stopping on a road way were stopping is prohibited humberside airport

Redx

hope you did the VCS one twice, once for each pcn

as for the MSA pcn, again you dont get fined as its not a fine , its yet another speculative invoice from a private parking company, which is appealed in a similar manner and then go to popla , so almost identical to the vcs one but the popla appeals are slightly different

no you should not have paid it , you should have appealed it like these two pcn,s

rousealdo

i have also sent the second one same as the first,

can u believe that the difference in pcn numbers in a week from my first to second , is 4800, WOW, that is some very serious fines being dished out,

Redx

mmmm , you like that f word dont you

you mean 4800 speculative invoices dressed up as pcn,s dished out , lol

Coupon-mad

rousealdo wrote: »

thanks redx , you guys are very clever people, its much appreciated, i carnt believe helping a mate out to drop them em off an pick them up causes so much trouble,

on a different note last year i got fined £60 for being over the two hours in a motorway car park , on the m5, i fell asleep it was 3 am , i went in shop used the loos etc, then thought id have a nap, an we got a fine in the post of course it was paid, but should i have paid it, we was the about 2 hours 45 mins

what amazes me is it says tiredness kills, take a break, then u get a fine for stopping,

Nope you were wrong to pay it of course, what a shame you didn't Google it. It was not a fine and those ones are easy to beat at POPLA as well, (same as VCS charges at Airports are!). You have not been fined in either case.

rousealdo

we refer to your appeal against the parking charges which we received by email.

as the registered keeper of the above vehicle on the date the contractually agreed terms an conditions were breached you were informed the the PARKING CHARGE NOTICE that you had 28 days to either appeal , settle the notice by making payment , or provide a serviceable name an uk address for the driver so that we may pursue them. despite this request, a full name and serviceable for the driver has not been provided.

please be aware that as you have failed to provide us with the full name and uk serviceable address for the driver with in the 28 day period stipulated on the PARKING CHARGE NOTICE, we are now within our rights to recover from the registered keeper under the protection of freedoms act 2012.
we have considered the points you have raised and our response is as follows :

we consider the amount on the pcn as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract. 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 and to follow up any breaches of these identified. a full breakdown of loss will be provided should the matter proceed to court. we would also re-cite the case of Parking eye v Mr Kevin Shelley (2013).

Signage at the entrance states "no stopping at any time "; motorists do not have permission to park on the private roads at this site. the appellant will have passed compliant signs before stopping; therefore the appellant had sufficient notice to decide whether to or not adhere to or not adhere to the stopping restrictions.

Furthermore to your comments with regards the airport byelaws , we must advise that byelaws are not currently in use. The last set of byelaws relate to the old airport site and are consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company, the access roads are therefore private land.

Vehicle control services ltd operate in common law under the laws of contract and trespass. it is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter an use private land for authorized uses, does so in full and tacit acceptance of the terms and conditions in operation. these terms an conditions are in operation from the moment a person enters onto private land. it follows that should the motorist breach the terms and conditions or comit a trespass to the land, we are entitled to seek damages from the motorist to the value of the charges as indicated on the signage on site.

our signage in the area state the sum payable in the event a trespass is commitied , thereofre we do not have to prove our damages.

the PCN does not attract vat, as vat does not apply to trespass, as such your points are irrelevant as no contract is formed for this matter.

we are satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly and your appeal (representations) is therefore rejected. we will not accept any further appeals.

in order to settle the pcn at the discounted rate the payment of £120 (£60) per pcn notice) is to be recieved by said date etc.


you do have the option to appeal to the ' parking on private land appeals' (popla ) service. which is a independant body .


would one of you kind folk adivse me on what im to do next please many thanks mike

Redx

simple

I assume they gave you a popla code ? (10 digits)

if so, check it using the link in the NEWBIES sticky thread at the top of the forum

then click on the post #3 link and find a suitable popla appeal, copy and paste into notepad and adapt it

then post a redacted version on here for checking, before submitting to popla (within 28 days , so get a shift on)

you should have been formulating this popla appeal whilst waiting for the rejection

I explained all this 5 weeks ago in post #8

Dee140157

You appeal to POPLA is what you do next!
Read newbie thread post 3 for how to win at POPLA. Click links and read too.
When you say VCS has given you a POPLA code for the PCNs, I assume you mean you have 2 POPLA codes for 2 appeals for the original 2 PCNs.

So it's 2 POPLA drafts (which will be identical I expect) that you need to prepare.

Put one here for approval before you send.

rousealdo

hi guys here is my apeal to popla

POPLA Verification Code: (to be inserted)
Vehicle Registration: (to be inserted)
PCN Ref: (to be inserted)
Date of initial notice: (to be inserted)
Date of my response: (to be inserted)
Date of rejection to my response: (to be inserted)
Parking Charge Amounts: (to be inserted)

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 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 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.

may i u guys if ur happy that i go with this please , many thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

It's close but there's a newer version listed as 'VCS at ANY AIRPORT, new version with quote from POPLA re commercial justification' among the examples in the NEWBIES thread. Post #3 of it, find it at the top of the forum and click on 'How to win at POPLA' then find the one I mentioned.

I never just link a thread for a newbie, IMHO it's much better that you use the forum as intended, hop from thread to thread and find links. You'll never look back and will be able to use and search any forum about any subject once this one is mastered.