PCN help please...

ColliesCarer

iwanttosave44 wrote: »

OMG I have just spotted that, they have put that in their reply it was Humberside and states that on the first two letters. Does that make any difference for my appeal ? I have not been to Liverpool airport !

It won't really make much difference, you could raise that they are obviously using template responses as the rejection letter doesn't even refer to the correct location but it's the location on the PCN that matters.

Don't panic - it will only need a small amount of time now to draft a winning POPLA appeal and you will have time to do that and get it submitted before this week end.

Bear in mind you will need to edit any example to make sure it is relevant to you and your circumstances but here is a Humberside airport example

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4812916

The Liverpool airport examples can easily be edited to change any references to Liverpool Airport to Humberside Airport and you may find the specifics of the charge are a closer match to you own. Have a read through them all, select the best match and edit accordingly - then post it up here on your thread for help finalising it.

Coupon-mad

iwanttosave44 wrote: »

And Bod I am being cautious I don't want to use an incorrect draft that mentions something about JLA, I searched for drafts for Humberside and it came back No Find, I shall look again. I am in a panic as I go away this week and not much time to sort it out !

Hmmmm... when I put into 'search this forum' (the heading above the sticky threads, next to 'forum tools') the words 'Humberside POPLA' I found lots and lots of results including people's POPLA appeal drafts.

I suspect in your haste you mistyped the word. By the way, when you do the search, change the default to 'SHOW POSTS' instead of 'Show threads' as the results are much better and significant to what you are after.

iwanttosave44

Hi everyone, i I would be grateful if you could give my draft a quick read and see if its ok to send. Any alteration/corrections would be very much appreciated. The section in blue is where it took 4 months for them to issue the original notice but I never mentioned it in my reply as used a draft from here so not sure what else to say. Im sure everything else would be relevant as its from a Humberside draft. Thank you so much

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) The notice was issued out of time and is therefore not valid.
1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) It is not relevant land under POFA 2012
3) There is no landowner contract
4) No contract with the driver
5) The signage is unclear and not adequate
6) Non-compliant ANPR (Hidden camera van at a 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.

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge given is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as no losses have occurred; therefore this is unfair as stated in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. VCS are alleging a ‘failure to comply’ but can’t show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss so are therefore in breach of the BPA Code of Practice. Due to this the charge is unenforceable.

2) Not Relevant Land under POFA 2012.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for the charge. As Humberside Airport is designated as an airport by the secretary of the state, the roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws so POFA 2012 does not apply, meaning the registered keeper is not liable for this charge. Also POFA does not apply to this charge because POFA relates to parking charges and VCS have said the vehicle had stopped on a roadway in which stopping was allegedly prohibited and not in a car park. Due to this they must chase the driver and not the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3) No landowner contract.
As VCS are not the land owners they can’t form a contract with the driver of the vehicle. I would like VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to make such contracts. A witness statement as to the existence of a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the land owner giving VCS the legal standing to impose these charges and pursue them in courts in their name as creditor. An example of this can be seen by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). As a result of this VCS have breached the BPA code of Practice Section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, making this charge unenforceable.

4) No Contract with the driver.
If a contract is to be formed, by 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 they would block the junction and cause obstructions. Also as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, 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.


5) The signage is unclear and not adequate
The alleged offence is “stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited” The signs at this location do not comply with the road traffic regulations or their permitted variations making them unclear and misleading. They also do not face the oncoming traffic and are sporadically placed causing them to be unseen and unreadable to a driver especially without stopping. Therefore they do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.
If I could also point out to you 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.''

6) Non-compliant ANRP (hidden camera van at a 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 on all the points in the BPA Code of Practice stated above. VCS 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'.

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

iwanttosave44

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hmmmm... when I put into 'search this forum' (the heading above the sticky threads, next to 'forum tools') the words 'Humberside POPLA' I found lots and lots of results including people's POPLA appeal drafts.

