vcs

notpayingit

ok...I've received a PCN from VCS at John Lennon airport for pulling over for 20 seconds on the access road. Been reading the posts and decided to appeal. Can someone direct me to a letter i can use?

ManxRed

There are templates in the NEWBIES sticky forum. VCS are an IPC member so be warned that your appeals will be rejected by both VCS and the IAS (so called but not) 'independent' appeals process. However appealing will provide you with ammunition (their appeals process and rejection letters don't paint them in a reasonable light) should they be stupid enough to try a court claim - in fact it may well discourage them from being so foolish.

You should also raise a formal complaint to the DVLA that VCS are in breach of their KADOE agreement for obtaining Registered Keeper data - the KADOE agreement, by virtue of clauses B2 and B2.1 specifically only covers PARKING incidents, and does not cover STOPPING incidents.

Therefore VCS have obtained your details outwith of the provisions of that contract, and the Data Protection Act has been breached, and you want to know what they are going to do about it. They'll fob you off, but you should escalate it, to the ICO if necessary.

notpayingit

...thanks for the advice. Should i appeal in the first instance to POPLA? What is the probability of them accepting the appeal?

Grimble

VCS are not in the POPLA scheme, you need to appeal to VCS in the first instance.

Zemerin1

BPA member = POPLA. IPC member = IAS. The swine who have invoiced you are a member of the IPC, meaning that more than likely both your appeals will be dismissed.

Been relatively lucky myself, previous invoices I've received have all been courtesy of BPA members.

Appeal to VCS, expect it to be denied. Next step is appeal to the IAS, which again will be dismissed. What ManxRed has said is that you should appeal in both cases should VCS attempt to take you to court. It shows you have been reasonable at all stages.

There are a number of recent VCS threads floating about regarding JLA, not difficult to track them down.

Zemerin1

BPA member = POPLA. IPC member = IAS. The swine who have invoiced you are a member of the IPC, meaning that more than likely both your appeals will be dismissed.

Been relatively lucky myself, previous invoices I've received have all been courtesy of BPA members.

Appeal to VCS, expect it to be denied. Next step is appeal to the IAS, which again will be dismissed. What ManxRed has said is that you should appeal in both cases should VCS attempt to take you to court. It shows you have been reasonable at all stages.

There are a number of recent VCS threads floating about regarding JLA, not difficult to track them down.

notpayingit

ok...getting a little confused now...too much info!

So I appeal in the first instance to VCS (they will reject) and then later to IAS (who will also reject).

Can you give me a link to a template i can use to email my appeal VCS?

Who/what is JLA?

Grimble

JLA = Ringo Starr Airport or something similar.

notpayingit

ok...this is my appeal to VCS Ltd, what do you think?


VehicleControl Services Ltd XXXXXXX

POBox 4777 XXXXXXX

Sheffield XXXXXXX

S99DJ XXXXXXX

1stMay 2015

Sir

Asthe Registered Keeper of the vehicle displaying the registration mark XXXXXX, Iwould like to appeal the speculative invoice/penalty and alleged parkingcontravention as issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd on the 28thApril 2015 at Liverpool John Lennon Airport based on the following points:


1) The amount demanded is a penalty and is nota genuine pre-estimate of any losses incurred.
2) The alleged offence appears to have notoccurred on “Relevant Land” as defined under the Protection of Freedoms Act2012 and therefore there is no registered keeper liability.
3) No enforceable contract was entered into with the driver.
4) Misleading and unclear signage.

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and isnot a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
VCS Ltd alleged parking charge of £100 does not represent a genuinepre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which wouldoccur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimedis excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly “stopping on aroadway where stopping is prohibited” (as per the wording on their ParkingCharge Notice) and, as VCS Ltd are alleging a 'contravention' or “breach theterms and conditions” (as per their letter dated 28th April 2015)yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached theBPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.

VCS Ltd has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurredprior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee inthe case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once sucha loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a lossthat is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flowfrom a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respectof them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute agenuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the chargeis a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I feel the charge notice isinvalid.

I respectfully request therefore that VCS Ltdsupply a detailed breakdown of their genuine pre-estimate of loss based on 10 seconds (stopping on the road) whilstexiting and re entering the vehicle. VCS Ltd’s charge (£100) equates to an exorbitanthourly rate of £36,000.

