PCN Robin hood Airport

WILDFIRE213 · 4 August 2014 at 12:12PM

Hi my husband was issued with a PCN for stopping on a road leading away from the airport briefly to use his phone. he didn't see the signs and didn't realise his mistake until the NTK arrived. We submitted an appeal based on others ive seen here but it was refused and they have issued a POPLA code. im looking for help on how to word my appeal to POPLA please. Also it gives you a choice of 4 things when you register to appeal which do I pick

1. I was not improperly parked
2. The charge exceeded the appropriate amount
3.The vehicle was stolen (obv not that one lol)
4.I am not liable for the charge.

any help is much appreciated thanks in advance

WILDFIRE213 · 4 August 2014 at 12:24PM

Just found this one think im gonna go with it. Still not sure which box to check regarding the reason im appealing

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Limited
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Sep-2013
Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013
Alleged Contravention: Stopping on a Roadway where stopping is Prohibited.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

My Appeal.

1)The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Vehicle Control Services Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Vehicle Control Services Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include businessrunning costs nor the POPLA fee).

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be agenuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

2) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore VCS Ltd has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to VCS Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that VCS Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the landowner, which must be BPA CoP compliant. This means specifically, that the contract must be dated before this parking event and show that VCS Ltd are granted rights to form contracts with drivers on site and to pursue their charges in the courts in their own name.

3) I believe VCS Ltd have no standing to support pursuing a charge at this site even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between VCS Ltd and theowner/occupier, containing nothing that VCS Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. I challenge VCS Ltd to rebut this point in the light of two very recent small claims decisions about a parking operator with a similar contract.In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well, especially as it was also the case in VCS Ltd v Ibbotson, Case No. 1SE09849 on 16/5/2012, where District Judge McIlwaine found as fact that only the landowner can take the matter to court and not firms like VCS Ltd acting merely as their agents.

4) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify"the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. VCS have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. 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 landis not already covered by bylaws.

6) Prominent,clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a “No Stopping / Waiting in Restricted Areas or Roadways” area, bearing in mind that this is an area of multi-lane moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style. If the operator intends this to be a no stopping zone then they must make that abundantly clear to mitigate any loss and to avoid contraventions if they are contracted to keep the roadway clear. And yet VCS' use of a secret camera van and unclear signs at this Airport have caused so many visitors to be unfairly penalised that the operation here has been exposed by MP Nick Smith very recently as 'predatory'and 'profiteering'. I contend this is a cash cow for VCS and that there are no illuminated clearway 'repeater signs' facing oncoming drivers along the roadand there is no 'red route' marked out at this site, so I put VCS to strict photographic proof to the contrary.

Finally I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. 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.''

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

Yours sincerely

bazster · 4 August 2014 at 12:35PM

That'll do it.

You tick all the boxes except "the vehicle was stolen".

ezerscrooge · 4 August 2014 at 12:39PM

Provide a bullet pointed list of the appeal points in the opening paragraph - helps the assessor locate the most relevant parts (which most likely will be 1 and 5)

Remove the 'I believe' bits - makes it sound as if your are uncertain of the facts. Big bold statements.

Add the following to the No GPEOL statement - it refutes the commercial justification that they will try to claim..

[FONT=&quot]Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...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 Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine 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”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''[/FONT]

WILDFIRE213 · 4 August 2014 at 12:46PM

bazster wrote: »

That'll do it.

You tick all the boxes except "the vehicle was stolen".

Thanks ive done it! its now asking me to submit any evidence i have. all i have is the original NTK. which if i remember from reading on here VCS have to supply. So is it ok to not submit anything??