Won appeal with IAS against VCS !!! Thinking of sending them an invoice!

Miller1974

On 1st December 2015 I attended a branch of SCS, parking in their car park. I was away from the car for about 10 minutes looking at some sale items through the window display and writing down the prices. On 20th Dec I received a PCN through the post for £60 for parking in a restricted area. At a total loss as to why I had been issued the PCN I appealed to the issuing company Vehicle Control Services Ltd. This was dismissed and the PCN put up to £100. In their correspondence they said they did not rely on POFA so this did not apply (as the PCN was over 14 days limit). They also refused the challenge about unreasonable costs (£100 for 10 mins) using the PE v Beavis case.
I then appealed to the IAS. I was then sent full disclosure of their evidence, which was of poor quality. The written evidence suggested I had left the retail park on foot (which I had n't and they could not prove) therefore breaching the contract. The actual written evidence said "parked on site, walked off site". It was clear the enforcement officer had basically watched me park, not approached me or tried to engage me about the parking, and waited until I left before photographing my car and writing out a ticket he never actually issued, saying I had driven off as he approached my car. This of course shows their true colours as a rvenue machine not trying to manage parking.
After reading advice threads on this site I lodged my appeal on a number of fronts. The main thrust I used was the enforcement officers evidence, as he clearly did not watch where I walked or checked if I had actually left the site. I also used the breach of POFA, Consumer Rights Act 2015, regulation 62(4), the fact they had not proved a prima facia case against the driver (only me as the keeper),the amount being claimed was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to VCS Ltd or the landowner.
Anyway, I won and the PCN was cancelled. Thanks to this site I wish to add!!!!
I am now thinking of sending VCS Ltd an invoice for the time I spent preparing both appeals. Has anyone done this?

Guys_Dad

IAS don't give reasons for winning do they? If so, what was the point you won on.

Don't waste your time on invoicing VCS. You have one away win against them - don't make it a draw!!!

Half_way

Congratulations on a rare win, you must have managed to get in the 20% or sop that get through the IAS
If you can post up the full appeal+reply it may come in handy, technically if there consistent ( which they are anything but) the same appeal should win again in the same circumstances.

As for this

I am now thinking of sending VCS Ltd an invoice for the time I spent preparing both appeals. Has anyone done this?

In order to get anywhere with that plan you need to be taking the lead right from the start.

When you first get the parking charge notice in the post you need to complain to the landowner and ask them to cancel the charge issued by their agents ( the parking company ) You also need to say that if they allow their agents to continue to pursue this matter then you will / may hold them ( the landowner) as principal liable for their agents actions and you will seek a re-reimbursement for your costs, expenses and time ( upto £19/hour)

You also need to keep an accurate log of your time and costs

If you then hear nothing you appeal to the PPC ( within their arbitrary time limits) and also add that should they allow this matter to continue/refuse to cancel then you may/will charge them for your time as above.

Once and only if you have fore-warned all parties involved that this is what you plan to do, and you have kept an accurate record of time/expenses and these costs are not over the top ( you should not be seeking to make money from this, only to cover your costs so you are back in the same position had this not occurred) will you stand any chance of getting some money back.

beamerguy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

IAS don't give reasons for winning do they? If so, what was the point you won on.

Don't waste your time on invoicing VCS. You have one away win against them - don't make it a draw!!!

Well done to Miller1974:T:T

Now you see, I would invoice VCS with time spent at over a £100

As IAS ( SKIPPY ) allowed the appeal, they clearly saw it was a flawed ticket that should never have been issued in the first place.

This is a two way thing and we know VCS will reject it, no matter, they will still have an invoice with a time to pay. No pay will result in chase up letters and finally a claim (just as they do)

If the OP wants some fun, he has all the evidence to do so.

Castle

beamerguy wrote: »

If the OP wants some fun, he has all the evidence to do so.

And 6 years to issue a court claim against VCS!

