Berkeley Center, Sheffield: VCS

hippojay

Hi,

Got a charge notice On Thursday for overstaying at the free car park in Berkeley Centre/Precinct in Sheffield. They claim we were 15 mins over and as they supplied evidence in the letter, I assume they are correct..

Well, actually my wife got the notice as the registered keeper.

The car park is a free one, no tickets are required to be displayed, and has a 2 hour limit.

The company is Vehicle Control Services (VCS) and I was going to go through the POPLA process (using the template letter), but I read that they have changed from BPA to IPC recently - and that it's no longer worth going down that route.

However, inspecting the signs (and that's not straight forward as they are 8-10 feet up on a pole!), they still state they are a member of BPA. Plus they mention Excel parking a bit, which is confusing.

Whats the best course of action here? The signs don't mention any contract (just T&Cs), but the letter states that by accepting the T&Cs I'm contractually bound and that I need to go through the IPC/IAS process.


Here is a picture of the sign on entering the car park:
hxxp://imageshack.com/a/img540/6560/GbP0WZ.jpg

Here is a picture of the full T&Cs referred to in the first sign. And yes, the writing really is that small, I'm not sure you can reasonably read it:

hxxp://imageshack.com/a/img537/4299/wUCabD.jpg

EDIT: Sorry I had to alter the links as I'm not allow to post URLs.

Fruitcake

hippojay wrote: »

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/6560/GbP0WZ.jpg


http://imageshack.com/a/img537/4299/wUCabD.jpg

EDIT: Sorry I had to alter the links as I'm not allow to post URLs.

The NEWBIES thread covers PoPLA and IPC, and I'm sure there is now a section on PPCs that have jumped from one to the other.


As the signs still say BPA you could still appeal on GPEOL, or alternatively ignore everything unless you get court papers. (Real ones that is, not threatogrammes.)


The thinking now is that the IPC appeals process is not fit for purpose and you will actually stand a better chance of getting this quashed.


Get reading and come back here if you need further clarification. All is explained in the NEWBIES thread.


... and changing the URL was exactly right thing to do as Newbies can't post links.

hippojay

Fruitcake wrote: »

As the signs still say BPA you could still appeal on GPEOL, or alternatively ignore everything unless you get court papers. (Real ones that is, not threatogrammes.)

The thinking now is that the IPC appeals process is not fit for purpose and you will actually stand a better chance of getting this quashed.

Thanks. I read the newbies thread and also a number of other threads on here before posting - but the confusion for me is the best course of action for an IPC member. The newbie thread says that an appeal is unlikely to be accepted and may not be worth it, but not whether this is still the process to go through regardless.

Fruitcake

hippojay wrote: »

Thanks. I read the newbies thread and also a number of other threads on here before posting - but the confusion for me is the best course of action for an IPC member. The newbie thread says that an appeal is unlikely to be accepted and may not be worth it, but not whether this is still the process to go through regardless.

Unfortunately only you can decide. The IPC appeals process is not independent and is completely biased in favour of the operator.
It depends whether you want to appeal and risk losing. This may or may not help if it ever gets to court, but the general consensus seems to be that it will be easier to win at real court than kangaroo court.

MallyMon

Hello. I live in Sheffield too and received a similar notice for a car park in Hillsborough. However, the notice they sent me said that there had been a violation but did not mention what the violation was. Is this the case on your notice too? There were also photos of my car which, to be honest, could have been taken anywhere. There were also times printed on the notice. The car park I used was, in the past, free for two hours but it has changed now to ninety mins, which I didn't know. So I had stayed over ninety mins but within two hours. However, if you look at information on line about these private car parks, there is a lot of good advice. I wrote to the address on my notice asking exactly what was the nature of the violation. The notice simply said that I was in violation. Of what, I asked. However, the car park being free is quite contentious since that means that the owners have lost nothing by you being there over the time. They've not lost revenue and the charge - whatever it is - is disproportionate to the alleged violation. There is a link on Money Saving Experts (I'm not allowed to post links in case I'm a spammer! - I'm not) which will lead you to more information. As it says, don't just automatically pay. There's no need to blame your poor wife, either! As I say, I wrote to them. I also wrote to my MP (Nick Clegg). The company ignored my first letter and then sent a demand for payment. I wrote again. They cancelled the whole thing. So it IS worth arguing your corner. I'd start off by contacting the company rather than any association. Don't be scared by any bullying tactics. It worked for me, and I hope it will work for you too. What have you got to lose? Good luck!

