New Post Advanced Search

Albert street car park birmingham

182 replies 7.1K views
U414830U414830 Forumite
186 posts
First Anniversary
Defence
under section 21 of the CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if they(a)Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
(b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for.

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles.
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.

''The facts are that a ticket was bought, sent as proof and it was clear early on, that the driver had paid in good faith but had simply keyed in the wrong registration number. This is not mitigation, this is a fact that I submit cannot give rise to a PCN because it is not 'transparent' in the terms on signs/the P&D machine, that a correct VRN is an 'obligation' which runs such a risk and will be compared to the ANPR data for the purpose of imposing a charge.

The fact is, a BPA AOS operator is required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify such minor infringements. I require that the operator provides the Court with a copy of their policy and proof that those checks were made in this instance. Further, I require proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the retailer/landowner allows this unfair fining of paying customers.

If it is not in the contract it is not a contravention that can give rise to a penalty.

In your rejection letter, vcs have failed to explain what manual checks were made or why they consider that enforcement is appropriate, nor whether the contract even allows a charge for 'wrong VRN'. Nor do they show in what terms it is made clear to the payee standing at the machine, that when making payment they have an obligation to input a correct vehicle VRN and run the risk of a punitive so-called 'parking charge' (unfairly set as a fixed sum at the same level as a non-payer) for that action alone.

This is an inappropriate parking charge which should have been cancelled on appeal. I remind vcs that operation and enforcement is not just about issuing PCNs and collecting money from hapless victims, regardless of any legitimate interest, reasonableness or appropriateness. In fact the BPA CoP mentions in the Introduction 'minimum standards'(suggesting they are set low) as well as the importance of 'acting in a professional, reasonable and diligent way' in issuing 'appropriate' parking charges:2.6 By creating the Code the parking industry has set out the minimum standards by which you will be judged by anyone coming into professional contact with you.

Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.

2.9 The Code and its appendices cover the operation of parking on private, unregulated land. This includes:• designing and using signs• using ANPR and associated systems• appropriate parking charges.

In the ANPR section: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.To any right-minded person's viewing, refusing an appeal from a genuine parking customer who did pay and display is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'.

Their own ANPR records show that there was no vehicle on site with the VRN I accidentally keyed in and as evidence, I was able to produce the ticket as proof that I paid but made an inadvertent error with the VRN, thereby showing that THIS ticket did relate to THIS vehicle and no other in the car park.

I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' so the Pcn should have been cancelled. I submit that to pursue a genuine customer who paid & displayed is contrary to the wishes of the landowners and this PCN is unauthorised. As such, the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of inappropriately refusing my appeal.

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner to evidence the definition of the services provided. This includes a list of grace periods, charges and all restrictions authorised where a parking charge can arise, as I do not believe they are authorised by the landowner to charge a paying customer for a mere VRN error.

The contract and any 'Manual' setting out details including restrictions, charges and exemptions - such as any site occupier's
'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with visiting drivers and/or enforce the charge in court in thier own name.

If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding charges they must ensure they have the written authority of the land owner.

I have not been treated in a fair manner as explained it was an innocent mistake, I have been pursued as a criminal who tried to cheat the system and not pay for parking, I have been led down an opaque appeals process with exorbitant fines.

This so called contract has unreasonable terms and is not transparent, bad practices and lack of fairness have been displayed by vehicle control services. If the landowner paid vcs then maybe innocent drivers wouldn't have to pay unjust pcn's.

This is a deliberate intention to levy fines and trap innocent drivers. Vcs were not out of pocket as I proved payment and still have the ticket issued as explained via appeal and phone call.

To pursue me further in the hope i'd pay up to have you off my back is wrong. I have been subject to invasive, threatening and intimidating behaviour by debt collection agencies.

How many innocent drivers will/are/have experianced this and surely it can't be backed and tolerated by a court of law.This is clearly an outrageous scam. My privacy has been invaded and this has caused unnecesssary stress and I wont park on private land again or any other carpark operated by vcs.

I have been threatened with a beavis case statement to intimidate further when this case has entirely different circumstances to mine, a clear tactic to add further stress and receive a payment.

I didn't overstay and paid and displayed a ticket so how can 60 pounds be fair, then up to 100 pounds now 185.

The ticket issued is not fit for purpose and under the consumer rights act 2015 any goods purchased should be fit for purpose and I paid in good faith. vcs took my money then issued an invalid ticket.

If the payment machine was linked to the anpr then a ticket would not of been issued unless it matched forcing a driver to input correctly, if a barrier was in place and all paid for tickets to a vehicle could only operate it to leave this would not allow unjust pcn's.

All british number plates have letters and numbers. This claim should be dropped and appoligies should be made to myself, vcs has zero loss incurred.
«13456719

Replies

  • U414830U414830 Forumite
    186 posts
    First Anniversary
    Above is my defence submitted, the situation arose when I parked but inputted an incorrect vrn, this was explained via appeal that of course was rejected. I've submitted a sar to both excel and vcs because signs and logo on the ticket(that I've kept from the pay and display machine) are excel but the pcn received is from vcs.
  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    17.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Trust you are aware of the scam that happens in Albert Street by VCS

    https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=albert+street

    May well help you
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS
    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
  • ShakeItOffShakeItOff Forumite
    415 posts
    Fifth Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    Welcome!

    The formatting has gone wrong on your post. You might want to edit it to tidy it up to make it more readable.

    Just from the initial glance at it, it seems long and talks about loss to VCS. Have you had a look over the concise defence by Bargepole in the NEWBIES thread (post 2)?

    Defence is written in the third person.

    What was the issue date on your claim form? Have you completed your acknowledgement of service?
    Debt Free by Xmas 2021 = £0/£6,500
    1p Challenge 2021 (TBC)
  • ShakeItOffShakeItOff Forumite
    415 posts
    Fifth Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    Also, in a post yesterday, you said you had submitted your defence?
    Debt Free by Xmas 2021 = £0/£6,500
    1p Challenge 2021 (TBC)
  • The_DeepThe_Deep Forumite
    16.8K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Many judges now regard an incorrect VRN as a trifle,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

    not a breach of contract at all, and a waste of court time, an abuse of process. PPC therefore take such claims to court at their peril.

    Get your MP on side in this scam as this is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter . l,
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • U414830U414830 Forumite
    186 posts
    First Anniversary
    Yes DQ posted and sar emailed to both vcs and excel.
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    14.4K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    When did you submit your defence?
    Did the DQ come from the court or from the claimant?
  • U414830U414830 Forumite
    186 posts
    First Anniversary
    Submitted defence two weeks ago and dq received from the court
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    14.4K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    OK, when you receive the results of the SAR, you can use that when building your Witness Statement and evidence pack.
  • U414830U414830 Forumite
    186 posts
    First Anniversary
    I'm fully willing to go to court, the carpark is no longer operating but a lot of sign photos are on the Internet with excel logo for this carpark
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support