We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Advice request for IAS appeal after VCS appeal from Doncaster Airport ROAD
crags007
Posts: 2 Newbie
I received a Parking Charge Notice for stopping briefly on double yellow lines on the approach roads at Doncaster airport. I accept that even though the roads are private and they do not have any legal authority to issue a penalty, I still should not have stopping on double yellows.
Having done so, and read about it, I honestly thought I had a few good points to win my appeal with VCS, but it was rejected.
I apologise for the length of this message, which is because as a new user I am not allowed to use links in my post and so I have to include the letters within in this message. I have used colours to try to make it easier for readers to quickly and easily identify each letter.
The rest of this post is:
- First appeal letter
- VCS rejection letter
- IAS appeal letter
- My points of concern to readers of this post
*** First appeal letter ***
Dear Vehicle Control Services (VCS)
As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
1) The legal basis of your charge is unclear
The alleged contravention took place on a road, not in a car park.
VCS has issued a “Parking Charge Notice” but with a reason of “Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”. Photographs have been provided as evidence, which allegedly shows the vehicle to be stationary for a period of thirty seconds in a roadway, which is not a designated parking area.
This is not, and cannot be construed as, parking and so there was no parking contravention at all.
In this instance, a “Parking Charge Notice” is not appropriate for the alleged contravention of “Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”.
2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
The IPC code of practice states: “All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions. If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts”.
In this case, the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair. The amount claimed is excessive, which is attempted to be enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The first fifteen minutes in the Robin Hood Airport pick up / drop off car park are free; the alleged contravention lasted thirty seconds, which is significantly less than fifteen minutes but yet VCS is demanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for what would have been free parking.
Note that parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. As VCS is alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the IPC Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.
3) Signage does not comply with IPC Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
The IPC code of practice states “Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract which will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge”.
And
“You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must;
• Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed suchthat it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”
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.
The signage does not in any way make it clear to the driver that any contract is being entered into. The signage does not state any terms and conditions and nor does it make reference to any terms and conditions that may be shown on other signage.
On this basis, no contract has been agreed and accepted.
The IPC code of practice states “You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must;
• Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”;
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. In this case, the signs cannot be read without stopping.
Further, it must be noted that in this location, a driver could not stop in order to read the signs when entering the road as they by doing so would block the junction and cause a hazard, and indeed, contravene the “no stopping” rule.
The IPC code of practice states “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.
There are numerous breaches of the IPC code of practice which lead to failure to form any contract with the driver.
Please issue your standard cancellation letter on the basis of this appeal. This will end this matter where there will be no further communication.
If you still believe you have a cause for action, send a detailed rejection letter, which must state:
• the legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your recent Notice failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.
• if alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
• if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law.
*** VCS Rejection Letter (OCR scan to text as I cannot use links)
We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received on the 6th July 2016 in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of
the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary.
It is disappointing to note that whilst you state that you were not the driver, you have not
provided details of the driver nor any evidence to suppoft that you were not the driver. As
such, we shall continue to pursue the outstanding PCN on the reasonable assumption that
you were the driver on the date in question. It may be a matter for the courts to decide should it be necessary for us to engage that course of action.
Whilst we understand your concern at receiving a Notice, it is entirely the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the Terms and Conditions of use for the airports private access roads, The roadway in question is part of a high security zone and as such motorists are clearly advised not to park, stop or wait on double yellow lines, red routes zones or roadways at any time, Such actions may also pose an obstruction or danger to other road users. There are numerous warning signs in place along the private access roads.
After review of our CCTV footage we can confirm that on the 18th June 2016, you stopped your vehicle in a prohibited area for a unreasonable amount of time. Whilst we appreciate the circumstances you have described however, please be advised that our signage located throughout the area clearly stìte "No Stopping at Any Time". It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware and compliant with the Terms and Conditions of this area.
We can confirm that there are 82 prominent information signs situated at key locations throughout the area and our site photographs confirm that they can be obserued at the entrance and throughout the site. The signs state: "No Stopping" and "Strictly no stopping on red route, double yellow lines, roadways or bus stops", Furthermore, the signage in situ is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and is compliant with the IPC code of Practice, Text size is relative to the average approach speed of an approaching vehicle on those roads.
We can confirm that you did enter into a contract with Vehicle Control Seruices. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a part!cular area, by implication, a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Limited and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop/park.
In response to your comments in relation to the amount of our pCN charges, we must advise
that our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would also refer you to the recent judgment passed down by ihe Cout of Appeals in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis ([2015] EWCA Civ 402).
