Parkingfine draft letter

Cheeseboard12

Hi all


Unsurprisingly VCS rejected the appeal letter that I sent (detailed in the first post on this thread). Interestingly, they stated that they didn't meet the 56 day deadline for establishing keeper liability because the owner (who I'm representing) refused to provide their address details earlier and the car wasn't registered with the DVLA when they first tried to check. The car had recently been bought and it wasn't registered until after the notice was issued. Does this mean they can extend the 56 days?


I've only got a few days and I don't think I can attach pictures of the letters but I've typed some useful points out below. I be interested in any opinions offered.


I've drafted out a 'reason for appeal' for POPLA which is essentially the same reasons as set out in my first appeal to VCS in the original post for this thread. Am I focusing on the correct things?. It goes a follows:


'I am the registered owner of the vehicle but Vehicle Control Services Limited have not complied with the deadlines in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. Vehicle Control Services are pursuing me as the driver, as set out in their response to my appeal, yet they have no grounds to ask me to divulge who the driver was as the 'Notice to Keeper' arrived outside of the prescribed deadline.
The 'Notice to Keeper' did not comply with paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2013.
The car park in question is covered by a 'no charge' permit scheme where residents are issued with permits without incurring cost. There is no other 'pay and display' arrangement for the car park and therefore there was no loss or damage caused by the parking event. Under the British Parking Association code of practice a Parking Charge Notice for 'breach of terms' must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appeal rejection by Vehicle Control Services does not give details of this pre-estimate of loss. It does, however, state that it includes the costs incurred in taking the case to appeal. The charge of £100 has applied since the ticket was issued and applies regardless of whether the Parking Charge Notice is paid or appealed. It is not, therefore a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The only contract to park is with the landowner and all payments are up-to-date. Vehicle Control Services Limited cannot therefore allege there is another 'contract' by somehow re-offering spaces in the permit holder car park on different terms, punitive terms than those already offered and accepted between the landowner and permit holder (and there is no charge for permits).
Vehicle Control Services Limited is a mere agent who does not own the land, so they have no standing to make any contract with drivers nor pursue the charges in their name. If Vehicle Control Services think they do then they should produce the landowner/client contract for the purposes of this appeal.'




Letter from VCS rejecting my appeal:
We acknowledge receipt of your appeal in relation to the PCN.
The terms and conditions of parking at XX location were displayed on numerous information boards situated throughout the area. Our signs are fully complaint with the requirements as outlined in the British Parking Association's Code of Practice; and we maintain that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the terms and conditions of parking before deciding to leave the area. For your reference we have attached photographs of said signage located within close proximity of your vehicle.

As per the statement made by our patrol officer, your vehicle was not displaying a valid permit. Specifically he stated "no permit displayed". The signs on the site clearly state 'valid permit holders only in designated bays'. It is not unreasonable to expect motorists to check the signs in situ before leaving their vehicle.

Whilst we appreciate what you have stated in your correspondence, unfortunately the reasons stated do not constitute grounds for cancellation of the Notice. We have passed the 55 day limit provided by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in which to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention due to your refusal to provide an address on your correspondence, and due to your vehicle not being registered with the DVLA at the time of the contravention.

In relevance to the issue raised concerning the wording of the Notice to Keeper (NTK), the NTK stipulates that we cannot pursue the keeper after 56 days from the occurrence of the contravention. However, we are not pursuing you as the keeper but as the driver at the time of the contravention. As such we are justified in our pursuit of the outstanding charge.

Whilst we appreciate what you have stated in your correspondence, we must advise you that we are contracted by the landowner to enforce the agreed terms and conditions on the land stipulated in the contract between ourselves. As such we can act on behalf of the landowner in issuing Penalty Charge Notices on their land.

The signs advise that motorists must display a valid permit when parking in the designated bays in the car park. As you failed to adhere to the terms and conditions, the notice was issued correctly and the charge will stand.

We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that is it not 'punitive' for a number of reasons. We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified. A full breakdown of loss will be provided at the request of a judge.

When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorists responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. It is clear that the terms of parking stated that the motorist must display a valid permit when parking in the designated bays in the car park, or the motorist would face liability for a parking charge. We note that you had the opportunity to leave the car park if you could not comply with the terms of parking.

