RobinHood- Doncaster Airport, approach road PCN from VCS

novakt

Good day to Everyone.
I am newbie here, so please for your patience.
Couple of weeks ago received PCN for 100/60pounds (via post), for parking on the approach road to the Doncaster Airport.
Foolishly i replied to them(without reading this forum) asking for cancellation, giving them reasonable explanation. Unfortunately i said in my email i was the driver on that day.
However 3 photos they sent me showing my car pulled over next to single white line (could be yellow in real but not in the picture). My stopping was for about couple of minutes but pictures shows only 11 secounds. Obviously VCS rejected my appeal giving me POPLA No.

I Would like to paste my email, PCN & theirs response here for you to read, but just checking first with you is it legal?

I read few threds and i have some idea by now and i thing i have quite a chance in fithing this extortion.

I Think, since i revealed identity of a driver (my identity), all i have left is (from Muddypaws11thread . Robin Hood PCN [VCS] POPLA appeal.) :

quote:(.....

[FONT=&quot]1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]

''[FONT=&quot]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.''

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Signage/Contract[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]VCS has sent a copy of the notices that they post within the area that the alleged ‘offence’ took place. This is useful as, firstly, a motorist proceeding normally into and through the area would have no chance of safely reading the content of such a complex sign without stopping and, secondly, it demonstrates that there are no specified Terms and Conditions displayed on them.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The original PCN stated that it was issued for allegedly breaching car park terms and conditions of access to privately operated approach roads leading to Doncaster Sheffield/Robin Hood Airport. The driver did not see any contractual information (such as full Terms and Conditions) on any signs when entering [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the roads leading to the airport, presumably these are only available to read in the car parking areas situated at the end of the approach roads.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In their response, VCS says “..it is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter and use private land for authorised uses, does so in full and tacit acceptance of the Terms and Conditions in operation. These Terms and Conditions are in operation from the moment a person enters onto private land.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The response goes on to say that ”..should the motorist breach these Terms and Conditions or commit trespass….we are entitled to seek damages from the motorist….as indicated on the signage…”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I do not believe that there was ever any form of contract in place (for instance, there were no readable terms and conditions, thus no acceptance or agreement) and therefore there was no breach.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also require VCS to show that they have a BPA-compliant contract with the landowner [named as thus and requested in the letter dated 04/10/13 see point 4 below] at this site which specifically enables them to enforce parking tickets through the courts in their own name as creditor. In VCS v HMRC their typical contract failed in this regard so VCS will need to show POPLA that their contract, with this Airport specifically, is fully BPA compliant. This will require the actual contract being submitted to POPLA, not a vague witness statement which would not be admissible in court and cannot be checked against details/dates/relevance/signatory etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4) That if the PCN issued to Keeper was ‘in Lieu’ of a Notice to Keeper it was defective in not specifically naming’ the Creditor’ as required by POFA.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A specific flaw with the Notice issued is that it fails to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be. This is misleading and not compliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst the Notice has indicated that a payment is required to be made to VCS, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, maybe VCS [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Verification Code [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXXXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cont: or some other party. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and this Notice does not.

...)end quote.


On top of it: i believe ther should be repeter signs after every roundabout with no stopping sign and double yellow line maintained- this one was single at the time that is why i decided to pull over for few moments.
Also they state (lied to me) that based on POFA 2012, I- the keeper have to pay it or name the driver. Well reading this forum i can safely say now, that on this private road Bylaws not apply.
So they under false pretence extorted from me name of the driver.

Please advise am I "heading in right direction"?

[/FONT]

ColliesCarer

Those aren't the only points you have left.
Take a look at this latest POPLA appeal against VCS at an airport.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65917388#Comment_65917388

Point 3 won't apply to you as you have unfortunately named yourself as driver.
Point 2 will need some amendment but could still apply as stopping on an approach road is not parking.
The other points are relevant and contain the latest challenges against VCS's latest attempts to justify their charges.

