the above sign without having to stop and read it.

    5. Wording of the alleged breach of contract in the Parking Charge Notice
    The Parking Charge Notice makes the initial claim of ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’
    The parking charge notice then states further on in the text, quote: ‘Having ‘reasonable cause’ that a contravention occurred through a breach of the car park terms and conditions and that a charge is now owed…..’
    The appellant challenges the validity and accuracy of the accusation that Vehicle Control Systems Ltd make.
    - The appellant did not enter a car park, the appellant was on the roadway at all times, a barrier was not opened and no ticket or parking payment was made. The wording and claim in the Parking Charge Notice is incorrect and contradictory to the initial reason given for the contravention
    The Parking Charge Notice also states, quote : ’The terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the car park are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and in prominent places throughout.’
    - The appellant did not enter any car park. No barrier was raised, and not parking ticket taken or payment made.
    The appellant challenges the validity of the claims of the Parking Charge Notice, and is challenging the contradictory ‘claim’ of a breach taking place. ‘Stopping in road way’ as the initial claim of a breach or ‘entering a car park’ as subsequently claimed in the PCN (where no entry to a car park has taken place). It is not clear that the claims by Vehicle Control Services Ltd are consistent to declare the nature of the claimed breach.
    If a contract is said to be in place, and then subsequently breached, it must be accompanied by a clear and accurate claim of what has been breached and in what manner. The PCN, as a proposed record of what has been claimed to have been breached, is not accurate and consistent and seems to be a ‘catch all’ statement with no ‘specific’ and ‘accurate’ claim. The PCN has not been written to claim a specific ‘breach’, it has been written to be confusing and vague about what is being claimed, but at the same time covering many aspects of a ‘potential’ breach’.
    If the PCN is claiming breach of contract regarding ‘stopping in the roadway where stopping is prohibited’, it should not repeat statements of ‘The terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the car park’ and ‘breach of car park terms and conditions’. No car park was entered, no barrier raised and no parking ticket was purchased or taken. Access to the airport road is unrestricted by barrier, no car park has to be entered to access the airport road from the main highway and the notion of this unrestricted access thus forming a contract is wrong and unfair.
  • Guys_Dad
    Guys_Dad Posts: 11,025 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 22 November 2013 at 10:03AM
    Initial impression is very messy.

    You should use quoted bits in italics, inset sub points and make the adjudicator want to read it and not miss anything. I even missed GPEOL first time round.

    Do try to separate points and don't run separate things together like the ANPR maintenance.
  • GPEOL is Ambiguous charge, point 2 discussion point 1

    But I take the 'tidying up' point , so I'll try. I'm not office worker, hence the lack of experience in processing and presenting words
  • Guys_Dad
    Guys_Dad Posts: 11,025 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    only1eebo wrote: »
    GPEOL is Ambiguous charge, point 2 discussion point 1

    But I take the 'tidying up' point , so I'll try. I'm not office worker, hence the lack of experience in processing and presenting words

    I know it's there, but the adjudicators are snowed under and when they spot GPEOL, they go straight for it. One adjudicator in the last 2 weeks missed the GPEOL point in an appeal - posted by Wilson1 I think - because of a non structured layout and that is the only case the forum has lost, though it is under appeal.

    I have a lifetime of reading and writing reports for large companies. The structure and layout can make all the difference. Using that experience, I did a core appeal template here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 with 2 aims - content and layout.

    Now it's not up to my working life standards - legal numbering etc - but it tries to layout something that is akin to reports to management. i.e. executive summary at the front, then sections that follow the summary points.

    Executives can then immediately home in on the sections that interest them and they have little excuse for missing anything. I know that when I get Board papers, I go straight to the summary and executive action needed first.

    Sorry for the lecture, but trying to help. :beer:
  • Only trying to help? :-) thats why we are all here, to benefit from your excellent help.

    I love a good lecture.......means i'm learning something.

    Cheers
  • Any advice or experience about the 'stopping in road way' scam?

    It seems lazy of the PPC to issue a PCN that keeps stating Parking T&C's when there is no car park on airport approach roads, no barriers etc.......and then try to claim 'stopping in road way'.....they can't be bother to even print a new PCN for this instance?
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    edited 22 November 2013 at 12:38PM
    only1eebo wrote: »
    Any advice or experience about the 'stopping in road way' scam?

    It seems lazy of the PPC to issue a PCN that keeps stating Parking T&C's when there is no car park on airport approach roads, no barriers etc.......and then try to claim 'stopping in road way'.....they can't be bother to even print a new PCN for this instance?
    There is ample precedent in relation to Council tickets that stopping for the purposes of allowing passengers to board or alight from a vehicle is not parking. To attempt to enforce a local "rule" that is contrary to that is stretching things somewhat.

    The other aspect is that it seems that VCS are attempting to enforce their PCN's using the Prevention of Freedoms Act which deals only with "parking events". If setting down/picking up passengers is not parking then there can have been no "parking event"

    Although I am aware of research in respect of other airports I am not clear about the situation at the specific airport your case involves but if airport byelaws have been enacted then there is every reason to believe that they will cover the approach roads and as such they would render any POFA approach redundant as not being "relevant land". That's a bit shorthand and I hope its clear.

    Edit: Furthermore APCOA, who "enforce" at Luton airport have recently changed their approach and given up using POFA because, I suspect, of this very non-applicable POFA situation.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,087 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 22 November 2013 at 9:30PM
    Is this VCS at an Airport?

    If so then there are loads of already-written POPLA appeals which are on other recent threads. Easily found by searching 'VCS' or 'Airport' or 'relevant' as keywords. Here's one I suggested the other day:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63815981#Comment_63815981


    HTH, feel free to plagiarise but not copy exactly, make it less of a template!


    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • bod1467
    bod1467 Posts: 15,214 Forumite
    HO87 wrote: »
    Prevention of Freedoms Act

    Freudian slip or deliberate misuse? ;)
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    bod1467 wrote: »
    Freudian slip or deliberate misuse? ;)
    Definitely a slip as in something Miss Freud would wear. :D
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.