Vehicle Control Services Ltd

Coupon-mad

Nope, sounds normal for VCS - a complete waste of time to send POPLA a redacted contract and a list including random costs like 'write-off allowance' (typically on the list!).

No action needed by you unless you want to just cover yourself by pinging a quick email to POPLA to add to your case file this week before the decision, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4793386

Excel and VCS are from the same 'group' so it's a similar case.

only1eebo

Must be a large backlog? Was told eand of first week of Feb, and I'm still waiting, as far as I know, for an adjudication.............

Redx

you could email popla and ask if its been adjudicated yet ? or when its likely to be if they have moved the date

they will either reply telling you its not done yet etc , or will reply with the adjudication like they did with my relative as it had been done weeks earlier in their case

only1eebo

Correct - emailed them today, adjudicated on 7th February !

Anyway, RESULT - Appeal Allowed, NOT A GPEOL

A very big thank you to all on these boards, advice and encouragement given........no offence has been committed, a private company tries to scam £60 from me and it appears to be legal for them to do that !

BUT THIS BOARD DOESN'T STAND FOR IT, IT FIGHTS BACK

Cheers chaps. Happy 2014

I'll leave it for some regulars to move this to the 'recent wins' thread?

Humberside Airport, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, Stopping In The Roadway Where Stopping Is Prohibited

Reason for the Assessor's Determination

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission.
The signage produced seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
Accordingly, as the Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate
of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification.
The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s breach of stopping.

The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, this
sum includes a large proportion which is not related to the Appellant’s breach. I do not accept that the parking charge substantially amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Marina Kapour
Assessor