Robin Hood Airport - PCN keeper has named driver

Coupon-mad

Fatrich172 wrote: »

so the automated response from VCS was as below....
do i need to do anything else? it asks for address details of the driver/hirer/keeper - to my mind the first paragraph of the template states that i am confirming that i was the keeper and, as a letter, i have included my address in the header.... so nothing further needed....??






This is an automated response notification regarding your appeal/challengeto a Parking Notice.

Please be advised that we acknowledge receipt of your email, and will be responding directly to you in due course. However, prior to doing so we require the following information in advance to enable us to process your appeal/challenge. If you have not already done so, please forward the following information as a matter of urgency, as we are unable to process your appeal/challengewithout it:

1) ThePARKING NOTICE SERIAL NUMBER This can be found in the top right hand corner of the Notice and will be prefixed, SERIAL No. VC/____________.

2) AFULL POSTAL ADDRESS that we can correspond with, as all decisions are conveyed in a letter to the motorist.

3) TheFULL NAME of the motorist.

If you are unable to locate the PARKING NOTICE SERIAL NUMBER we will require the full vehicle registration number of the vehicle to which the NOTICE was served.

Please be advised that Vehicle Control Services Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any increase in the NOTICE CHARGEshould YOU fail to provide us with the requested information within 7 (SEVEN) days from the date of this email.

Upon receipt of the required information we will place the NOTICE on hold while the circumstances surrounding the issue of the NOTICEare investigated and the Management team review the contents of your email. Once a decision has been reached, a letter will be issued to the motorist at the identified postal address conveying the outcome of the appeal/challenge. We will advise you in writing of any further course of action you should take, as deemed necessary to support your appeal/challenge.It may take up to 35 days from the receipt of your appeal for us to notify you of our decision or to inform you what further information/action we require. Should we require longer than this we will write to inform you of this in the 35 day period along with a date/timeframe by which we expect to confirm our decision.

Be advised – WE ARE UNABLE TO PROCESS YOUR APPEAL/CHALLENGE WITHOUT THE PROVISION OF THE ABOVE REQUESTED INFORMATION – A PARKING NOTICE SERIAL NUMBER AND THE FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DRIVER/HIRER/KEEPER.

If you have already provided all relevant information, then please accept our apologies and ignore this email, as we will be dealing with your appeal/challenge and notification of the outcome will be sent to youin the 35 day period specified above.

IMPORTANT: If you have already received a response from us informing you that you appeal had been unsuccessful, we will NOT respond to any further correspondence from you. Our letter would have informed you that our decision was final. As such, please disregard the information/requests referred to in the previous paragraphs of this email.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65645974#Comment_65645974

Fatrich172

OK folks, so as expected, appeal rejected by VCS.
interesting that in their latest response the option to keep the discounted £60 fine is removed if I appeal to POPLA... so now £100..... grrr...

i have taken the latest VCS POPLA appeal text - my only question is that i am not the registered keeper (company pool car) and my company kindly gave VCS my name/address - although i have only responded as "keeper" - what impact does this make?... eg to the POFA 2012 keeper liability..?
as a reminder the alleged offence was stopping in a layby for less then 30secs whilst leaving Robin Hood airport...

Dear POPLA
POPLA verification code: xxxxxxxxx

An invoice "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" of £100 was issued to me, as the keeper of a vehicle alleged to have stopped on the roadway ''where stopping is prohibited".

My appeal points are:

1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
2. VCS lacks standing to pursue charges or make contracts in their own right
3. Unreadable signage for a no-stopping zone (signs and lines are unclear)
4. Not Relevant Land as Defined Under POFA 2012
5. Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not
a car park


Explained as follows:

1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
The alleged ''contravention'' lasted seconds and caused no damages or loss, nor is the charge commercially justified.

The First 15 minutes at the Doncaster Robin Hood Airport pick up/drop off car park are free so there was no loss of revenue. I require VCS to present a breakdown of their loss calculations. I have seen VCS' various GPEOL statements and the very fact that they keep changing their calculation to try to suit POPLA (and are now on 'version 4' I believe) proves that there was no genuine pre-estimate of loss calculated in advance.

They are merely trying to list their business costs to 'paint a picture' of a loss, to hide the fact that the charge levied is purely a fixed sum for profit. I am also surprised to see no mention of the fact that VCS normally pay their clients for the right to enforce tickets. If this is the case at this Airport site, then it will be shown in the unredacted landowner contract and it would be further proof that the GPEOL statement is disingenuous. VCS cannot have us believe that they pay for the right to issue charges here and then somehow they also make a further loss around £100 each time, and that the charges exist merely to claw that loss back. If that were the case this firm would be in receivership by now!