You have raised a number of points in your appeal which are not appropriate for us to deal with at this stage. Please note that, as members of the International Parking Community (IpC) it is necessary for us to evidence to the IPC that we have relevant authority to undertake enforcement activity at the site concerned and that our signs in situ are compliant in setting out the relevant terms and conditions of use.
We will defend the points you have raised as appropriate should the matter proceed to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and/or Couft. We have therefore dealt with the pertinent points in your appeal.
We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and your appeal
(representations) is therefore rejected. we will not accept any further appeals.
What you should do next - Either:
1. Pay the Parking Charge. In order to settle the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate, the payment of £60.00 is to be received within our office by llth August 2016, after which the amount payable will revert to £100.00. Payments can be made online at vehiclecontrol.co.uk/payments by following the links for "PCN Payment", or over the phone by using a valid credit oi debit card.
Alternatively, you can pay by cheque or postal order through the post made payable to Vehicle Control Services Ltd. Postal delivery timescales should be taken into account if you are sending payment by post to ensure it reaches us by the specified date; we cannot be responsible for delays in the post.
OR:
2' If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS). In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is contained. in the subject header of this letter).
Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter,
It is impoftant you note that if you wish to appeal to the IAS and your appeal is unsuccessful, the discount offer will no longer apply and the full amount of £100.00 will be pursued, please be aware that if a payment is made against the PCN prior to lodging an appeal with the IAS, or receiving adjudication from the IAS, and if it is accepted as Full and Final settlement of the PCN, any appeal to thê IAS will automatically be dismissed.
*** my (not yet finished) IAS appeal letter ***
1. The alleged contravention did not take place.
VCS has issued a “Parking Charge Notice” but with a reason of “Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides private car park operators with the authority to recover parking charges from the registered keepers of infringing vehicles.
The photographs on the Parking Charge Notice clearly show the vehicle in a road and not in a car park and so the alleged contravention took place on a road, not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all.
The Parking Charge Notice is in no way applicable to the alleged contravention.
VCS is not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping in a road.
2. No contract was entered into.
The IPC code of practice states:
“Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract which will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge”.
And
“5) Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the
reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a
trespass as the case may be;”
The signage does not state that a contract is being entered into with the creditor and it is not clear to any motorist that they are entering into any contract.
On this basis, no contract has been agreed and accepted.
The IPC code of practice states:
“Entrance Signs should:
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms
and conditions”.
The signage does not state any terms and conditions and nor does it make reference to any terms and conditions that may be shown on other signage.
On this basis, no terms and conditions can have been accepted.
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.
The IPC code of practice states:
“You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must;
• Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”;
The sign when entering the private road cannot be read without stopping. To stop at that point, which is close to the junction, would pose an obstruction that would be dangerous to other road users.
Further, a driver could not stop in order to read the signs when entering the road because by doing so would allegedly breach very same conditions the driver is supposed to read about in the so called “warning signs”.
In any case, as VCS Ltd are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract.
3. Parking charges.
The IPC code of practice that you must adhere to states:
“8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions. If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts”.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair. The amount claimed is excessive, which is attempted to be enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to comply with the IPC code of practice, VCS must demonstrate how these charges are calculated.
Note that this is the second time of asking for this information.
As VCS is alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the IPC Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.
Should VCS ignore the IPC code of practice and claim that the charges are commercially justified, I would argue that the charges of £100 (reduced to £60) are excessive and not commercially justified.
By comparison, the higher level Penalty Charge Notice issued by DMBC is £70, reduced to £35.
This is a fair comparison that shows VCS charges to be excessive and unconscionable, which cannot be commercially justified.
Further, if charges are to be commercially justified, they should be applied in a way as to put the creditor in a position that they would have been had the alleged contravention not have taken place.
In this case, there would be no loss and so the charge is being applied as a penalty, not commercial justification.
If commercial justification is claimed, VCS must demonstrate how these charges are calculated based upon their commercial justification. Failure to do so would result this as simply being a penalty.
The first fifteen minutes in the Robin Hood Airport pick up / drop off car park are free; the alleged contravention lasted thirty seconds, which is significantly less than fifteen minutes but yet VCS is demanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for what would have been free parking.
The Parking Eye v Beavis ([2015] EWCA Civ 402) case that has been quoted is not applicable to this alleged contravention.
In the Parking Eye v Beavis case, Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance.
