VCS Vehicle Control Services

wigannwuk

im sorry im being a bit thick but im suffering from stress at the moment so struggling to get my head around this. Can anyone direct me to a VCS template that is relevant to my original post? i can only see ones that are for airports. are they different per parking company?

i hate the way these companies push into your life when you have done nothing wrong

Redx

this is the one I referred you to, which is NOT about airports

VCS windscreen ticket case (Summer 2014 version quoting Mr Greenslade of POPLA)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66245745#Comment_66245745

adapt it in notepad

ps:- you are unlikely to find an exact match to your "circumstances", which is why you adapt the closest match

wigannwuk

thanks redx...your help is really appreciated.

wigannwuk

I have plagiarised this from another gym member from the same site.
with a little amendment. can someone critique this for me?
ive left a bit long due to other commitments and only have 5 days left to appeal
My 1st appeal to VCS i did angrily without reading any advice on here so i gave them my details though its a company car.



POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Date of PCN: 01/07/14

POPLA APPEAL

I was the driver ,and I received an invoice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) requiring payment of a charge for the alleged contravention of parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No authority or standing to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts
3. The ANPR records are unreliable, non-compliant and not proof of one parking event.
4. Unclear and Non-compliant Signage forming no contract with driver

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA Code of Practice states:
“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.''

VCS asserts that the “charge” is actually damages to recover their losses through breach of contract, however not only do I contend that this is in fact a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, VCS have also refused to present me with a breakdown of those losses and state they will only provide them at the request of a judge. These losses necessarily being a “pre-estimate” must by nature be already known to VCS. If this figure is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as claimed, there can be no genuine reason, commercial or otherwise, for VCS to withhold or refuse to provide these on request, yet as they are essentially refusing to provide a breakdown of their GPEOL I must contend that the PCN figure cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Nor is the charge commercially justified. Assessor Chris Adamson stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - another attempt to get around POPLA - that:

''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”. 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.''

VCS have introduced new and duplicated layers of checks and balances to ensure the inflated 'staff costs' add up conveniently close to the amount of the PCN. This differs substantially from previous versions of their stated intentions for the charges at this place so it cannot be their original GPEOL by any stretch of the imagination. Most PCNs never involve anything but the most minimal staff time, let alone Management intervention, since VCS' Notices are automated and only 2% of PCNs ever go to POPLA.

As VCS have since changed their GPEOL calculations from the version presented to POPLA just months ago, then I contend that the calculation must fail as a GPEOL since it is not a PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. Indeed, in the 2014 POPLA Annual Report prepared by the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, he stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

2. No authority or standing to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner/landholder’s behalf. I believe there is no contract which entitles VCS to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore I contend that VCS has no authority.

I put VCS to strict proof by showing a copy of the contemporaneous and unredacted contract with the landowner. Even if a basic site agreement sheet is produced and mentions the right to 'issue PCNs' this shows no standing nor right to litigate. 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 and the landowner/landholder and would contain nothing that VCS can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

3. ANPR records are unreliable and not proof of one parking event.
The charge is founded entirely on two photos of my vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. I put VCS to strict proof that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must show checks relating to my case/my vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work
The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Since I am merely the driver, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. VCS show no parking photographs so they cannot say for certain that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity - e.g. queuing , nor can they show the car did not leave the site and return. This could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 10 minutes.

I agree with the BPA that this ANPR technology has issues associated with its use. These also include (but are not limited to) synchronisation errors, buffering, faults with the timer, faults with one or other of the cameras, faults with the wireless signals and differences between the settings of the in/out clocks. The operator uses WIFI with an inherent delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever accurate to the minute.

In addition, the BPA CoP contains the following in paragraph 21:
''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.''
VCS fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. They place signs far too high to see on arrival and these are not lit, so there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

4. Unclear and Non-compliant Signage forming no contract with driver
This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not VCS' customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power, nor are they even aware that any 'contract' is possible. Therefore all terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. In this case, the driver maintains that the wording in the signage was unclear and vague, leading to obvious misinterpretations. (that’s my argument against the signage)

Accordingly I contend that any signs must have been unclear to the point that any core parking terms VCS are relying on were not sufficiently prominent for the driver to discern before parking. Signage must also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I put VCS to strict proof of clear signs at the entrance and all around this car park. Any photographic evidence must be taken at a similar time of day/light level as in my case.

I contend that the signs in that car park (wording and clarity) do not comply and failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed.
Also The PCN states the reason for the contravention is: Parked without displaying a valid ticket/ permit.This is not the site procedure , the rejection letter dated 6th August 2014 states "any vehicle entering the car park and using the gyms facilities is required to enter their registration at reception.It is necessary that the full registration is entered into the touch screen terminal as stated on the warning signs within the carpark." I attach an example of the signs.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal). Lord Denning continued: 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'


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

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks fine to me. Expect a shedload of paperwork as VCS' evidence to POPLA (you will get a copy, probably by email next month). When you do, search this forum for 'VCS GPEOL rebuttal' or 'Excel GPEOL rebuttal'.

wigannwuk

Cheers coupon mad...you must be getting a lot of satisfaction beating these cowboys.

Coupon-mad

It's fun and passes the time!

wigannwuk

all 5 submitted , lets hope it goes well

Dee140157

Oh that's a nice lot to hit VCS with £27 x 5 minimum £135

bazster

Dee140157 wrote: »

Oh that's a nice lot to hit VCS with £27 x 5 minimum £135

Plus the landowner is getting the jitters about about all the complaints from members. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

I hope wigannwuk is reasonably photogenic because the local paper would probably love to photograph him holding up 5 successful PoPLA adjudications.