No popla code

spiny999

Hi There.
Appealing on behalf of girlfriend who received a VCS ticket .

Have posted before but easier to ask this separate.

I Sent a standard cut and paste appeal to VCS
[had written another one regards not entering reg no correctly or most likely not at all, but pasted the wrong one and sent the generic appeal in the newbies thread )

Anyhow today she received a standard rejection letter, couple of questions.

1] Although I asked for a POPLA code, and their letter mentions popla appeal, and includes the line, 'your popla verification code is...,' there is no code on the letter.
Do I email them back , and just ask for the code?

2] They state she can still pay at reduced early bird rate but if I appeal to Popla it will increase to their standard rate, and they may add further costs, for debt recovery court etc. can they do this? [obviously worrying her]

Many thanks

Umkomaas

If your other thread is related to this new one, it is better if they're both kept together. If so, PM Crabman and ask for them to be merged.

1. POPLA code shouldn't have to be begged for, it should come as part of the rejection letter. I've not previously seen a similar example to the one you quote here, so it may be an oversight on the part of VCS (but I put nothing past any operator in this game). Just double-check your letter for a 10-digit code; it may be 'hidden' somewhere else in the letter. If it's not there than a quick email to VCS. If they drag their heels/refuse it's time to write a shirty complaint to the BPA.

2. Pretty much standard across the 'industry', but if our advice is followed they can put it to whatever they want - when you win at POPLA, you'll be paying nowt anyway!

Coupon-mad

They state she can still pay at reduced early bird rate but if I appeal to Popla it will increase to their standard rate, and they may add further costs, for debt recovery court etc. can they do this? [obviously worrying her]

Why would that worry anyone? Of course the discount is merely a bribe but she won't be paying anything once she extracts a POPLA code out of them. And if she's only appealed as the registered keeper, under POFA2012 they CANNOT add extra costs that would stand up. The keeper is only potentially 'liable' for the standard amount on the PCN.

But then we win 100% of the time at POPLA.

spiny999

Thanks definately not hidden in the letter. will email them and insist on the code.

spiny999

Finally got popla code from them, and will post popla appeal for you below, please can you have a look at it and suggest any changes.

long and short of it, ticket was purchased, but index not put in correctly if at all, and ticket lost, so was not worth even mentioning on soft appeal. soft appeal rejected on the usual grounds.

But having visited all the signage in the car park is excel parking and the pcn and follow up rejection letter are all VCS. I have mentioned that I am aware the two companies are owned by the same person under item 1. [not sure if that should stay]
I think the rest reads ok, but would be most appreciative of your wise words!
Many thanks in advance. Here goes .........


POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the registered keeper received a parking charge notice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) requiring payment of a charge of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged breaching the car park terms and conditions at xxxx Car Park, xxx. The issue date on the PCN was xxx.

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

1. No authority to levy charges
2. Signage not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice/No valid contract formed between VCS and the driver.
3. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
5. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
6. No standing to bring a claim
7. Summary


1. No authority to levy charges

VCS does not appear to own the xxxx car park, and although the parking charge notice, and the rejection of appeal letter are both from VCS and on their headed paper, ALL of the signage in the xxxx car park refers to EXCEL PARKING SERVICES Ltd.
If the signage is correct in the car park, any ‘contract’ [I dispute there can be any contract with any parking company, rather than the landowner] then it would in theory be with EXCEL PARKING SERVICES Ltd and not VCS who issued the parking charge.
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.
Whilst I understand that Vehicle Control services Ltd and Excel Parking services Ltd are both owned by the same person, they are separate companies, with separate company registrations, they are totally separate entities.

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



2. Signage not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice/No valid contract formed between VCS and the driver.

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach.
Because the private parking company are a mere agent and in this case, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed between Excel Parking Services Ltd and not VCS. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Vehicle Control Services Ltd have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.
Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times”
In fact there is not a sign in the car park that gives any reference whatsoever to VCS parking, or of any implied contract with them.


Following the receipt of the PCN (Dated xxxx), The site in question was visited and photographs taken of all the visible signs (Photos attached)

As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA Assessor would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the fixed amount the Operator is now demanding.

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

3. 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.

4. Unlawful Penalty Charge

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for the contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of parking in this car park. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

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

5. Charge 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 xxxx), ”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.


6. No standing to bring a claim.

VCS does not appear to own the xxxx car park. In their PCN and in the rejection letter, the operator has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since I believe it holds neither interest, nor assignment of, title of the land in question.

I require VCS to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner. 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 VCS 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 say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the VCS has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. 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.

Yours faithfully
xxxx

Coupon-mad

spiny999 wrote: »

Finally got popla code from them, and will post popla appeal for you below, please can you have a look at it and suggest any changes.

long and short of it, ticket was purchased, but index not put in correctly if at all, and ticket lost, so was not worth even mentioning on soft appeal. soft appeal rejected on the usual grounds.

But having visited all the signage in the car park is excel parking and the pcn and follow up rejection letter are all VCS. I have mentioned that I am aware the two companies are owned by the same person under item 1. [not sure if that should stay]*

That's happened before, more than once, and is worthy of a complaint to the BPA and the DVLA right now. It sounds like VCS were the ones to get your data and yet VCS don't have signs up nor the contract at that site...so they weren't allowed under their DVLA KADOE contract to get your data at all! No 'reasonable cause' for VCS (a different firm) to get the data and then send a NTK at all.

Look, a similar point has been made by this poster:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65670339#Comment_65670339

The email addies for the DVLA and the BPA are in post #6 of the NEWBIES sticky thread.


* yes that should stay in your POPLA appeal as it shows that the firm who issued the NTK didn't even have any signs up, appear not to have the contract for running the car park as that's stated as Excel and the confusion over who might be the creditor/operator is enough to ensure there cannot be any keeper liability established at all.

I would reiterate it again in these two paragraphs as it's sooo important:


3. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
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 'Excel Parking Services' who are named on the signage, or the landowner, or a managing agent, or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not. Indeed I believe that VCS were the ones to get my data from the DVLA and yet VCS do no have any signs up whatsoever at this site, nor does it appear that VCS have a contract in their name. I believe that VCS were not entitled under their DVLA KADOE contract to get my data at all and I have formally complained to the DVLA about this serious breach.



6. No standing to bring a claim.
VCS does not appear to own the car park and nor do they have any signs up (the signs identify a different company, namely Excel Parking Services) so I believe that VCS have no standing at all at this site. VCS and Excel may be owned by the same person but are distinctly separate companies, known to operate different business models (it is believed that VCS normally pay the landowner for the right to bother motorists whereas Excel are known to usually be a paid agent). VCS have no standing to make a claim over a notice issued in an Excel-managed car park.

I require VCS to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous...{etc. etc}...

spiny999

Just received email notification that appeal has been allowed.

Thanks for everyones help, especially coupon's .

appeal allowed on no GPEOL detailed below

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.

As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-
estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator
has produced a list of heads that they have to pay for in managing the site,
however, they have not stated how much they have to pay for each head
listed and therefore, they have not justified their parking charge amount.

I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal
on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge
amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Coupon-mad

Amazed they didn't decide your one on the fact VCS have no signs up. If that's still the case you should report them to the BPA as well as the DVLA. Email addies are in the NEWBIES thread, post #6 of it.

Could you post about your success in the 'POPLA Decisions' thread as well for posterity and for our winning stats?

spiny999

Thanks coupon posting as I speak