The Beavis case is applied on the basis of an over-stay whereas in this alleged contravention, VCS is using the Parking Charge Notice as a penalty without even entering a carpark.
Note that parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place.
4. No grace period was offered
The letter received from VCS to reject my appeal states:
“…Stopped your vehicle for an unreasonable amount of time…”.
According to the images provided, the vehicle was stationary for a period of 30 seconds. This cannot be deemed unreasonable by any stretch of imagination.
The IPC code of practice states:
“15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.
The letter from VCS advising of rejection of my appeal states:
“…on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle…”
And
“…you state that you were not the driver, you have not provided details of the driver…”
And
“…on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver…”
It is not reasonable to assume who the driver might have been. VCS is trying to issue a parking charge notice and it is irrelevant who the driver of the vehicle was.
The IPC Code of Practice states:
“Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 prescribes the steps you must follow to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for an unpaid parking charge”.
In accordance with this, my details have been obtained from DVLA as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and it is not a requirement to know details of the driver or to make assumptions as to who the driver might have been.
At no point have I made any reference to who the driver might or might not have been.
*** My points of concern to this forum ***
There are many breaches of the IPC code of practice and many points on which there is no legal basis for the Parking Charge Notice to be issued. These points were raised in the appeal but they have not been answered in the rejection letter.
The rejection letter suggests possible use of a court of law. However, this cannot be the best course of action given that many issues that have been raised have been ignored by VCS, and with a case that is based upon assumptions.
The appeal has not been fair where many points raised have been ignored by VCS, which again is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice.
All of these points will be taken into consideration should this case be heard in a court of law.
I must now appeal to IAS, which I read about IAS being tied in and to expect the appeal to be automatically rejected. Is this true? What then?
I did consider writing to IPC to report the breaches in the Code of Practice but given that my appeal now must go to IAS (part of IPC) then I assume there is no point.
Is there any benefit in writing to DVLA to complain about breaches of IPC Code of Practice?
I see that lots of cases are being lost due to the Beavis case where it seems there is no-longer a case for claiming genuine pre-estimate of loss (one of my points). I need to read more about the Beavis case but so far, it seems to me as though this case isn't even applicable to mine.
The IPC Code of Practice seems to have wording that seems to get around some of my points for the terms and conditions and the contract with the creditor and so I am less confident with my case now.
To me, the signs do not make it clear what the terms are but does a basic "No Stopping at any time" and "£100 automatic charge..." constitute terms and conditions?
There seem to be lots of reports of such cases going to court (and losing). Is it now the case that parking companies are winning the battle? - They seem more keen to go to court now.
VCS seem to have breached many IPC rules as set out in the IPC Code of Pactice. How much importance is there on this?
Whilst I feel as though there are many breaches that VCS fall foul on, I actually feel like just paying to prevent a court case that could potentially be lost. When all is said and done, I have parked on yellow lines regardless of whether they can be enforced or not.
I would appreciate some advice on the reality of the situation.
Having done so, and read about it, I honestly thought I had a few good points to win my appeal with VCS, but it was rejected.
I apologise for the length of this message, which is because as a new user I am not allowed to use links in my post and so I have to include the letters within in this message. I have used colours to try to make it easier for readers to quickly and easily identify each letter.
The rest of this post is:
- First appeal letter
- VCS rejection letter
- IAS appeal letter
- My points of concern to readers of this post
*** First appeal letter ***
Dear Vehicle Control Services (VCS)
As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
1) The legal basis of your charge is unclear
The alleged contravention took place on a road, not in a car park.
VCS has issued a “Parking Charge Notice” but with a reason of “Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”. Photographs have been provided as evidence, which allegedly shows the vehicle to be stationary for a period of thirty seconds in a roadway, which is not a designated parking area.
This is not, and cannot be construed as, parking and so there was no parking contravention at all.
In this instance, a “Parking Charge Notice” is not appropriate for the alleged contravention of “Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”.
2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
The IPC code of practice states: “All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions. If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts”.
In this case, the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair. The amount claimed is excessive, which is attempted to be enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The first fifteen minutes in the Robin Hood Airport pick up / drop off car park are free; the alleged contravention lasted thirty seconds, which is significantly less than fifteen minutes but yet VCS is demanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for what would have been free parking.
Note that parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. As VCS is alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the IPC Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.
3) Signage does not comply with IPC Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
The IPC code of practice states “Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract which will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge”.
And
“You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must;
• Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed suchthat it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”
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.
