EMA airport fine for stopping at the fuel station BP Fuel station.

Umkomaas

stuopolis said:

Signatures

My Signature

• Video embedding has been disabled. URLs will not translate to their embedded equivalent.
• You don't have permission to use a signature.

no such luck.......

Maybe it's your low post count at present. It does restrict certain capabilities. Stick around and continue posting and see where it takes you. I'm sure it's only a temporary hitch. 

stuopolis

Good Evening everyone, just a quick reach out to you good folk for more guidance please.

I couldn’t relax after posting the DQ to Northampton last week , I had forgotten the bank hol on monday!

So thought it best that I confirm they had it ok, before the deadline, and no problem they confirmed all ok, I was 17 in the cue, and it took 24 mins to get through. But at least I have peace of mind. They also told me that Boston CC was named (nearest for me) and confirmation will be with me by the end of this week. Also intimated that Zoom would be favourite with approx. two months wait.

I have prepared a reply to the Vagabons/Cowboys/Shysters people at Sheffield, they sent me a SETTLEMENT/MEDIATION deal/offer saying I had best take it, as they would grass me up to the judge if I did'nt. They are very nasty to me, Its very upsetting..... So if any one fancies a constructive once over for me I would be most grateful, as not being very au fait with this litigation world I feel that I may have been too compassionate, shall we say? Thanks in anticipation. Stuopolis

stuopolis

its in PDF but I cant seem to upload it

stuopolis

Will 4 JPEG picture files be of any use

Fruitcake

Upload document/images to a web hosting site such as postimages, dropbox, tinypic etcetera then post the link here, but change https to hxxps if you still don't have posting privileges.

stuopolis

COPY N PASTE VERSION

Letter: Mediation/ Settlement

Mr SXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

v

VCS Ltd. 2 Europa Court, Sheffield S9 1EX

10/05/2021

Dear Mr Burgess

Thank you for your letter 21/04/2021 offering me a reduced settlement.

I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Your Reference: JB/Lit/VCSXXXXXX38

Parking Charge Invoice/Notice to Keeper/VCS BP Fuel Station, East Midlands Airport

Your reduced settlement is not relevant as your Invoice/debt is not accepted.

So it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action will be necessary.

I was not the driver at the time this Parking Charge was assumed, the driver is not offered.

I base my knowledge of this BP fuel station forecourt layout, and it's signage in use on 1/2019,

This evidence was collated on my visit (the day after the NTK arrived), and also by viewing some dashcam footage with the unnamed driver.

My Vehicle HxxxxxxS was recorded on video at the BP station forecourt by the VCS camera vehicle.

I will use this video obtained from ELMS Legal to establish beyond doubt that a contract was not required, never considered and definitely not entered into.

My driver used the BP services in a legitimate and lawful manner as a genuine customer.

On this visit to the airport he also paid £3 to use the passenger drop off carpark.

He purchase Coffee and a sandwich from the BP station supermarket store.

Most UK BP sites have a 30minute time allowance plus a ‘Grace’ period.

Below are the main points I will be relying upon to defend this claim and have this PCN rescinded.

Page Two

My vehicle was recorded on the public forecourt alongside the Sign ‘STRICTLY CUSTOMERS PARKING ONLY’,

my driver did not drop off or pick up passengers, he did not stop on any of the red line no stopping zones,

this is clearly so in the video footage and the photographs I have.

On the NTK from VCS Ltd they are claiming that my vehicle was ‘STOPPING IN A ZONE WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITED’, this is not truthful. In a letter on 13/01/2020 from your administration team (unsigned) VCS ltd made a new claim, and stated that, “A review of CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the day in question, your vehicle stopped for an unreasonable amount of time in a fuel station where restrictions apply". VCS have  not elaborated on the time/duration of this unreasonble time, how very confusing.

This same letter also stated that “Due to the fact that a contract was made, the driver had agreed toterms and conditions”. Neither my driver nor I entered into any contracts, and if a contract would havebeen considered I personally would expect the opportunity to become acquainted with that contract, andrightly so that situation is mandatory according to the IPC:

IPC Code of Practice. Part B line 15.1 and 5.2 page 13. That states: Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to consider the contract and make an educated decision to accept or decline the contract.

So obviously this basic right was denied to the driver of my vehicle.

This BP forecourt is being controlled as if it was a car park, and not a BP petrol station with car wash and the usual forecourt services, plus the Spar Supermarket. This is confusing to the public who visit, they are often strange to the area. No Stopping signs do not live on a petrol forecourt, Signs such as ‘STRICTLY NO DROP OFF OR PICK UP AT THE PUMPS’ are the most prominent signs visible, ‘STRICTLY CUSTOMER ONLY PARKING’, ‘NO STOPPING’ are also very confusing by their contradictive implications. Compare the actual signs shown in the Site Boundary Plan (see Contract XXXXX HQ) with actual sign positions, and it soon becomes apparent that this is not as the plan states. Positioning of some signs appear to be placed on the rear of canopy support pillars, facing away from the drivers gaze (my Photo 03) this is apparent on the video too, to me this seems to be a blatant attempt at entrapment.

