Anything special to note re: Vehicle Control Services?

esmerobbo

zoonyx wrote: »

Happy to do that - and will, but the road is not owed by frankies so I foresee problems with that route. Not that that'll stop me complaining - just saying!

Although Frankies don't own the road they lease or own the property on the retail park, and pay for the privilege. Most outlets are unhappy with PPC's as they receive nothing from them except for the hassle they cause their customers. Or worse their ex-customers.

A decent manager should at least try and do something if their genuine customers are receiving these charges

zoonyx

True.

F+Bs have also been good so far and put me in touch with the area manager. Will report back how we get on.

AlsoRalphy - I feel your pain bro! That really is taking the mick!

zoonyx

By the way, the signage in the location can only be read by getting out of the car and reading it - is this unclear signage, since you can't read the contract terms until you've supposedly breached them?

zoonyx

OK, here's my email.... just a 'yes its fine' would be great It's a combination of various emails, including the main newbie template...

...

Dear Sirs,

The Registered Keeper of the above vehicle denies any liability for the unenforceable charge detailed in the above Parking Charge Notice.

Firstly, for clarity:

The driver will not be identified during this appeal process as this is not required under POFA 2012. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA, the only independent ADR with a scrutiny panel and trained Assessors. The 'IAS' offered by IPC firms will not be used, for well-documented reasons.

Appeal reason:

There has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss to the landowner - who's facilities were being used at the time by the driver. It is also disproportionate and not a core price term. The sum is extravagant, uncocnscionable and cannot be justified. The charge does not represent any form of loss to you, the landowner or any associated businesses. Therefore the charge is purely punitive, a penalty, and unlawful.

The signage is very poor and the terms and conditions cannot be read without allegedly breaching the those same terms and conditions. Therefore no fair contract took place, and the charge cannot be upheld.

The vehicle was being used to visit the facilities of the landowner and the sublet retail units at the time, and the vehicle was not causing any obstruction. Your own images (Image 3) clearly show the vehicle moving away after turning having missed the entrance to one of park's businesses.

Please note there is also no evidence that you have any interest in the land, and the driver has complained to the landowner, and the business the driver visited that day.

''Drop hands'' offer
The charge is baseless but I realise that you may have nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs for responding to your junk mail dressed up to mimic a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15 so this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days and I will not pursue you for my costs.

Breach of CCRs
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered nor expressly agreed. This 'contract' is cancelled and any obligations now end.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

x

Herzlos

If they are with the IPC, they can't use POPLA, so drop that. It's up to you if you want to appeal to the IAS (I would, because it costs them money and makes you look more reasonable. If it made it to court and you won based on something they rejected, you've got a good case for getting your costs and some great evidence to give to the SRA. Others don't want to give it any validity by acknowledging it as an appeal service).

I'd be pointing out that 30 seconds is well within any reasonable time required to try to understand the signage (I've forgotten the correct term) and can represent no loss.

I'd be tempted to say that the driver (who will not be named) spent 30 seconds attempting to read the sign before deciding not to park, so the contract was rejected.



In any case, this would never make it to court.

zoonyx

Yeah I know it was just an excuse to belittle IAS and make me feel better :P

(Should it be removed?)

zoonyx

Sorry I think you edited your reply after I posted.

I'll remove me (Damn!). I like your thinking regarding the time to understand the signage - especially as I am adamant that the car has moved in image 3! I believe we were genuinely stopped 30 seconds max.

I'm going to go for a 2nd draft....

zoonyx

Here is draft 2, many thanks for suggestions....

Dear Sirs,

The Registered Keeper of the above vehicle denies any liability for the unenforceable charge detailed in the above Parking Charge Notice.

The driver will not be identified during this appeal process as this is not required under POFA 2012. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge.

Appeal reason:

The vehicle was stopped for 30 seconds - your own supplied images clearly show this, and the car has moved/is pulling away (image 3). Your own timestamps prove the 30 second timeframe. During this 30 second period, the signage/contract terms were read, and rejected immediately. The vehicle was then immediately removed from the area covered. I challenge you to read the signage in full in less than 30 seconds. The contract therefore was immediately rejected, and no breach could have occured.

There has also been no genuine pre-estimate of loss to the landowner - who's facilities were being visited at the time by the driver. It is also disproportionate and not a core price term. The sum is extravagant, unconscionable and cannot be justified. The charge does not represent any form of loss to you, the landowner or any associated businesses. Therefore the charge is purely punitive, a penalty, and unlawful.

The signage is also very poor and the terms and conditions cannot be read without allegedly breaching the those same terms and conditions. Therefore no fair contract took place, and the charge cannot be upheld.

The vehicle was being used to visit the facilities of the landowner and the sublet retail units at the time, and the vehicle was not causing any obstruction. Your own images (Image 3) clearly show the vehicle moving away after turning having missed the entrance to one of park's businesses.

Please note there is also no evidence that you have any interest in the land, and the driver has complained to the landowner, and the business the driver visited that day.

''Drop hands'' offer
The charge is baseless but I realise that you may have nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs for responding to your mailing. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15 so this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days and I will not pursue you for my costs.

Breach of CCRs
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered nor expressly agreed. This 'contract' is cancelled and any obligations now end.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

blah blah

Also, this is a photo of the sign. I will confirm whether they've been altered, but they appear to display the BPA logo at the bottom - naughty!

[IMG]http://www.s!!!!horpetelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276413/Article/images/22788913/6800646-large.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.s!!!!horpetelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276413/Article/images/22788913/6800646-large.jpg

http://www.s!!!!horpetelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276413/Article/images/22788913/6800646-large.jpg

Nice swear filter MSE

Replace with... I've been to Southampton but I've never been to .... SCUN-THORPE
[IMG]http://www.s!!!!horpetelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276413/Article/images/22788913/6800646-large.jpg[/IMG]

Herzlos

It looks good. I'm not sure if you want to imply the signage was fully read (it's presumably unreadable), but I'll be interested to see what they say about enforcing a contract that's been rejected.

They'll spend 10 seconds rejecting it anyway though, but you can use whatever they say against them later

zoonyx

Thanks again,

Appeal sent with slight mod to highlight that we were unable to complete reading the terms as they were unclear, but left immediately after rejecting the contract regardless.