Robin Hood Airport 'PCN'

Coupon-mad

There's at least one pre-written Airport VCS POPLA appeal in the Newbies thread of course, waiting for you to adapt it.

Evela

Fab, thanks guys, will be on it tomorrow,
cheers

Evela

Hi guys I am really bad at this legal stuff, would you take a look at the draft, I took it from someone on here that won in January, so hoping its not out of date.
My main concern is that in the rejection letter VCS state that the signage has been approved by senior management at the BPA.( regards to size, facing the correct way etc) So just wondering if anything may have altered in the last 7 months that i may need to alter in the appeal. regarding that or anything else.
I have done it in a Word doc, so can just tweak whatever you think needs changing. Should I mention Robin hood airport instead of just Airport?
Thank you for your time and help.



Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Limited
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-July-2014
Date of notice: XX-August-2014
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 on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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.
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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine 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. Signage not compliant with the BPA code of practice and not forming a contract with a driver.

I believe the signs and any core terms VCS are relying upon were unclear in all respects. VCS needs to show POPLA their evidence and signage map/photos which they might contend meet all the requirements I have listed below.There are no low-positioned, clear signs on entry to this road which would have communicated the terms & conditions of stopping there to a seated driver in moving traffic. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including ''The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. VCS have a duty to make the terms so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means that the elements of a contract have not been met. To suggest a breach of contract, VCS also needs to show that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which they cannot do as it is clearly untrue. The idea that any driver would accept these terms to pay this charge knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. The truth is that the driver did not see, understand nor accept the alleged terms. VCS may claim that generic signage is displayed in this are of road but it is not marked as a red route or clearway and there is a lack of illuminated repeater signage facing oncoming traffic. So this does not meet the BPA Code of Practice rules nor the requirements for consideration when forming an alleged contract. It is fact impossible to read the terms and conditions of the contract without stopping.
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.''

3. Not relevant land

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 land is not already covered by bylaws.

4. Failure to identify the creditor.

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. This they have failed to do and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

5. No contract with landowner.

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.

6. No standing to bring a claim to pursue this charge.

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 the owner/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.

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

Redx

too old in my opinion

I would have used the linked example in post #3 of the newbies thread, adapted of course

ie:- this one VCS AT DONCASTER ROBIN HOOD AIRPORT (BYELAWS QUOTED & IF HE HAD NOT ADMITTED HE WAS DRIVING HE COULD ALSO HAVE SAID 'NOT RELEVANT LAND') - dated 16 july 2014

post #12 told you about it too

Evela

Ah found it thanks, sorry it took me a while im guessing this one Coupon mad has written should do the trick!


Dear POPLA
POPLA verification code: xxxxxxxxx

An invoice "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" of £100 was issued to me, as the keeper and driver of a vehicle alleged to have stopped on the roadway ''where stopping is prohibited".

My appeal points are:

1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
2. VCS lacks standing to pursue charges or make contracts in their own right
3. No contravention of the Airport byelaws
4. Unreadable signage for a no-stopping zone (signs and lines are unclear)

Explained as follows:

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 unredacted 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:



''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. VCS lacks standing to pursue charges or make contracts with drivers in their own right
I require VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract which assigns them the proprietary rights to make contracts with drivers and to enforce charges in the courts. The BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7 requires those words when the Operator is not the landowner. I am not merely contesting VCS' right to 'issue PCNs'. Any contractor team at the Airport with a PC and printer could send out such letters but, of course, it does not follow that every Airport contractor can sue a driver. So, a mere witness statement or site agreement slip of paper, saying that VCS can 'issue' PCNs (i.e. send letters) will not be enough to rebut this appeal point which is about their lack of legal standing.

3. No contravention of the Airport byelaws
Byelaws apply to this entire Airport land and there was no contravention. The byelaws show parking controls apply to all private roads on the airport.



''5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:
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.''

As I have already explained in my representations to VCS, mine was an emergency stop caused by a temporary issue with the car which would have been dangerous to ignore. It is a fact that an emergency stop is exempt under the terms of the byelaws and indeed if I had continued to drive it would have breached these sections of the byelaws:

"Driving offences
5(1) Not to 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.''