Further, the cost of running a team of back office staff cannot be claimed because even if no breaches occurred in any one day, the staff wages and NI costs would be the same. I have seen their protestations about their supposed 'GPEOL' (version 4) and it beggars belief that VCS have 28 staff members all actively engaged every single day purely on appeals. Many PCNs are never appealed and only 2% of them go as far as POPLA, therefore the true pro-rata calculation of staff time, per PCN, would be minuscule.

In fact, VCS' own website shows that their back office staff are NOT solely engaged in appeals work and, among other tasks, they administer permits, a time-consuming part of their job which bears no relation to my parking event:

ref VCS website (i cant post links as newbie...)

''BACK OFFICE: Our industry-leading back office team processes PCNs, administers permits and serves as a contact centre for motorist enquiries.''

I would like to quote POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson, who stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement:

"I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank of Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, "if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach".

　
2. VCS lacks standing to pursue charges or make contracts with drivers in their own right
I require VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract which assigns them the proprietary rights to make contracts with drivers and to enforce charges in the courts. The BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7 requires those words when the Operator is not the landowner. I am not merely contesting VCS' right to 'issue PCNs'. Any contractor team at the Airport with a PC and printer could send out such letters but, of course, it does not follow that every Airport contractor can sue a driver. So, a mere witness statement or site agreement slip of paper, saying that VCS can 'issue' PCNs (i.e. send letters) will not be enough to rebut this appeal point which is about their lack of legal standing.

3. Unreadable signage for a no-stopping zone (signs and lines are unclear)
VCS presented me with "so called" proof of "stopping on the roadway, where stopping is prohibited” ,however the photos show my car in a lay-by. As for the upright signs, many of these are obscured by flags and some are twisted away from the road, and even those that face a driver have too much small print and are placed far too high to be read in moving traffic.If VCS intend this road to be an urban 'clearway' then, under the BPA CoP, the signs must follow the TSRGD2002 to avoid misleading and confusing drivers. If VCS wanted to create a 'no-stopping zone' they need larger, clearer and unobscured repeater signs and double red or yellow lines.

In the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013, there is a section about "No Stopping Zones" which states:
''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".

4. Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012
keeper liability for this charge. The keeper is
not liable for this charge as Robin Hood 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.

5. 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'.


Yours Sincerely,

Coupon-mad

Yep that's fine.

although i have only responded as "keeper" - what impact does this make?... eg to the POFA 2012 keeper liability..?

No impact on the registered keeper or owner since you have clearly identified yourself as the 'keeper' which is the word used in the POFA 2012. So VCS can't revert back to the lease firm or company fleet manager.

Fatrich172

thanks:
should i add this point to secton 1:

It is also interesting to note on their latest correspondence to me, VCS clearly state;
“It is important that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, the discount offer will not longer apply and the full parking charge will be pursued should your appeal be rejected by POPLA.”
This, despite all my correspondence being within their stated time limits to retain their discounted rate (£60) – surely another example of threatening behaviour for profit.

Dee140157

I wouldn't bother with last statement. It won't make a difference. They only have to offer early payment discount.

Coupon-mad

Fatrich172 wrote: »

thanks:
should i add this point to secton 1:

It is also interesting to note on their latest correspondence to me, VCS clearly state;
“It is important that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, the discount offer will not longer apply and the full parking charge will be pursued should your appeal be rejected by POPLA.”
This, despite all my correspondence being within their stated time limits to retain their discounted rate (£60) – surely another example of threatening behaviour for profit.

No that's not a valid point. What they have stated is correct - the charge is the full charge - and who gives a fig about the £60 anyway. I have no idea why you and other posters get so focussed on the discount bribe when we tell you very clearly that WE WIN AT POPLA EVERY TIME.

You won't pay a penny so who cares what the discount was and the fact it's gone!

Fatrich172

OK, that is clear. thanks again.

Fatrich172

good news
appeal upheld
not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

thank you everyone !!!!

Rich

Redx

well done m8 (as if there was ever any doubt !) lol

please post the PPC, assessor and decision in here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

thank you

Fatrich172

yep - done POPLA decisions updated.
cheers!!!