Coupon-mad

the notice they sent me said that there had been a violation but did not mention what the violation was. Is this the case on your notice too?

That's worth looking at, hippojay, what does your Notice say?

They claim we were 15 mins over and as they supplied evidence in the letter, I assume they are correct.

Please show both sides of the postal PCN (just cover the PCN number/car reg/Name/Address).

From the signs I would suggest this might be worth trying an IAS appeal as the red/white one is unreadable, as you can prove, and the other one talks about those 'Terms & Conditions' yet you can't read them. Also the blue sign clearly shows any transgression is a breach of contract situation: 'if you do not adhere to the (unreadable) terms & conditions...' therefore any charge must be based on a GPEOL. And Excel is a completely different firm and company number so why do they appear on the sign - uncertainty of who is enforcing the PCN for any (unreadable) breach.

Anyway the postal Notice please, both sides! We saw a VCS one the other day which was clearly ONLY aimed at the driver, no keeper liability (not that IAS care).

hippojay

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Please show both sides of the postal PCN (just cover the PCN number/car reg/Name/Address).

Thanks - here is a scan of the full notice:

hxxps://dropbox.com/s/1jznextinlo3d7e/Berkeley%20vcs%20npc.pdf

Mallymon - thanks for the reply.
It does state the reason for the charge (overstaying) and by how long. The evidence is from some anpr shots, which have time stamps. They are too small on the version they sent me to read exactly, but I would guess they have slightly better versions available.

I do agree with you - and it's the general theme - that the charge doesn't seem to fit a free car park. I drove past today at a similar day/time and it was 80% empty, only shop open was KFC (Tesco/boots/Costa being the other main retailers - were all closed). But from reading, that sort of mitigation argument doesn't hold sway.

Coupon-mad

Here's your picture:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1jznextinlo3d7e/Berkeley%20vcs%20npc.pdf

Interesting - yet again VCS are using a NTK which cannot hold the registered keeper liable under the POFA. They clearly say they are only writing to the keeper to get the driver's details and if they pursue the keeper it will be 'on the assumption that you were the driver'.

So your wife could try an IAS appeal which says categorically that she was NOT the driver but was merely the passenger that day (head that bit up 'statement of truth - the keeper was not the driver but was the passenger only').

State that as a fact then add that she will not be naming the driver because the POFA 2012 positively enshrines the right of a keeper not to be obliged to name the driver. And the DVLA has stopped the IPC from their initial practice of insisting the appellant tick a box to say who was driving, so clearly the IAS cannot try to impose such an unsupported assumption on a keeper. Indeed it was the will of Parliament during the reading of the POFA Bill that the keeper could not be obliged to name the driver, as is confirmed in this Impact Assessment re the POF Bill:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98411/keeper-liability-parking-ia.pdf

Parliament's view was that to force a registered keeper to name the driver
'would be a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private property, which is essentially a civil dispute between two private parties.'
Therefore this operator cannot hold the keeper liable at all, since they have not bothered to send a Notice to Keeper (NTK) which contains the necessary wording from paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. Indeed the NTK states it is only aimed at the driver (VCS' choice then, not to be able to pursue the keeper with this document when that keeper was not the driver, as in this case). The keeper cannot be held liable and the IAS cannot step beyond the will of Parliament, the Dept for Transport and the DVLA by making unsafe assumptions, particularly in a case where the keeper has categorically stated as truth that they were NOT driving and were the passenger on the day.

{then explain all the faults in the NTK, compared to paragraph 9, and you MUST attach as evidence, both sides of the PCN as well as pics of those signs}.

Also have a section on unclear signs...

Put it together in your own words (in your wife's name as keeper) and show us your first draft. To find typical flaws with NTKs when compared to paragraph 9 have a look at the CEL example (Civil Enforcement) of a POPLA appeal linked in 'How to win at POPLA' in post #3 of the Newbies thread because your PCN here is very similarly non-compliant and very obviously not a POFA version.

hoohoo

Also the sign say 'failure to comply', so GPEOL is in play

Coupon-mad

hoohoo wrote: »

Also the sign say 'failure to comply', so GPEOL is in play

Good point hoohoo; I just came back to add that here myself in case the OP missed it!