The signage does not in any way make it clear to the driver that any contract is being entered into. The signage does not state any terms and conditions and nor does it make reference to any terms and conditions that may be shown on other signage.
On this basis, no contract has been agreed and accepted.
The IPC code of practice states “You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must;
• Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”;
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. In this case, the signs cannot be read without stopping.
Further, it must be noted that in this location, a driver could not stop in order to read the signs when entering the road as they by doing so would block the junction and cause a hazard, and indeed, contravene the “no stopping” rule.
The IPC code of practice states “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.
There are numerous breaches of the IPC code of practice which lead to failure to form any contract with the driver.
Please issue your standard cancellation letter on the basis of this appeal. This will end this matter where there will be no further communication.
If you still believe you have a cause for action, send a detailed rejection letter, which must state:
• the legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your recent Notice failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.
• if alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
• if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law.
*** VCS Rejection Letter (OCR scan to text as I cannot use links)
We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received on the 6th July 2016 in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of
the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary.
It is disappointing to note that whilst you state that you were not the driver, you have not
provided details of the driver nor any evidence to suppoft that you were not the driver. As
such, we shall continue to pursue the outstanding PCN on the reasonable assumption that
you were the driver on the date in question. It may be a matter for the courts to decide should it be necessary for us to engage that course of action.
Whilst we understand your concern at receiving a Notice, it is entirely the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the Terms and Conditions of use for the airports private access roads, The roadway in question is part of a high security zone and as such motorists are clearly advised not to park, stop or wait on double yellow lines, red routes zones or roadways at any time, Such actions may also pose an obstruction or danger to other road users. There are numerous warning signs in place along the private access roads.
After review of our CCTV footage we can confirm that on the 18th June 2016, you stopped your vehicle in a prohibited area for a unreasonable amount of time. Whilst we appreciate the circumstances you have described however, please be advised that our signage located throughout the area clearly stìte "No Stopping at Any Time". It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware and compliant with the Terms and Conditions of this area.
We can confirm that there are 82 prominent information signs situated at key locations throughout the area and our site photographs confirm that they can be obserued at the entrance and throughout the site. The signs state: "No Stopping" and "Strictly no stopping on red route, double yellow lines, roadways or bus stops", Furthermore, the signage in situ is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and is compliant with the IPC code of Practice, Text size is relative to the average approach speed of an approaching vehicle on those roads.
We can confirm that you did enter into a contract with Vehicle Control Seruices. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a part!cular area, by implication, a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Limited and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop/park.
In response to your comments in relation to the amount of our pCN charges, we must advise
that our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would also refer you to the recent judgment passed down by ihe Cout of Appeals in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis ([2015] EWCA Civ 402).
You have raised a number of points in your appeal which are not appropriate for us to deal with at this stage. Please note that, as members of the International Parking Community (IpC) it is necessary for us to evidence to the IPC that we have relevant authority to undertake enforcement activity at the site concerned and that our signs in situ are compliant in setting out the relevant terms and conditions of use.
We will defend the points you have raised as appropriate should the matter proceed to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and/or Couft. We have therefore dealt with the pertinent points in your appeal.
We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and your appeal
(representations) is therefore rejected. we will not accept any further appeals.
What you should do next - Either:
1. Pay the Parking Charge. In order to settle the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate, the payment of £60.00 is to be received within our office by llth August 2016, after which the amount payable will revert to £100.00. Payments can be made online at vehiclecontrol.co.uk/payments by following the links for "PCN Payment", or over the phone by using a valid credit oi debit card.
Alternatively, you can pay by cheque or postal order through the post made payable to Vehicle Control Services Ltd. Postal delivery timescales should be taken into account if you are sending payment by post to ensure it reaches us by the specified date; we cannot be responsible for delays in the post.
OR:
2' If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS). In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is contained. in the subject header of this letter).
Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter,
It is impoftant you note that if you wish to appeal to the IAS and your appeal is unsuccessful, the discount offer will no longer apply and the full amount of £100.00 will be pursued, please be aware that if a payment is made against the PCN prior to lodging an appeal with the IAS, or receiving adjudication from the IAS, and if it is accepted as Full and Final settlement of the PCN, any appeal to thê IAS will automatically be dismissed.
*** my (not yet finished) IAS appeal letter ***
1. The alleged contravention did not take place.
VCS has issued a “Parking Charge Notice” but with a reason of “Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides private car park operators with the authority to recover parking charges from the registered keepers of infringing vehicles.