I would consider this type of predatory behaviour and subsequent enforcement asboth overzealous and intimidating. During the stopped period (10 seconds) the driver changed overdriving duties with the passenger so that they could meet a relative. Thecharge of £100 is grossly disproportionate to any losses that could have beenreasonably incurred by the land owner. The demanded amount should be consideredas speculative, punitive and unenforceable. In view of any perceived loss of potentialparking revenue, I would be willing to make a without prejudice payment of £2 in full and final settlement for parkingcharges; had I indeed entered and used the car park.



Onlythe landowner has the right to reimbursement for any financial loss orcompensation for any activity which has acted to the detriment of thatlandowner. In the case of VCS Ltd operating as an agent for the landowner, VCS Ltdhas suffered no loss whatsoever so cannot claim for any amount by considerationof the civil remedy for an act of trespass, which should be seen as therelevant actionable offence.

2) Not Relevant Land as defined under thePOFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS Ltd are claiming POFA 2012registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is notliable for this charge as Liverpool Airport is designated as an airport by theSecretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject toairport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply. We would put to VCS Ltd toprovide proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require themto show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority thatthis land is not already covered by bylaws.

POFA 2012 is applicable only to parking on private land. The charge noticestates the offence is for 'stopping on a roadway'. This does not fall under thedefinition of parking covered by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Keeper liabilitytherefore does not apply and the operator can only pursue the driver of thevehicle. As the keeper of the vehicle, we declined, as is our right, to providethe name of the driver(s) at the time. As VCS Ltd have neither named thedriver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were we submit andappeal we are not liable to any charge.

I shall also be raising a formal complaintto the DVLA that VCS Ltd are in breach of the KADOE agreement which state underClauses B2, and B2 (1) the purposes for which Registered Keeper data can beobtained specifically mention parking incidents and not stopping incidents!

In this respect VCS Ltd have obtained mydetails out with of the provisions of that contract, and the Data ProtectionAct has therefore been breached. I would like to know what you intend to doabout this matter?

3) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able toread, understand and agree to the terms and conditions. A driver could not stopin order to read the signs as they enter the roadway as they by doing so wouldblock the junction and in turn would be in contravention of the offence thatVCS Ltd alleges.

VCS Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and despite their claims; meresigns do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the bindingdecision which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about thissort of business model.

No contract was made between the driver and VCS Ltd.
a. To form a contract, given that they may not have rights to do so in anycase, they would need to fulfil the law of contract. This would require thepassage of goods or services from VCS Ltd to the driver in return for payment.No goods or services were offered or even negotiated.
b. Unless VCS Ltd can show what goods or services were offered then the law ofcontract should be found to have not been satisfied.
c. The invoice presented to myself by VCS Ltd did not have any mention of VATupon it. It is a legal requirement for any invoice to have this detail, wherethe issuing company has a VAT registration. Since VCS Ltd claim that thismatter is being dealt with as a one of contract, i.e. for a service, that makesthe payment VAT-able in accordance with current legislation and in confirmationof the findings in the case against it by HMRC (VCS v HMRC). If it has nomention of VAT upon it, then it must relate to a penalty, which of course isnot in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice and cannot be independentlypursued as a contractual charge.

4) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a roadway where stopping isprohibited', the signs displayed are not compliant with TRSGD2002 which ismisleading as a number of other signs on this roadway do, causing furtherconfusion as VCS Ltd maintain this is a “privately operated access road atLiverpool John Lennon Airport”.

Furthermore due to the excessive writing on the entry signs it would beimpossible to read and understand the entire sign to realise it is privateproperty without stopping. That in turn would be in contravention of theoffence that VCS Ltd alleges and a clear boundary or barrier should be in placeto identify the change in ownership and allow acknowledgement and a thoroughunderstanding of the alleged terms and conditions and an opportunity to refuseacceptance and leave.

We are also led to believe that repeater signs in this area do not face theoncoming traffic and are sporadically placed. If this is true it would indicatethat they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be readwithout stopping which could be construed as entrapment, and therefore do notcomply with the BPA code of practice. We would welcome VCS Ltd to provideevidence to the contrary.



RegisteredKeeper



XXXXXXXXX

The_Deep

You need to remove the bit about GPEOL, it does not apply to contractual charges. However, if they concede that it is not a contractual charge then GPEOL does apply. The position re vat is explained in these

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...7925&highlight=

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...7925&highlight=

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...3796&highlight=

Ifyou ask for a vat compliant invoice and they refuse, shop'em.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ng-tax-evasion

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...7925&highlight=

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...7925&highlight=

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...3796&highlight=

Ifyou ask for a vat compliant invoice and they refuse, shop'em.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ng-tax-evasion
.