We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
VCS and Liverpool John Lennon. Draft of POPLA appeal
Herriot
Posts: 10 Forumite
Hi
I just cannot get over how wonderful this forum is. From worry to anger to solutions in just a few short hours of reading.
It's the usual JLA/VCS story. The driver stopped for 20 seconds on approach road well away from the terminal to pick up 2 passengers, didn't even turn off engine. I've had the soft appeal declined and I have confirmed that the POPLA number supplied with the decline letter is current and genuine. I was nearly confident enough to send the letter off but hubris may strike and my draft letter may also serve any other forumites fighting off these parasites.
My only concern is going for 8 issues when only one is needed. Is this overkill on my part?
Any constructive comments would be very helpful.
Let's keep up the 100% record.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To whom it may concern:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]POPLA[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx
As the registered keeper I wish to appeal against VCS and their alleged incident xxxxx, based upon consideration of the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
3) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
4) VCS are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.
5) No contract with driver
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7) The alleged contravention did not take place[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The alleged incident took place on DATE 2013, as detailed in the CCTV photographs enclosed with the invoice (attached) The invoice is dated DATE 2014 and was served on DATE 2014. Under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5) notice must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking incident. 123 days had elapsed between the alleged incident and VCS serving the parking invoice, which renders this charge unenforceable.
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. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum,that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."
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. As VCS 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 excessive and unenforceable.
3) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Liverpool 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 already covered by bylaws.
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
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.
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. A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as then by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS 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.
6) 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 VCS 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, and there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. VCS 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'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7) The alleged contravention did not take place
The notice issued states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.'
The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply.
The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA stipulate the mandatory set of information that must be included on the notice to keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
The Parking Charge Notice issued to me and attached to this appeal does not:
a. Stipulate the period the car was parked (start and end times)
b. Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.
The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of POFA indicates that the ‘creditor must be identified’. To “identify” a “Creditor” VCS must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has been legally contracted. [/FONT]
I just cannot get over how wonderful this forum is. From worry to anger to solutions in just a few short hours of reading.
It's the usual JLA/VCS story. The driver stopped for 20 seconds on approach road well away from the terminal to pick up 2 passengers, didn't even turn off engine. I've had the soft appeal declined and I have confirmed that the POPLA number supplied with the decline letter is current and genuine. I was nearly confident enough to send the letter off but hubris may strike and my draft letter may also serve any other forumites fighting off these parasites.
My only concern is going for 8 issues when only one is needed. Is this overkill on my part?
Any constructive comments would be very helpful.
Let's keep up the 100% record.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To whom it may concern:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]POPLA[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx
As the registered keeper I wish to appeal against VCS and their alleged incident xxxxx, based upon consideration of the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
3) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
4) VCS are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.
5) No contract with driver
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7) The alleged contravention did not take place[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The alleged incident took place on DATE 2013, as detailed in the CCTV photographs enclosed with the invoice (attached) The invoice is dated DATE 2014 and was served on DATE 2014. Under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5) notice must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking incident. 123 days had elapsed between the alleged incident and VCS serving the parking invoice, which renders this charge unenforceable.
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. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum,that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."
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. As VCS 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 excessive and unenforceable.
3) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Liverpool 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 already covered by bylaws.
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
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.
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. A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as then by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS 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.
6) 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 VCS 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, and there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. VCS 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'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7) The alleged contravention did not take place
The notice issued states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.'
The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply.
The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA stipulate the mandatory set of information that must be included on the notice to keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
The Parking Charge Notice issued to me and attached to this appeal does not:
a. Stipulate the period the car was parked (start and end times)
b. Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.
The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of POFA indicates that the ‘creditor must be identified’. To “identify” a “Creditor” VCS must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has been legally contracted. [/FONT]
0
Comments
-
Nope! I would even throw in a 9th point about signage that must make is crystal clear if it's a no-stopping zone. Have a look at 'Misleading & Unclear signage' as point #4 here:My only concern is going for 8 issues when only one is needed. Is this overkill on my part?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64084602#Comment_64084602
We know they have lines on the road (apparently) but they can't be seen in all lights and clearly this is cash cow for them so something is certainly unclear about the signs:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436708/MP-attacks-predatory-airport-parking-patrols-fine-drivers-100-dropping-passengers-stop-just-seconds.html
You could attach that article as evidence too if you like, why not?!
I would just also change the end of this point #1 as shown - because technically a late PCN can still be aimed at a driver (just not the keeper):
1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The alleged incident took place on DATE 2013, as detailed in the CCTV photographs enclosed with the invoice (attached) The invoice is dated DATE 2014 and was served on DATE 2014. Under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5) notice must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking incident. 123 days had elapsed between the alleged incident and VCS serving the parking invoice, which renders this charge unenforceable against a registered keeper.[/FONT]
Tell you what though, your post and POPLA effort is a shining example to newbies on this forum!
:T
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 THREAD0 -
Thank you and thank you for your kind comments.
I will amend my draft with both of those excellent suggestions and get it sent to POPLA.0 -
VCS Lie and tell POPLA that there are no bylaws. Include a copy of the Bylaws with your appeal to prove them liars.0
-
Hi Benefit Master
Thanks. do you know if there is a copy of the byelaws on this site?
I've looked but cannot find anyone else who has used these.0 -
There is a link to other sites where the byelaws have been released under FOI by Liverpool Council but, again, I cannot find the actual copy of the byelaws0
-
No worries, mention the byelaws by name anyway. More important is to get your POPLA appeal in before it expires.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 THREAD0 -
OK. All evidence collated and ready to send to POPLA to now find the 10 digit code submitted by VCS is invalid.
I did check the code on parkingcowboys and it did pass as genuine. Unfortunately POPLA don't seem to think so.
These people are really scum.
I presume that they have breached BPA codes and will follow that up but the main problem is now getting the POPLA appeal. I have written to POPLA to request help.
There doesn't seem to be any obvious cause for it to be rejected.
Help!0 -
try a different web browser0
-
After trying sevral times, including the wife checking every digit as I typed, for some reason the website suddenly accepted the code.
Weird.
Submission sent.:)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards