VCS RobinHood Airport PCN POPLA appeal.

Gerain

Hi,
First of all I would like to say big thanks to all the people who are making this forum. You are doing great job for the society.
And now to the main topic of this thread: About a month ago I received a PNC in a mail from VCS regarding my parking at the Robin Hood Airport. Being a naive person that I am I almost paid them but then I stumbled on this brilliant forum and used template to appeal to VCS. Today I received a rejection letter from them with a POPLA reference that I can appeal with. After some time I managed to get this appeal together. I am not a native English speaker and I might have made some mistakes so I am kindly asking someone to proofread it. Thanks in advance!

Dear POPLA

Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the
following grounds:
1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
2. Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3. The alleged contravention did not take place
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' system at this location which is not a car park


1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
The alleged ''contravention'' was in fact an emergency stop which 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 un-redacted 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:

*Link Here*

''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 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".


2. Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.

The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Doncaster 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.

3. The alleged contravention did not take place

The notice 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.

The relevant part of the POFA states –(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.

This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any
specified period of parking where parking charges apply.

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. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA
actually took place.

4. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

As VCS are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.

5. No contract with 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 they enter the road as they by doing so they
would block the junction. In any case, as VCS 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. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever, no consideration was capable of being offered to the driver, who was simply queuing on a road in traffic and saw no pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.

6. Misleading and unclear signage.

The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' which is a misleading term because of its similarity to the Highways Agency term 'urban clearway'. If VCS intend this apparently private road to 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. 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 and therefore they do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

7. 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,

Dee140157

I wish as many native English speakers could put an appeal together as well as this.

It looks good to go to me. Let someone else confirm, but you have covered all a in points especially the POFA12 one for this land.