I suspect in your haste you mistyped the word. By the way, when you do the search, change the default to 'SHOW POSTS' instead of 'Show threads' as the results are much better and significant to what you are after.

You're probably right Coupon, I am such a state but did then manage to find something as my previous post. I am just so worried and panicking due to the time i have. I have read a lot of your posts today and am starting to make a little sense of thing I hope now.

Coupon-mad

Put in 'Humberside POPLA' as a search and change it to 'show posts'. You don't need to read any more of my words - just copy someone else's!

Redx

seems reasonable to me , but the part in blue mentions APCOA twice and yet Humberside and (JLA) are V.C.S. (not even excel never mind apcoa which I believe do birmingham and luton but are a different company entirely)

the search words used above bring up many suitable posts as humberside , jla , rha , luton and birmingham feature every week on here , usually for the same problems

iwanttosave44

You're right Redx I didn't understand APCOA and it is VCS at humberside. Could I cut out the orange section in that paragraph and leave the rest in about it being out of the time limit ?

Also is there any reason to mention to POPLA that I now live abroad with occasional visits to the UK, we still own our house there.

iwanttosave44

Also where should I put the part in re them referring to Liverpool Airport in the rejection letter.

Coupon-mad

I would put it in the introduction because it merely indicates sloppiness and template replies on their part and it won't win the POPLA appeal in itself.

Have you found a nice Humberside POPLA template to copy yet?! It's easy once you find one! Stop trying to adapt an APCOA one as you don't have to.

iwanttosave44

iwanttosave44 wrote: »

Hi everyone, i I would be grateful if you could give my draft a quick read and see if its ok to send. Any alteration/corrections would be very much appreciated. The section in blue is where it took 4 months for them to issue the original notice but I never mentioned it in my reply as used a draft from here so not sure what else to say. Im sure everything else would be relevant as its from a Humberside draft. Thank you so much

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) The notice was issued out of time and is therefore not valid.
1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) It is not relevant land under POFA 2012
3) There is no landowner contract
4) No contract with the driver
5) The signage is unclear and not adequate
6) Non-compliant ANPR (Hidden camera van at a 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.

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge given is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as no losses have occurred; therefore this is unfair as stated in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. VCS are alleging a ‘failure to comply’ but can’t show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss so are therefore in breach of the BPA Code of Practice. Due to this the charge is unenforceable.

2) Not Relevant Land under POFA 2012.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for the charge. As Humberside Airport is designated as an airport by the secretary of the state, the roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws so POFA 2012 does not apply, meaning the registered keeper is not liable for this charge. Also POFA does not apply to this charge because POFA relates to parking charges and VCS have said the vehicle had stopped on a roadway in which stopping was allegedly prohibited and not in a car park. Due to this they must chase the driver and not the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3) No landowner contract.
As VCS are not the land owners they can’t form a contract with the driver of the vehicle. I would like VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to make such contracts. A witness statement as to the existence of a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the land owner giving VCS the legal standing to impose these charges and pursue them in courts in their name as creditor. An example of this can be seen by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). As a result of this VCS have breached the BPA code of Practice Section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, making this charge unenforceable.

4) No Contract with the driver.
If a contract is to be formed, by 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 they would block the junction and cause obstructions. Also as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, 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.


5) The signage is unclear and not adequate
The alleged offence is “stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited” The signs at this location do not comply with the road traffic regulations or their permitted variations making them unclear and misleading. They also do not face the oncoming traffic and are sporadically placed causing them to be unseen and unreadable to a driver especially without stopping. Therefore they do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.
If I could also point out to you 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.''

6) Non-compliant ANRP (hidden camera van at a 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 on all the points in the BPA Code of Practice stated above. VCS 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'.

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

This one coupon, the main template was from humberside but didn't mention the time limit paragraph which I inserted as extra. I thought maybe if i just leave the orange section out which refers to APCOA and as I didn't refers to it in the original appeal.