The photographs on the Parking Charge Notice clearly show the vehicle in a road and not in a car park and so the alleged contravention took place on a road, not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all.
The Parking Charge Notice is in no way applicable to the alleged contravention.
VCS is not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping in a road.
2. No contract was entered into.
The IPC code of practice states:
“Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract which will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge”.
And
“5) Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the
reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a
trespass as the case may be;”
The signage does not state that a contract is being entered into with the creditor and it is not clear to any motorist that they are entering into any contract.
On this basis, no contract has been agreed and accepted.
The IPC code of practice states:
“Entrance Signs should:
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms
and conditions”.
The signage does not state any terms and conditions and nor does it make reference to any terms and conditions that may be shown on other signage.
On this basis, no terms and conditions can have been accepted.
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.
The IPC code of practice states:
“You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver. Such signs must;
• Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”;
The sign when entering the private road cannot be read without stopping. To stop at that point, which is close to the junction, would pose an obstruction that would be dangerous to other road users.
Further, a driver could not stop in order to read the signs when entering the road because by doing so would allegedly breach very same conditions the driver is supposed to read about in the so called “warning signs”.
In any case, as VCS Ltd are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract.
3. Parking charges.
The IPC code of practice that you must adhere to states:
“8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions. If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts”.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair. The amount claimed is excessive, which is attempted to be enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to comply with the IPC code of practice, VCS must demonstrate how these charges are calculated.
Note that this is the second time of asking for this information.
As VCS is alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the IPC Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.
Should VCS ignore the IPC code of practice and claim that the charges are commercially justified, I would argue that the charges of £100 (reduced to £60) are excessive and not commercially justified.
By comparison, the higher level Penalty Charge Notice issued by DMBC is £70, reduced to £35.
This is a fair comparison that shows VCS charges to be excessive and unconscionable, which cannot be commercially justified.
Further, if charges are to be commercially justified, they should be applied in a way as to put the creditor in a position that they would have been had the alleged contravention not have taken place.
In this case, there would be no loss and so the charge is being applied as a penalty, not commercial justification.
If commercial justification is claimed, VCS must demonstrate how these charges are calculated based upon their commercial justification. Failure to do so would result this as simply being a penalty.
The first fifteen minutes in the Robin Hood Airport pick up / drop off car park are free; the alleged contravention lasted thirty seconds, which is significantly less than fifteen minutes but yet VCS is demanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for what would have been free parking.
The Parking Eye v Beavis ([2015] EWCA Civ 402) case that has been quoted is not applicable to this alleged contravention.
In the Parking Eye v Beavis case, Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance.
The Beavis case is applied on the basis of an over-stay whereas in this alleged contravention, VCS is using the Parking Charge Notice as a penalty without even entering a carpark.
Note that parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place.
4. No grace period was offered
The letter received from VCS to reject my appeal states:
“…Stopped your vehicle for an unreasonable amount of time…”.
According to the images provided, the vehicle was stationary for a period of 30 seconds. This cannot be deemed unreasonable by any stretch of imagination.
The IPC code of practice states:
“15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.
The letter from VCS advising of rejection of my appeal states:
“…on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle…”
And
“…you state that you were not the driver, you have not provided details of the driver…”
And
“…on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver…”
It is not reasonable to assume who the driver might have been. VCS is trying to issue a parking charge notice and it is irrelevant who the driver of the vehicle was.
The IPC Code of Practice states:
“Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 prescribes the steps you must follow to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for an unpaid parking charge”.
In accordance with this, my details have been obtained from DVLA as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and it is not a requirement to know details of the driver or to make assumptions as to who the driver might have been.
At no point have I made any reference to who the driver might or might not have been.
*** My points of concern to this forum ***
There are many breaches of the IPC code of practice and many points on which there is no legal basis for the Parking Charge Notice to be issued. These points were raised in the appeal but they have not been answered in the rejection letter.
The rejection letter suggests possible use of a court of law. However, this cannot be the best course of action given that many issues that have been raised have been ignored by VCS, and with a case that is based upon assumptions.
The appeal has not been fair where many points raised have been ignored by VCS, which again is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice.
All of these points will be taken into consideration should this case be heard in a court of law.
I must now appeal to IAS, which I read about IAS being tied in and to expect the appeal to be automatically rejected. Is this true? What then?
I did consider writing to IPC to report the breaches in the Code of Practice but given that my appeal now must go to IAS (part of IPC) then I assume there is no point.