We are satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly, and that sufficient attention was brought to the driver with regards to the terms and conditions enforced. In light of the aforementioned your appeal is rejected. We will not accept any further appeals.

As you failed to lodge an actionable appeal or make payment within the timeframe provided by the PCN the charge has reverted to £100 payable.

The letter then refers to POPLA, which I won't bother repeating.

Coupon-mad

Your planned POPLA appeal is absolutely spot on the points needed. :T

Just change 'POFA 2103' to 'POFA 2012'. And I would add to this as shown:

'Vehicle Control Services are pursuing me as the driver, as set out in their response to my appeal, yet they have no grounds to ask me to divulge who the driver was as the 'Notice to Keeper' arrived outside of the prescribed deadline. I am appealing as the registered keeper and have never stated who was driving. I am not liable for this parking charge because the NTK arrived too late for keeper liability to be possible. POFA 2012 allows no reasons for late NTKs to be allowed whatsoever.

Does this mean they can extend the 56 days?

NOPE! POFA 2012 includes no 'get out' clause/excuses for PPC World to miss the 56 day deadline. You can state confidently to POPLA that a late NTK = no keeper liability.

Cheeseboard12

Thank you coupon-mad, a vey useful addition. It's interesting to see the arguments tees companies use to try I scare people into paying!

Redx

it is worth noting for posterity that they have up to 6 YEARS to chase a driver under the small claims , so their problem is that they deem 56 days as not relevant and yet they are chasing the RK which is relevant as pofa 2012 is where the 56 day rule comes in

so as CM says , if they are chasing the RK then the 56 day rule applies, if they are NOT using pofa then it doesnt apply, but neither does chasing the RK either

clearly they dont seem to care about this crucial difference (or relevant land etc in other issues about sites like airports etc) - or they use untruths and try to deceive people by applying one set of rules or laws into a different set !!

the point being they cannot have it both ways, either they are invoking pofa and RK liability , or they are not invoking pofa and so can only chase the driver , yet they hound the RK instead - hoping to bully the driver details out of those preople who dont understand these "legalities"

smoke and mirrors come to mind , as do conjuring tricks and other misdirections

Cheeseboard12

Hi everyone

Just to let you know that the POPLA appeal was successful on our part!! The adjudicator rejected the ticket based only on genuine pre-estimate of loss - they said VCS had included unassigned back office costs and rejected their case out of hand.

Interestingly, just before the case was heard (the day before) VCS sent an email to POPLA with a lot of evidence. They copied in the person I'm representing stating that the ticket was valid because they couldn't find the owner details (the car had recently been bought and wasn't registered to the new owner at the time). I can only think that this, along with the other information they shared (including a full, almost completely un-edited copy of the contract they have with the landowner) was intended as a scare tactic. I can't see what other purpose they had in sending it to the car owner!

Anyway, it was only GPEOL that did it, regardless of all the other aspects - POFA time limits missed etc.

Thanks for everyone's assistance on here and it's a good result!

Coupon-mad

VCS had to show the appellant their evidence - it's part of the POPLA process. Well done! Can you post about this in the 'POPLA decisions' thread as well please?

nigelbb

VCS should have sent the evidence at least 7 days before adjudication in order that the appellant may respond. Congratulations on winning but there should still be a complaint made to POPLA & the BPA Ltd that VCS are playing fast & loose with the POPLA process.

Umkomaas

I can only think that this, along with the other information they shared (including a full, almost completely un-edited copy of the contract they have with the landowner) was intended as a scare tactic.

Congratulations on your win!

Would you mind scanning and uploading a copy of the contract please? This will be very helpful.

Cheeseboard12

Can I actually attach files to the posts? Also, Umkomaas, they made it clear in their email to POPLA that it was private and confidential and it's got it as a water mark. I'm not sure if that is legally binding on me though?!

Dee140157

Unless you have signed a confidentiality clause, I can't see the problem.
If you can photo and upload it to tinypic.com and then post the forum URL (you will see what I mean when you actually go to tiny pic) on here with a gap between the http:// and the rest of it, we will do the rest.