The_Deep

Also, if you were not able to read the terms and conditions whilst driving past their signs, no contract was formed, and they can only go after you for trespass, but they cannot, as they do not own the land.

novakt

thanks gents. I am going to work now- back close to midnight so will post it more on the morning.

novakt

point 3 says about- no full terms and conditions posted on the signs before entering approach road. Or is there something that cancel in general this point?
or did you mean point 3 has to be amended and point 2 do not apply since i reveal myself as a driver.

novakt

ok . i think i understand now what you mean:

my point 3 is in fact point 4 quoted from "Muddypows11"
while my point 2 is actual point 3 quoted from "muddypaw11"

am i receiving correctly now ?

ColliesCarer

novakt wrote: »

ok . i think i understand now what you mean:

my point 3 is in fact point 4 quoted from "Muddypows11"
while my point 2 is actual point 3 quoted from "muddypaw11"

am i receiving correctly now ?

I meant the list of points in this POPLA appeal by Edenside that I gave you the link to above

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65917388#Comment_65917388

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) The alleged contravention did not take place
3) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
drivers
5) No Contract with driver
6) Misleading and unclear signage
7) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not
a car park

ColliesCarer wrote: »

....Point 3 won't apply to you as you have unfortunately named yourself as driver.
Point 2 will need some amendment but could still apply as stopping on an approach road is not parking.
The other points are relevant and contain the latest challenges against VCS's latest attempts to justify their charges.

novakt

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Below my appeal to POPLA which I intend to email. Please let me know what you think. It took me few days of tweaking since English is not my first language.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Question : do I have to attach copy of my initial Appeal, PCN, and rejection of my soft Appeal in the email to POPLA??? [/FONT]

novakt

Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal regarding parking charge notice xxxxxxxx dated xxxxxxxx received from vehicle control services Ltd. My POPLA ver. Code:xxxxxxxxx


An invoice “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) has been issued to my name, as the keeper of the vehicle reg.No xxxxxxx for alleged “stopping on the roadway, where stopping is prohibited” by “breach of the roadway terms & conditions”.

1. No terms & conditions were breached since:
   
   a) No terms&conditions were listed on the signs posted on this stretch of the road (VCS must prove it to the contrary). If this proven not to be the case:
   b) No contract with the driver. If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site, a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see misleading and unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as he entered the road, because by doing so he would allegedly breach very same conditions they supposed to read about in the so called “warning signs”. In any case, as VCS Ltd are only an agent working for the owner, mere 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.
   
   BPA Code of Practice (CoP):
   
   19.Charges, and terms and conditions
   19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
   
   • when a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
   • when a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
   • agreed charges that are advertised in the contract; for example, for an overstay
     
     Any parking charge notices which arose from above terms should be invalidated by simple fact of preventing any driver to recognise term&conditions (BPA CoP 13.1 &13.2 -see point 3 of the appeal) by disallowing him to park/stop for limited time and acknowledge it, under very same penalty charge.
     
     
2. Missing, misleading or/and unclear signs & road marks without proper maintenance
   
   [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There is no clear signs posted where public driveway becoming private property on which "RobinHood" Airport by-laws apply, neither there are reminders to all drivers, that are clear & readable from a moving vehicle, when leaving or approaching an airport car park, informing that they remain on a private road with a strict regulation.
   If VCS intend this apparently private road to be treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading.
   Moreover as VCS presented me with “so called” proof of[/FONT] “stopping on the roadway, where stopping is prohibited”[FONT=Arial, sans-serif], I wish to draw the assessor attention to the contrary, that produced photos of my vehicle, showing it “parked” next to the single white line to which different rules of road apply:[/FONT]
   
   BPA Parking Guide
   
   “Single Yellow Line – A single yellow line means that parking is restricted at certain times of the day. There will be a sign to explain when restrictions apply”
   
   If this is supposed to be the double yellow line, then it proves the negligence in the maintenance of road signs and markings by the owner, or the operator, of the road.
   I would like to bring forth Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013, section of the "No Stopping Zones":
   „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”.
   
