Received two Parking charge notices from VCS at john lennon airport

adep_2

Hi all,
In a bit of a twizz at the mo. Dropped my brother and his mrs off at Liverpool airport and picked them up the next day. Have ended up getting two tickets both delivered today. I stopped on the road for no more that 30 seconds that is apparently a no stopping /waiting in restricted areas or roadways place. I have done bit of trawling through the posts on here but I'm a tad confused as to which is the best template to use first to appeal to VCS about these tickets and do you tell/have to tell them who the driver was ? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I'm at the panic stage and don't cope very well with this sort of situation a bit of a panic freak I suppose.
Regards
bill

enfield_freddy

please type vcs and jla into the search box , or type those 2 into google , all will be answered

Ralph-y

OK stop panicking now ! that is an order .....


that better ?

I am going to give you some reading as, all this b@@licks at the 'Welcome to John Lennon Airport' is getting silly ....


first the one thread that all newbies must read is

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

that it the forum base ........

then

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5191690

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5132921

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5192051

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5130131

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5177878

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5180656

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5177198

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5177258

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5110349

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5171250

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5156653

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5152822

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5131416

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5149455

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5148343

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5105940

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5139477




The scammers that infest JLA are in cahoots with said airport as its is a (allegedly) mutual financial arrangement ....

Go back 1 year and you would win this at a POPLA appeal ..... however in the world of PPC's they can create another appeals body that are an (again allegedly) kangaroo court :eek:

you therefore can (after reading the above) chose to wait it out , or in IMHO do the appeals as a paper trail.

VCS are about to try out their first small claims court case over such .... I predict that they will pull out before the trial ..... but what do I know?

Please do not let this put you off ..... read and understand ........

then come back with any questions

(links kindly supplied by forum gods)

Ralph:cool:

adep_2

Thanks Ralph. I will have a read through them today. The not states that I have to get back to them before 14 days or both fines go up to £100 each so will have to get my skates on

Grimble

These are not fines, they are speculative invoices. No private company can fine you, stop panicking, you owe nothing twice.

adep_2

Ralph-y wrote: »

OK stop panicking now ! that is an order .....


that better ?

I am going to give you some reading as, all this b@@licks at the 'Welcome to John Lennon Airport' is getting silly ....


The scammers that infest JLA are in cahoots with said airport as its is a (allegedly) mutual financial arrangement ....

Go back 1 year and you would win this at a POPLA appeal ..... however in the world of PPC's they can create another appeals body that are an (again allegedly) kangaroo court :eek:

you therefore can (after reading the above) chose to wait it out , or in IMHO do the appeals as a paper trail.

VCS are about to try out their first small claims court case over such .... I predict that they will pull out before the trial ..... but what do I know?

Please do not let this put you off ..... read and understand ........

then come back with any questions

(links kindly supplied by forum gods)

Ralph:cool:

Ok, so ive read the trails and it all seems pretty daunting.
Not looking as if I have a great chance against these cash cow machines. Suppose I've got nothing to loose if I try and appeal the 2 tickets. For the first approach to the cash cow regards appealing is it better to use the basic layout that coupon mad gentleman has put up or am I best going for the unfair charge and signage route. There seems a lot of legal problems regarding the signage being in correct. Any help would be really appreciated as my letter writing is crap.

enfield_freddy

not sure if this link is amongst the ones you have , http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html


and please don,t forget one thing


POFA was set up to give your details from the DVLA for parking offences


the definition of parking is The act or practice of temporarily leaving a vehicle or maneuvering a vehicle into a certain location.


you did not park up , you were waiting , different offence according to Camden counsil (for an example) http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/schwarz-v-camden.pdf




YOU WERE NOT PARKED and your info has been obtained illegally

bod1467

Just appeal using the standard template provided by that Coupon_mad lady. You can drop the rant paragraph (immediately below point e) if you wish. Don't otherwise change it at all. Don't sign your name (if appealing in writing) - just print it.

adep_2

Thanks for the replies and my apologies to coupon_mad lady.
I was trawling through the many posts last night and came across what I have pasted below.
Can this be used as an appeal to VCS


Vehicle control Services Ltd


PO Box 4777


Sheffield


S9-9DJ








Dear Sir or Madam,





Ticket number: VC and VC





Vehicle registration number:





Your Company has issued two parking tickets on 24/03/2015 that arrived in the post on 30/03/2015 against my vehicle but I believe they were unfairly issued. I would like to appeal against the two issued tickets on my vehicle on the following ground:-








A) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss



The alleged contravention did not take place



C) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability



D) No landowner contract Nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers



E) No Contract with driver



F) Misleading and unclear signage



G) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park



H) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012

• A) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
  
  According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £120 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of free parking for drop off and collect from one car park and £2 for twenty minutes at another car park. According to the pictures you have used on your Parking Charge Notice my vehicle was stationary for less than 17 seconds in the first case and just 6 seconds in the second and only shows my registration plate when the vehicle has clearly moved away from the alleged scene and is thus moving and not parked. Therefore the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. I wish to see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.
  
  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. As VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge excessive and unenforceable.

• The alleged contravention did not take place
  
  the notice issued states “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” for allegedly breaching terms and conditions.
  
  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.

• C) 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 Liverpool 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 VCS 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.
• D) 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 neither 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.
• E) 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 saw no pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.
  
  The sign is not clear due to the sheer amount of information on them and therefore could not be read in a moving car, they are also not lit up in any way and look very similar to corporate advertisements also in the area for hotels and car parking.

• F) Misleading and unclear signage.
  
  Following receipt of the charge I personally visited the location and the signs do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. VCS’s signs are in the style of a commercial venture and similar to the myriad of commercial ventures along the airport approach. Because the signs are not in the style of a standard road sign there is nothing to draw a driver’s attention to them.
  
  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. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''
  
  If VCS intend this apparently private road to be treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002 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.
  
  Repeater signs in this area are located in the area of the car parks and on fences running parallel to the road, therefore not facing the oncoming traffic and are not positioned where the driver would have seen them. Therefore they were unable to be seen by the driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and consequently do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.
• G) 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'.
  
  
  H) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012
  
  
  Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA stipulate the mandatory set of information that must be included on the notice to keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
  
  The Parking Charge Notice issued to me and attached to this appeal does not:
  
  a. Stipulate the period the car was parked (start and end times)
  b. Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.
  
  The wording of Paragraph 9(2) (h) of Schedule 4 of POFA indicates that the ‘creditor must be identified’. To “identify” a “Creditor” VCS must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has been legally contracted.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.














Yours faithfully,


me


Sorry for the big log txt but finding it hard to grasp which angle to go at.
Was reading on a forum today about JLA and VCS regards that the signage is wrong illegal size lettering, wrong place and not giving motorists the time to read at the 40 mph limit etc etc. Thanks for you help in advance

enfield_freddy

no do the appeals separately , they are 2 separate events

bod1467

And that's more a POPLA appeal than a PPC appeal. Just stick with the tried and tested template from the NEWBIES thread. (Same thing sent twice, one for each PCN).

If you wish to deviate from the advice then good luck.