Is there any benefit in writing to DVLA to complain about breaches of IPC Code of Practice?
I see that lots of cases are being lost due to the Beavis case where it seems there is no-longer a case for claiming genuine pre-estimate of loss (one of my points). I need to read more about the Beavis case but so far, it seems to me as though this case isn't even applicable to mine.
The IPC Code of Practice seems to have wording that seems to get around some of my points for the terms and conditions and the contract with the creditor and so I am less confident with my case now.
To me, the signs do not make it clear what the terms are but does a basic "No Stopping at any time" and "£100 automatic charge..." constitute terms and conditions?
There seem to be lots of reports of such cases going to court (and losing). Is it now the case that parking companies are winning the battle? - They seem more keen to go to court now.
VCS seem to have breached many IPC rules as set out in the IPC Code of Pactice. How much importance is there on this?
Whilst I feel as though there are many breaches that VCS fall foul on, I actually feel like just paying to prevent a court case that could potentially be lost. When all is said and done, I have parked on yellow lines regardless of whether they can be enforced or not.
I would appreciate some advice on the reality of the situation.
0
Comments
-
Read up the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum where you will see the advice is not to bother with an ias appeal0
-
I actually feel like just paying to prevent a court case
It is highly unlikely that this would ever get to court. Read up on byelaws, scheduled land and keeper liability.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
The forums have been looking forward to one of these airport stopping cases to make it to a court for years, but it's never happened.
The IAS will reject your appeal anyway, but it's still worth doing as it costs them money and gives you something to complain about (to the DVLA and the likes).
I'd also be adding "Not relevant land" and follow up with "No keeper liability", making a point of highlighting how the Eliot Vs Loake is not a precedent here and that no assumptions can be made. If you've got any proof that the keeper wasn't the driver (like the keeper being the one flying) then providing that may kill it.
But realistically, after a few scary letters, nothing is going to happen with this. If it ever does, you'll have people lining up to help you in court.0 -
The reason you see no threads with IAS appeals is because - DON'T DO IT!
Reasons already explained in the NEWBIES thread post #3. We've seen court claims where PPCs use the IAS 'win' from that kangaroo court as part of their argument and some Judges might buy it as persuasive. Not a good idea to hand an IPC PPC an advantage.
Just stay under the radar. VCS cannot hold a keeper liable so we hope your first appeal stayed schtumm about who was driving. Stay silent and ignore debt collector letters. Come back if you get a Solicitor's letter (e.g. BW Legal letters you will see mentioned literally all over the forum). Have a look what to look out for now by reading other threads (search this forum board for 'VCS BW Legal') and be ready to respond ONLY at that stage or if you get court papers. Highly unlikely at this site.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you for your responses and this is exactly the reason why I have posted on this site.
@Coupon-mad and Herzlos. There is a difference of opinion but both with reason and it seems I have actually three options:
1. Do the IAS appeal (I lose)
2. Just ignore the IAS appeal and everything else that follows
3. Write to VCS and request a different ADR (as suggested by parking prankster)
My thoughts were to request another ADR AND to complain to DVLA, IPC etc.at the same time but I do understand the argument that losing the IAS gives more to complain about to DVLA, IPC etc. However, Coupon-mad's DON'T DO IT (IAS) advice seems to be common advice so I'm not sure.
Also, I'm not sure how well VCS would play along with the idea of using another ADR.
Certainly I'll investigate "Not relevant land" and "No keeper liability". I think I have already mentioned these in my appeal but perhaps I need to improve my wording.
I would appreciate your further comments on which of the three options would be the better option.
Thank you.0 -
the BMPA , coupon-mad and myself (and many others) would tell you to IGNORE this now and put it on the back burner
there are many , many people waiting to help with any court case involving RHA or JLA or any other airport due to these burning issues, hence why it never seems to get to a court case
option 3) is reasonable and provides a paper trail without accepting the IAS
the IAS , GLADSTONES and the IPC are all run by the same 2 solicitors (we think its corrupt) so no idea why you think an IPC complaint will work , its a trade body to pay lip service to the DVLA , a members club
we know all about the sc@m and its been posted about regularly on here , pepipoo , in the papers , several times on the BBC including ripoff britain , plus parking prankster blogs about it regularly
VCS wont play along at all, they will ignore your request, or offer the IAS , or say its too late , you timed out
none of these people have any interest in your concerns, they just want you to act like a lemming and pay up, its called PROFIT0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards