Vehicle control services

staple28

Hi all, i've been reading alot of threads and topics this morning, and will keep doing so. Thank you everyone who posts.

I would just like to check my situation please.

I have a PCN which was attached to my windscreen. I recieved it because i "parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" However, i did have a ticket, the problem is, i got it from the wrong machine, i got a council ticket without realising i was in a different/private car park.

I am planning on waiting for a NTK, then soft sppeal. Do i keep the fact i actually had a ticket and it was an accident on my part until a futher appeal or just forget that fact altogether?

Thanks in advance

staple28

Sorry forgot to add, it was just in a random parking lot in the middle of the town centre.

The_Deep

It was hardly an "accident", I should not mention it as it is not even mitigation.

bod1467

Wait for the NtK. As you know what NtK means then you've probably read the NEWBIES thread. Keep reading it until it all becomes second nature, then you'll be prepared for your appeal.

Coupon-mad

Just use the template appeal in the NEWBIES thread when you get your NTK. No need for a soft appeal, go for the jugular.

staple28

Hi all,

I appealed my ticket using the template. Today I received a letter which I have read about on hear previously but I cannot find the thread now...

Basically vcs haven't provided me with a popla code but are saying I need to either 1) notify the driver to appeal to them, 2) if I am representing the driver, to give them their full details n signature etc or 3) pay the PCn

I know they shouldn't be doing this. Is there a template to reply to this. Do I just write back and tell them I do not need to do such things and to send me the popla code?

Going on the search for the previous thread again now to help put a letter together but thanks in advance for any help.

AoD

Yes that's exactly what you do.

Also complain to the BPA about the response you received.

Coupon-mad

Point out to these scumbags that the DVLA and BPA sent an email to all AOS members in January to remind them:

"The following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied"


Ask them what part of that did they not understand? And that you will report them unless they reply by return within 7 days with a POPLA code or cancellation.

staple28

Thank you very much for that, putting a letter together now, i'll update when i get a reply!

waamo

AoD wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what you do.

Also complain to the BPA about the response you received.

I would also include the DVLA in a complaint, the prospect of being banned from the DVLA database tends to focus their mind.

staple28

Hi guys, I've recievd my popla code and tried to put together an appeal on the points i can include regarding my situation. Can anyone have a quick look and advise if i am missing anything, i think i have the main points.

Thanks

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC:
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) requiring payment of a charge of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of not displaying a Pay & Display ticket. The issue date on the PCN was ??/??/??.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:


1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) No authority to levy charges
Non-compliance with BPA code of practice appeals procedure
3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
5) Summary

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner.
I specified in my original appeal that I would like to see a breakdown of the costs incurred by Vehicle Control Services Ltd as a result of the alleged breach. Vehicle Control Services Ltd have failed to provide this information, stating in their appeal rejection letter (dated ??/??/??), ”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 it is not a ‘penalty’ 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.”

As the registered keeper of the vehicle in question I do not believe that any damage, obstruction or material loss was incurred and that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum implemented in advance by VCS as a revenue-raiser. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss following from the incident. VCS cannot argue that this charge is made up of tax-deductible business costs because these would exist even if no cars stopped and got a ticket that day. It is also unreasonable and unfair; an unenforceable penalty dressed up as an imaginary loss, and as such, it breaches the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

If VCS believes otherwise they must be able to show a full breakdown of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.”

“19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading”.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2) No Authority to levy charges.
VCS does not appear to own the XXXXXX car park and is assumed to be merely agents for the landowner. In their PCN and in their rejection letter, VCS has not provided me with any evidence that it has the landowner authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f): “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drivers charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles VCS to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices at this location.
I put Vehicle Control Services Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that VCS produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and VCS.

A witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original, showing the points above, is the only acceptable item as evidence that a contract exists and authorises Vehicle Control Services Ltd to write to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants through to Court.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge 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 Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2) (h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to VCS, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be VCS or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


5) Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA code of practice and also fails to comply with basic contract law and I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.