Another pcn VICTORY at Doncaster Airport

p-ashy

Hi All

I got a parking charge notice for stopping in a bus lane for 10 seconds to refix my satnav outside the barriers at doncaster airport.

I have read all the info on here so sent off my appeal as set out below.


Dear VCS,

In reference to the invoice VC033 dated 31/03/2014, the keeper denies all liability to your company as it is an unlawful punitive charge, thus a penalty! The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by yourselves and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because you have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss, as such you should now cancel the charge.

If you reject this challenge the keeper requires a POPLA verification code for them to appeal independently.
Any postal corrospondence should be sent to the address you sent the parking charge notice

Yours Faithfully
Paul

As expected i lost my appeal.


My DRAFT letter to POPLA is below as it was used by MrsG1980 and she won her appeal on the 13.01.2014



Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Limited
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Sep-2013
Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013
Alleged Contravention: Stopping on a Roadway where stopping is Prohibited.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

My Appeal.


1)The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Vehicle Control Services Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Vehicle Control Services Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include businessrunning costs nor the POPLA fee).

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be agenuine 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.


2) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore VCS Ltd has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to VCS Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that VCS Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the landowner, which must be BPA CoP compliant. This means specifically, that the contract must be dated before this parking event and show that VCS Ltd are granted rights to form contracts with drivers on site and to pursue their charges in the courts in their own name.


3) I believe VCS Ltd have no standing to support pursuing a charge at this site even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between VCS Ltd and theowner/occupier, containing nothing that VCS Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. I challenge VCS Ltd to rebut this point in the light of two very recent small claims decisions about a parking operator with a similar contract.In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well, especially as it was also the case in VCS Ltd v Ibbotson, Case No. 1SE09849 on 16/5/2012, where District Judge McIlwaine found as fact that only the landowner can take the matter to court and not firms like VCS Ltd acting merely as their agents.


4) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify"the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. VCS have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.



5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. 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 landis not already covered by bylaws.



6) Prominent,clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a “No Stopping / Waiting in Restricted Areas or Roadways” area, bearing in mind that this is an area of multi-lane moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style. If the operator intends this to be a no stopping zone then they must make that abundantly clear to mitigate any loss and to avoid contraventions if they are contracted to keep the roadway clear. And yet VCS' use of a secret camera van and unclear signs at this Airport have caused so many visitors to be unfairly penalised that the operation here has been exposed by MP Nick Smith very recently as 'predatory'and 'profiteering'. I contend this is a cash cow for VCS and that there are no illuminated clearway 'repeater signs' facing oncoming drivers along the roadand there is no 'red route' marked out at this site, so I put VCS to strict photographic proof to the contrary.


Finally I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. 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.''


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

Yours sincerely











Please have a read and let me know if it is ok to send to POPLA

I believe COUPON-MAD gave the ok to post to MrsG 1980

Thanks

P-ASHY

Coupon-mad

Yep you've found the right template and you will win! Welcome to the forum - good research!

Dee140157

Wish I'd been this good for my first ever PCN. We look forward to hearing when you post your success.

Umkomaas

@OP - just tidy it up by giving each appeal paragraph a (numbered) emboldened header such as Signage, Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, Airport Not Relevant Land (you get my drift?) and also at the start of your appeal do a bullet point list of those numbered headers (verbatim) as an opener for the assessor to quickly see you've hit all the right notes - especially not a GPEOL. Although you've got GPEOL 'hidden' in your text, a fairly recent case was lost (now under further appeal with the Chief Adjudicator) with a similarly hidden GPEOL - it appears the assessor might have overlooked it. So make yours extra-obvious.

We have to skim read many of the (often laboriously long) POPLA drafts OPs put up here, POPLA Assessors are no doubt reading many, many more than us, day in, day out, and I guess must be skimming just to keep their heads above water.

Don't let them miss your killer point in your appeal!

HTH

p-ashy

The wait is over and another victory :beer:,
thanks for all your help.

Below is the verdict and reasons.


26 June 2014

Reference 9061344xxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA

Paul Ashbridge (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number VC033757xx arising
out of the presence at Robin Hood Airport, on 31 March 2014, of a
vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 3 April 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for
breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that the appellant stopped their vehicle in a no
stopping area despite signage erected at the site to prohibit this. There is
photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the
site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also
evidence from the operator’s automatic number plate recognition system
which shows the appellant’s vehicle stopped in a no stopping area.

The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely
that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be
required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the
charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation
as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could
be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. However, the operator has not
provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim. I am unable to
see how the parking charge amount has been calculated. In addition, the
operator has included “Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect
Overheads”. I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct
result of the appellant’s breach. As the operator has not produced a
breakdown of costs, I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in
relation to other heads of claim listed by the operator. On this occasion, I am
not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has
failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad

:j:j:j:j:j:j