VCS and Liverpool John Lennon. Draft of POPLA appeal

Herriot

Appeal upheld! They used the "not a genuine pre estimate of loss" reason to throw it out.

Thank you to everybody.

Now, does anyone have a nice (nasty) draft letter to the Chairman of Liverpool John Lennon Airport just to let him know that his version of customer care means I will never fly from that dump ever again? Has anyone had a response from the airport after a complaint?

bazster

If you are in the mood for writing more letters try DVLA:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to complain about the misuse of my personal details after you incorrectly released them to VCS Ltd. in breach of both the Data Protection Act and VCS' KADOE contract with DVLA.

The KADOE contract clearly states that keeper details may only be requested for the purpose of pursuing unpaid parking charges. However, VCS requested my details in order to pursue me for an unlawful penalty after my vehicle briefly stopped on a Liverpool Airport approach road to allow passengers to board Attachment not found.


Send this to the "customer complaints resolution team":

CCRT
D16W
DVLA
Swansea
SA6 7JL

The full DVLA complaints procedure is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations...aints-procedure

The_Slithy_Tove

The paragraph on POFA could also mention that the roads at JLA are not "relevant land" as defined by the Act, as Byelaws are effective on that land.

esmerobbo

Herriot wrote: »

Appeal upheld! They used the "not a genuine pre estimate of loss" reason to throw it out.

Thank you to everybody.

Now, does anyone have a nice (nasty) draft letter to the Chairman of Liverpool John Lennon Airport just to let him know that his version of customer care means I will never fly from that dump ever again? Has anyone had a response from the airport after a complaint?

The Airport is owned by Peel Holdings, Excel/Vcs infest most of their land, they are well aware of the dirty tricks yet seem not too care.

Cooney14

Many thanks for this great information.

I am correct in thinking that the process is to appeal the fine to the VCS initially and expect it to be declined regardless of my reasoning?

Thereafter I need to provide similar info in an appeal to POPLA as you have done so thoroughly?

Why/when do POPLA get involved? Do the VCS direct you to them to appeal further after their rejection?

Sorry for the extent of questioning.

Umkomaas

Cooney14 wrote: »

Many thanks for this great information.

I am correct in thinking that the process is to appeal the fine to the VCS initially and expect it to be declined regardless of my reasoning?

Thereafter I need to provide similar info in an appeal to POPLA as you have done so thoroughly?

Why/when do POPLA get involved? Do the VCS direct you to them to appeal further after their rejection?

Sorry for the extent of questioning.

1. Please start a new thread of your own, this will prevent confusion as to which answer relates to which poster's issue.
2. Read the NEWBIES sticky at the top of the forum index (1 page back from here).
3. Use the forum's excellent search engine with VCS and the (whichever) airport your PCN relates to added.

Come back if you have any queries (in your new thread).

Folkiedave

Herriot wrote: »

Now, does anyone have a nice (nasty) draft letter to the Chairman of Liverpool John Lennon Airport just to let him know that his version of customer care means I will never fly from that dump ever again? Has anyone had a response from the airport after a complaint?

I think you'll find the large amount of money paid to have the right to send people speculative invoices will far out way any problems the CEO has.

nigelbb

Folkiedave wrote: »

I think you'll find the large amount of money paid to have the right to send people speculative invoices will far out way any problems the CEO has.

It's only £20K per year which would be peanuts given the annual running costs of an airport. It's a lot less than the £52K per year that PE pay for a fishing licence at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford.

Herriot

Cooney14 wrote: »

Many thanks for this great information.

I am correct in thinking that the process is to appeal the fine to the VCS initially and expect it to be declined regardless of my reasoning?

Thereafter I need to provide similar info in an appeal to POPLA as you have done so thoroughly?

Why/when do POPLA get involved? Do the VCS direct you to them to appeal further after their rejection?

Sorry for the extent of questioning.

As advised above, best to start a new thread for your case but esentially you are correct.

Appeal the "invoice" to VCS. They will reject it no matter what you write so don't spend to long. Make sure not to fall into any traps of stating the driver ("The driver" not "I" in any correspondence). They must send you a code for POPLA in their rejection, at which point you make an appeal to POPLA with that code allowing you access to this appeals process. If your situation is the same as this case then I'm very happy for you to use my completed version for your appeal. It should result in POPLA upholding the appeal.

I'll look out for your new thread.

Cooney14

Would anyone be so kind to cast an eye over this appeal? Apologies for not opening a new thread - will be happy to if directed.




Dear POPLA
Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the followinggrounds:

1) Amount demanded is a penalty nota genuine pre estimate of loss

2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeperliability
3)No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) No Contract with driver
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a carpark



1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate ofloss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss andtherefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which wouldoccur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimedis excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedlystopping. As VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show thisis a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice,which renders this charge unenforceable. Furthermore, The first fiveminutes in the Liverpool John Lennon Airport pick up / drop off car park are free; thealleged contravention lasted seconds, whichis significantly less than five minutes and Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) aredemanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for whatwould have been free parking.




2) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; noregistered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is notliable for this charge as Liverpool Airport is designated as an airport by theSecretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject toairport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply. I put the Operator tostrict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require themto show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority thatthis land is not already covered by bylaws.


3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or chargedrivers
As VCS are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form acontract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copyof 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 notsufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that givesVCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts intheir own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District JudgeMcIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012(transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirementsregarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breachedthe BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legalstanding, which renders this charge unenforceable.


4) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able toread, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see 'misleadingand unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in order to read thesigns as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block thejunction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for theowner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is thebinding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compellingstatements of fact about this sort of business model. In this instance,there was no contract formed whatsoever, no consideration was capable ofbeing offered.to the driver, who was simply queuing on a road in traffic andsaw no pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.


5) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' which is a misleadingterm because of its similarity to the Highways Agency term 'urban clearway'. IfVCS intend this apparently private road to treated by drivers as an urbanclearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 orthey will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location donot comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and assuch are misleading. Any repeater signs in this area do not face theoncoming traffic and are sporadically placed if at all at thisjunction. So they are unable to be seen by a driver andcertainly cannot be read without stopping, and therefore do not complywith the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to thecontrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of theChief 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 redroutes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generallypositioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' systemat 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 enforceparking in private car parks, as long as you do this in areasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at thecar park must tell drivers that you are using this technology andwhat you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carryout a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make surethat it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you shouldcheck are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good workingorder. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securelyheld and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage yourANPR 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 processvehicle 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 useof CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such asvehicle 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 meetthe requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. Theywill need to show evidence to the contrary on every point, and explain how thishidden 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 beinformed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the datacaptured by ANPR cameras for. VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice asregards the use of a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a van fitted with ahidden camera, patrolling land which is not a 'car park' and neither 'managing,enforcing nor controlling parking'.