Humberside airport pcn

Apathy

Hey guys, so I've just received their verdict on the appeal as follows:

Date and time of issue : 9 march 2014

Dear XXXX

We are in receipt of recent correspondence received 17th March 2014 in connection with the above referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN)

Whilst we understand your concern at receiving a Notice, it is entirely the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the Terms and Conditions of use for the airports private access roads. The roadway in question is part of a high security zone or roadways at any time. Such actions may also pose an obstruction or danger to other road users. There are numerous warning signs in place along the private access roads and we attach a copy of the signs for your reference.

In response to your comments, we can confirm that on the 9th March 2014, the driver stopped in a prohibited area. Whilst we appreciate the circumstances you have described however, the driver stopped in an area where they could have cause an obstruction to the other drivers. Please be advised that our signage located throughout the area clearly state "No stopping at Any time". It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware and compliant with the Terms and Conditions of this area.

We consider the amount on the PCN as reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract. 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 yup on any breaches of these identified. A full breakdown of loss will be provided should the Katter proceed to court. We would also re-cite the case of Parking Eye v Mr Kevin Shelley (2013)

Furthermore, Signage on the approach roads is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and has been approved by the senior management as BPA Text size is relative to the average approach speed vehicle on those roads.

Our contract with the Landowner provides for us to act in our own name, therefore we are the creditor. We will not be providing the landowners details or a copy of the contract will as this is commercial sensitive and confidential information.

Vehicle Control Serviced LTD operate in Common Law under the Laws of contract and Trespass. It is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter and use private land for authorised uses, does so in full and tacit acceptance of the Terms and Conditions in operation. These Terms and Conditions are in operation from the moment a person enters onto private land, we are entitled to seek damages from the motorist to the value of the charges as indicated on the signage on site. On the day in question, your vehicle was issued with a Parking Change Notice because it breached this contract, and the relevant charge is consequently recoverable under Contract Law.

The PCN does not attract VAT, as VAT does not apply to trespass, as such your points are irrelevant as no contract is formed for this matter.

We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and your appeal (representations) is therefore rejected. We will NOT accept any further appeals.

On the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, we have set out the following options on what to do next:

1.Pay the parking charge notice.

2. If you were not the driver on the time of contravention, provide us with the full name and a serviceable address of the driver.

You do have the option to appeal to the POPLA service, which is an independent body.

Not sure where to go with this now. Thanks

da_rule

Next step is to appeal to POPLA. The Newbies sticky thread makes it clear what the process is. You appeal to the parking company, they reject the appeal (in a vast majority of cases), and then you appeal to POPLA (where you will win).

nigelbb

They are pursuing the driver for this as they know that the airport is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012 & thus keeper liability. It's a guaranteed win at POPLA to point out that they are pursuing the wrong person i.e. the keeper when their claim can only be against the driver.

prosnap

I might be missing something here ....


Did you get a ten digit POPLA code?

HO87

A couple of suggestions for the POPLA appeal.

1. The airport and its approach roads are subject of byelaws and it is not therefore "relevant land" within the meaning of POFA. That has been mentioned in passing but hasn't been specifically discussed. There is provision within those byelaws to deal with motorists who fail to adhere to road signs and - along with other byelaw infringements - it makes them liable to a maximum fine of £2,500. Attempting to pursue motorists by way of civil tickets is called having your cake and eating it.

2. By any common definition allowing passengers to board or alight from a vehicle is not "parking" and is allowed for under other parking enforcement regimes on roads to which the public have access. The fact that the engine was running is irrelevant from that point of view. What if you had been driving a hybrid vehicle? Arguably the engine/motor would not have been running.

3. VCS seem unable to get their ducks in a row. It seems that they consider the PCN to be liquidated damages in respect of a breach of contract and yet, later, argue that VAT is not due in respect of trespass (what they mean is that VAT is not due in respect of sums that are effectively "damages" in respect of trespass). But which is it? They can't pursue a trespass as they lack any proprietary interest in the land or are they going to produce evidence that the sum is paid in its entirety to Humberside airport? If they take a slice of it it becomes a consideration which will attract VAT. They can't have this both ways.

4. Once again VCS attempt to stretch the Common Law they choose to have in place at Europa Court to the rest of the country or at least a few miles down the M18 to Humberside Airport.

A person can only be bound by a contract if there was an intention to contract, that the signage constitutes an offer, there was acceptance and that there is consideration on both sides. What consideration can VCS possibly have provided in the otherwise free use of the roadways? And what about the signage?

This is the usual bolleaux but POPLA should clear it away.

Apathy

So should i'm not sure which points to take out and insert

POPLA Verification Code: (to be inserted)
Vehicle Registration: (to be inserted)
PCN Ref: (to be inserted)
Date of initial notice: (to be inserted)
Date of my response: (to be inserted)
Date of rejection to my response: (to be inserted)
Parking Charge Amounts: (to be inserted)


Dear POPLA assessor

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I am appealing against the Parking Charge Notice issued against this vehicle on the grounds stated below..

1) The notice was issued out of time and is therefore not valid.
2) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
3) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers or Keepers
5) No Contract with driver
6) Misleading and unclear signage
8) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park


1)The notice was issued out of time.
The original notice was issued to myself as the keeper of the vehicle on (date to be inserted) for an alleged offense on (date to be inserted) .This is outside the 14 days allowed for notification to the keeper under POFA. I pointed out in my letter of (date to be inserted) that I expected APCOA to cancel any charges. APCOA state in their follow up letter of ( date to be inserted) that "if POFA is not mentioned then the notice needs to be issued within 35 days of Contravention". If POFA does not apply then they are unable to pursue the Keeper. Either way therefore the Payment Charge Notice has been invalidly issued, and this appeal should be upheld.

2) 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 and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. As APCOA 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.



3) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet APCOA are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Birmingham Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply. 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 covered by bylaws.


4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers or Keepers
As APCOA are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver or Keeper, I wish APCOA to provide me with a full un-redacted legally certified by an independent solicitor as a true copy of the original 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 APCOA 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, APCOAhave breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.


5) 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 be expected to stop in order to read non compliant located signs as they enter the road. In any case, as APCOA 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. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever. , no consideration was capable of being offered to the driver, and no pertinent signs were clearly visible .


6) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention according to APCOA letter dated (date to be inserted) is "failing to Park in a designated parking area" which further refers to "Breach of the terms and conditions of use of the hotel car park". APCOA change this claim in their later latter dated (date to be inserted) to "A restricted area" which is in fact an access road, that the signage refers to as a "Restricted Zone" No Stopping at any time to drop off or pick up". The 3 photographs relied on by APCOA show the alleged offending vehicle on this road for circa 13 seconds with no evidence that it was actually stopped or picking up or dropping off. The signage is also unlawful. The signage is on the opposite side of the road to the vehicle as evidenced in the photographs, and parallel to the highway. Clearly to be read from the vehicle s location a vehicle must be stationary. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. Any signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic 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. APCOA 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.''


8) 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 APCOA 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,
There is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what APCOA will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. APCOA 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'.

also looking at this thread for inspiration but not sure if this template is enough. thanks

nigelbb

Your template letter refers to APCOA not VCS. Provided you have not identified the driver to VCS (no "I did this" in the original appeal) then this is the only point that really needs making:-

3) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.

Coupon-mad

I agree with Nigel but as long as you change it all to 'VCS' and make sure it all makes sense for your case, the long version will win anyway.

Apathy

On March 9th2014 . The car YX10YGO ( of which I am the registered keeper )stopped for only 2-3 minutes to allow a passenger to out before looking at the terms of the parking conditions before proceeding to enter the car park at Humberside Airport well out of the way. The registered keeper of the vehicle was not in control of the vehicle at this particular time either.

The car was not parked , the engine was always still running.


This appeal is for the following reasons. No Parking was made. The car was in position for less than 3 minutes whilst 1 person got out of the vehicle. No Contract was knowingly entered and no losses have been demonstrated. Signs or warnings were not adequate.

As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which of course, I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with your ATA Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.

Please issue your standard cancellation letter or a specific, detailed rejection letter. If you choose to send the latter, it must state:

- the legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your recent Notice failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.

- if alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

- if alleging trespass please enclose evidence of the perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum.

- if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).

Take formal note:

(a) Your unsupported, unsolicited invoice and any further letters if you persist, will constitute harassment. If you continue, your contact and that of any agent will be deemed a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) and I reserve the right to take the matter further. You have been informed that I consider this to be harassment so any decision to send further letters rather than cancel the invoice will reinforce the evidence of your persistent unwarranted threat and you may be required to justify your actions in court.

(b) Any obfuscation on your part, such as pretending I have to name the driver, alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA, as a sanctionable breach of your Code of Practice.

(c) If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you and my time at the court rate of£18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment.

By continuing to pursue me you hereby accept liability to pay my costs when I prevail and you acknowledge and imply full understanding of the above.

On March 9th2014 . The car YX10YGO ( of which I am the registered keeper )stopped for only 2-3 minutes to allow a passenger to out before proceeding to enter the car park at Humberside Airport well out of the way.

The car was not parked , the engine was always still running.


This appeal is for the following reasons. No Parking was made. The car was in position for less than 3 minutes whilst 1 person got out of the vehicle. No Contract was knowingly entered and no losses have been demonstrated. Signs or warnings were not adequate.

As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which of course, I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with your ATA Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.

Please issue your standard cancellation letter or a specific, detailed rejection letter. If you choose to send the latter, it must state:

- the legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your recent Notice failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.

- if alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

- if alleging trespass please enclose evidence of the perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum.

- if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).

Take formal note:

(a) Your unsupported, unsolicited invoice and any further letters if you persist, will constitute harassment. If you continue, your contact and that of any agent will be deemed a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) and I reserve the right to take the matter further. You have been informed that I consider this to be harassment so any decision to send further letters rather than cancel the invoice will reinforce the evidence of your persistent unwarranted threat and you may be required to justify your actions in court.

(b) Any obfuscation on your part, such as pretending I have to name the driver, alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA, as a sanctionable breach of your Code of Practice.

(c) If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you and my time at the court rate of£18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment.

By continuing to pursue me you hereby accept liability to pay my costs when I prevail and you acknowledge and imply full understanding of the above.

I've sent them 2 appeals, so judging by this, there hasn't been any identification of the driver right? Sorry but making sure i through this correctly. Thanks.

ColliesCarer

No neither of those id the driver but edit asap to take out car reg. no