   
   Finally here I would like VCS present a proof of their legal authority in issuing Parking Charge at as far to the point where my vehicle was allegedly parked. Including position of my car on local map of the area.
   
   
3. No Grace Period offered which is stated in BPA CoP
   VSC broke BPA Code of Practice when issuing parking charge notice, without considering of a grace period whether it is classified as trespass or breaching parking terms and conditions.BPA Code of Practice:
   
   "Grace period
   13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
   
   13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
   
   13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is."
   
   [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] I wish to point especially to paragraph 13.2 which clearly states of a grace period before enforcing any action.
   [/FONT]
   
4. Non-compliant ANPR camera van at this location which is not a car park.
   
   
   BPA Code of Practice:
   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.”[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif][/FONT]
   [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007
   [/FONT]
   "6.(a) A penalty charge shall not be imposed except on the basis of a record produced by an approved device"
   
   I call upon VCS Ltd to forth-come with evidence of the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. They will need to explain how this camera van can be compliant in non car park area. There is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed on what data captured by ANPR cameras technology will be used for, by VCS Ltd. It is my believe 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 camera, patrolling land which is not a ”car park” and neither “managing, enforcing nor controlling parking”.
   
   
5. The alleged contravention did not take place[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif][/FONT] The PCN issued states:
   
   „You are notified under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.”[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]
   
   [/FONT]The relevant part of the POFA states:
   
   “9.2.b The notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.”[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]
   [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]
   This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is:
   [/FONT][/FONT]„Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”.
   
   The photographs on the Parking Charge Notice, clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all, to which specific paragraph applies. Furthermore: schedule 4 of POFA (on which VCS Ltd base the right to claim)-allows only to reclaim unpaid parking charges.
   
   
6. [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
   
   [/FONT] [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]BPA-Code of Practice:
   
   [/FONT]“Charges, and terms and conditions
   
   19.1 When you issue a parking charge notice the charges you make have to be reasonable.
   
   19.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.
   
   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.
   
   19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”
   
   The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss. The First 15 minutes at the Doncaster “RobinHood” Airport pick up /drop off car park are free; “the alleged contravention” lasted seconds,which is significantly less than fifteen minutes and Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) are demanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for what would have been free parking.
   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. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place.
   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.
   
   
   The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for alleged parking and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I would like VCS Ltd. to present breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this “penalty”; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time.
   
   
   In support of the above remarks, I would like to quote POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson, who has 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 vZambia [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”.

(end of part one)

novakt

RobinHood Airport By-Laws:


Since in my original appeal to VCS I disputed whether it was the parking or short stop with reasonable cause I would like to refer to the Robin Hood Airport by-laws under which VCS (in my believe) operate, and point the fact that “non stopping zone” have its own exemptions in cases of emergencies. I believed my was one of them.

"Driving offences
5(1) drive a Vehicle:
a. dangerously;
b. without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using that part of the Airport;

5(2) Not to cause danger with a Vehicle use, cause or permit to be used, any Vehicle in such a way as to cause or to be likely to cause, danger or nuisance to any person.

5(3) Obstruction except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice.

5(4) Obstruction causing danger except in an emergency, when in charge of a Vehicle cause or permit the Vehicle to stand so as to cause any obstruction, or so as to be likely to cause danger to Aircraft, person or property.

5(12) Parking of Vehicles without reasonable excuse park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.”


As explained in my appeal to VCS, I pulled-over my vehicle under the danger of loosing control off it. Had I not done so, result would be breaching paragraphs 5.1, 5.2 & 5.4 which indicate danger to the other road user. My sober action as a driver was proper and with agreement of the road code which is to minimise the danger or damages in those circumstances.

Umkomaas

You need to get rid of all that silly font - it's absolutely impossible to read.