Miller1974

I just logged on the IAS site. All the material sent by VCS has gone! All that remains is my appeal document and photos. The other unfair side of the appeal is that VCS submits its evidence, you submit the appeal evidence and then IAS send this back to VCS for further comments before the appeal is judged. In my case I submitted my appeal, this went to VCS, and they withdrew the ticket before it was subject to the appeal panel.
My appeal letter is pasted in below;
The carpark was visited in good faith as a prospective customer.
On the day in question the driver visited the site to use the SCS store based at the site. This store is a large furniture shop. The driver had and did visit SCS on other occasions around this date with a view to making possible purchases and without being issued a PCN. The specific reason for visiting on this date was to view items in a window display and make a note of the prices on display items. The visit was made in a limited time frame, hence the very short time on site. The display in question was in the large corner window facing the road in Hipper Street (please view the photos provided showing this window). This involved parking in the car park, walking out of the car park vehicle entrance road, into Hipper Street (as observed by the Parking Patrol Officer) up to the window of the SCS showroom at the top of Hipper Street to view the display. The driver then made notes of the prices of a number of items, browsing at this display, returning to the car and then driving off. This behaviour is clearly that of a customer for the purpose of the visit and therefore not in breach of the parking conditions at the site which allow 2.5 hrs for customers.
The general suggestion by VCS is that the driver used the visit for use of other retail facilities. This is not proven and actually the Parking Patrol Officer corroborates the appellants account in his attached occurance report. Specifically there is no evidence in the Patrol Officers' report that the driver was carrying shopping bags or other retail items that would reflect a retail purchase off this site. The written evidence on the PCN is very limited being a total of 6 words. “Parked on site, walked off site”. It does not give any evidence of the direction the driver walked or other evidence that would disprove the explanation given by the appellant for parking at this site.
The time on site (short visit) also corroborates this explanation, as does the Patrol Officers' account which states the driver returned on the 10 minute mark as he was completing the ticket, which meant he was unable to fix the PCN to the vehicle. The evidence surrounding this is somewhat confusing, specifically as to why the Patrol Officer did not approach the driver and then issue the PCN. On this point it is contended that the PCN had not actually been completed, so could not be issued.
My understanding is that a 10 minute “grace” period is allowed prior to issuing a PCN. In this case the evidence suggests the driver did not actually breach the 10 minute period as the ticket was not completed or issued as he returned to the car.
That appellant was the driver – This is reported to form part of the prima facia case. This has not been admitted or proven or evidence provided to prove this point.
VCS state the ticket was issued on 16/12/2016 – according to their own evidence of the ticket itself, it was written out and issued on 1st December but not affixed to the vehicle.
The service of this Notice to Keeper was not compliant with legislation that controls recovery of unpaid parking charges.
Specifically that the Notice To Keeper was not issued to the keeper within 14 days as outlined in paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which provides conditions to be be abided by when a notice is not attached to the car at the time of the alleged contravention. This renders the NTK unlawful.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
SCHEDULE 4
l Recovery of unpaid parking charges
Paragraph 9 sub- paragraphs 4 and 5 state;-
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to VCS Ltd or the landowner – £100 for an alleged 10 minute transgression must surely be seen as extravagant and unconscionable? Can £10 per minute be reasonable in these circumstances? I would suggest clearly not.

If this continues to be relied on, please could a full breakdown of the loss be provided to justify such high level costs.

The amount is an unfair term according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, regulation 62(4).

This states; A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

Tactics used to issue PCNs appear to show a preditory approach to managing parking at the site which may be potentially unlawful.
Enquiries at SCS revealed that no effort is made, as suggested by VCS in their submission, that they try to manage parking at the site. The Patrol Officer does not try and engage persons parking at the site or point out what clearly is recognised by VCS as confusion over where customers may park when using the retail facilities situated in close proximatey. There should be much clearer signage warning customers of the possible confusion over this parking issue.
Information from SCS staff suggests the Patrol Officer parks at the top of the site, waits for persons to leave via the bottom entrance / exit, then approaches the vehicle to gather evidence, making no attempt to engage with drivers. This is not managing parking , these are tactics to simply generate revenue for VCS Ltd.

salmosalaris

@Beamerguy
And what exactly would any enforceable demand be based on ?

hoohoo

This is typical of the 20% 'wins'.

It seems like when skippy picks on a winning appeal, the operator is instructed to withdraw.

Ralph-y

Miller1974 well done :j




if you really want to make a stink .... then go back to SCS and tell them you are now going to a competitor who does not use scammers to harass customers ......

oh and

why not leave a note on the facebook page / write to the CEO and such other nefarious methods

did you and all your friends sign the petition

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

Well done on that win, very rare!