　
4. Unreadable signage for a no-stopping zone (signs and lines are unclear)
VCS presented me with "so called" proof of "stopping on the roadway, where stopping is prohibited", however the photos show my car adjacent to a single white line which has no such meaning. 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. If VCS intend this road to be an urban 'clearway' then, under the BPA CoP, the signs must follow the TSRGD2002 to avoid misleading and confusing drivers. If VCS wanted to create a 'no-stopping zone' they need larger, clearer and unobscured repeater signs and double red or yellow lines.

In the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013, there is a section about "No Stopping Zones" which states:
''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".

Evela

obviously with the changes in there for my situation and ircumstances

Evela

circumstances!

Redx

lol

if you read her comments it also states that the driver named themselves so POFA 2012 could not apply, as airports are not relevant land for POFA 2012

THEREFORE, if you havent given the game away you have an extra appeal point to add about that fact, keeper not liable as POFA 2012 doesnt apply, so check the other airport ones for it and add it (if you didnt name the driver at all)

ie:- point 3 of the original draft

Coupon-mad

Redx wrote: »

lol

if you read her comments it also states that the driver named themselves so POFA 2012 could not apply, as airports are not relevant land for POFA 2012

THEREFORE, if you havent given the game away you have an extra appeal point to add about that fact, keeper not liable as POFA 2012 doesnt apply, so check the other airport ones for it and add it (if you didnt name the driver at all)

ie:- point 3 of the original draft

Exactly what I was going to say - this poster can definitely add a paragraph about 'not relevant land' which he will find back in the linked examples of 'Airport cases' in post #3 of the newbies thread (How to win at POPLA) which is where this VCS one came from. Or as you say, just add in point #3 of the original (January) draft, to this newer draft as point #5.

Also see this one as your draft has no 'ANPR/unfair secret camera van' point:

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

And don't forget to attach & mention the picture of the signs obscured by flags! It's in the one you used for the above draft, in a link.

Evela

Hi guys, would you check this draft, hoping to get it sent tomorrow, Just copied and pasted it from WORD, (but had to take out the links as it wont accept them on here) to be attached with the photograph (1a) of the flags in the way of the signs, there will still probably be lots of mistakes really useless at this stuff, but would appreciate you time.

Dear POPLA
POPLA verification code: xxxxxxxxx

An invoice "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" of £100 was issued to me, (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) as the registered keeper of a vehicle alleged to have stopped on the roadway ''where stopping is prohibited".

My appeal points are:

1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
2. VCS lacks standing to pursue charges or make contracts in their own right
3. No contravention of the Airport byelaws
4. Unreadable signage for a no-stopping zone (signs and lines are unclear)
5. Not relevant land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
6. Non-compliant ANPR ‘hidden camera van’ at this location that is not a car park.

Explained as follows:

1. The charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss

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:



''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. VCS lacks standing to pursue charges or make contracts with drivers in their own right

I require VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract that assigns them the proprietary rights to make contracts with drivers and to enforce charges in the courts. The BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7 requires those words when the Operator is not the landowner. I am not merely contesting VCS' right to 'issue PCNs'. Any contractor team at the Airport with a PC and printer could send out such letters but, of course, it does not follow that every Airport contractor can sue a driver. So, a mere witness statement or site agreement slip of paper, saying that VCS can 'issue' PCNs (i.e. send letters) will not be enough to rebut this appeal point which is about their lack of legal standing.

3. No contravention of the Airport byelaws

Byelaws apply to this entire Airport land and there was no contravention. The byelaws show parking controls apply to all private roads on the airport.


''5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:
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.''



4. Unreadable signage for a no-stopping zone (signs and lines are unclear)

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. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading.
They certainly cannot be read without stopping and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. Please see photograph ‘1a’, attached as a jpeg, which evidences this point. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to 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.’’

In the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013, there is a section about "No Stopping Zones" which states:
''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".


5) 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.



6) 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,