Also please note that repeater signs are supposed to be in place to direct customers to the main terms/contracts/information board,but are not shown on the plan, and don’t appear anywhere on the forecourt, these links are required (IPC Code of Practice Schedule 1b page 22) and should be in prominent places to direct customers to the whereabouts of a master sign, the master sign should contain a full and complete set of conditions in force on the site, (IPC Code Schedule 1 – Signage Page 23) states that signs with only part terms/conditions are not allowed, this is obviously so the general public can view the small print and study the terms and conditions properly. This master sign is again required to comply with the IPC code of practice Part E - Schedule

So here we have a main entry sign facing in the wrong direction (see your video), the four customer car park slots partially blocked by dirty traffic cones and old road work barriers, no illumination of ANY signs in the dark extremities of the site, these are all serious omissions, and are required by the IPC Code of Practice Schedule E Signage page 23

Poor Visibility in the dark, no chance of car headlights ever shining on these high position non reflective signs, signs unreadable due to small font choice, the incomplete legal terms and conditions in very smallprintare illegible, a read test was performed at one meter away in good daylight and failed. A driver entering this petrol forecourt in the night time has little to no chance of seeing all the signs properly,which then lends this public forecourt a means to entrap motorists, this is a very clear contempt forIPC Code of practice regulation 14.1 Predatory tactics, page 12: You must not use predatory and misleading tactics to lure motorist into incurring parking charges. Such incidents will be viewed as a serious failure to comply with IPC Code of Practice schedule 2 section 4-12 page 26.

Page 3

The video (on USB drive) clearly demonstrates this style of entrapment that the IPC condemn, it is undisputable when viewed, it is obviously recorded on the actual evening this PCN was falsely issued, and gives a very good indication of the poor illumination towards the outer boundaries of this BP forecourt, and also proves that haphazard placement of confusing signs and the mixed messages, contradictive instructions that are very confusing to visitors to this BP Fuel station.

VCS Ltd have also failed to adhere to the IPC code by a breach of Part C 1.2 page 14 Recovering keeper details which is not in accordance of schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act, by describing the position of my cars position. On the NTK they describe it as being on a privately owned access road and submit that false information to the DVLA, when in fact it is clearly on a petrol forecourtwith parking spaces.

This seriously breaches the IPC Code of practice Part C 1.5 page 14 You must apply for keeper details only when you have ‘Reasonable cause’ to do so without could be considered a very serious issueof noncompliance, blatant misuse of GDPR regulations enabled VCS Ltd to obtain my DVLA Keeper informationwithout reasonable cause, again these conditions are set out in the IPC Code of Practiceand still disregarded

VCS also denied me access to independent appeal by initially directing all appeals via a website, the prime position this feature was placed on the rear of the PCN/NTK and implies that it is the best way to deal withthe the appeal for this PCN. The site is called www.myparkingcharge.com, on the rear of the NTK it is in a highlyprominent position and has bold text on several key words, MUST BE, 14 DAYS, DEADLINE DATE, REGISTER WITHIN 21 DAYS, LATE APPEALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. All these presentation methods are specifically designed to intimidate and frighten people to pay without protest. But the real devious part of this appeals web site was its strategy to gather information, i.e. driver name and address, this information was mandatory to allow the user to move to the next section of the appeal, located on page twoof the website. So to be able to appeal the driver details were required to be entered into a mandatory boxes. Similar entrapment methods are used when the independent appeal service (theIAS) are mentioned, the caveathere was that they state it will only be accepted if a written statement from the driver with name and addressdetails, this also insisted on request for IAS appeals are requested. these unreasonble tactics are a very seriousinfringement of the IPC Code of practice Part A Conditions page 8 section 2-1 and 2-2

My driver used the BP services in legitimate and lawful manner as a genuine customer.

VCS Ltd have used many devious and blatant contradictions to the IPC regulations, some are very serious. Some are dishonourable methods to intimidate and frighten me into submission.

Below are the main points I will be relying on to have this PCN invoice cancelled, and please be awarethat I will bemaking a counter claim from VCS Ltd.

I am claiming the cost of documentation preparation time and harassment involved in defending this claim.

I have objectively calculated the sum to be £ 440. This sum is based on 10 hours of preparations for litigation and 2 hours travelling and relative expenses involved when County Court face to face litigation in Boston, Lincs. takes place.

Listed next are some of the documents on which I intend to rely on in my claim against VCS Ltd.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)/ Right of access

Consumer rights act 2015 – section 61

Page 3

DVLA document ref: 87992981 dated 3rd Jan 2020

Site Boundary plans and instructions

Signage photographs,

USB Drive with video

IPC Code of practice

Bank Statements of airport parking payment

ELMS letter & reply 9/3/2021

VCS Contract no 4648/VCS/HQ in force on XXX11/2019

Also in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct I would request that you provide me with the following information in a timely manner:

ROA Information already requested on 23/04/21

I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider a reduced payment as means of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts.

With this in mind I invite you to pay a reduced settlement of £380 . If this sum is paid in full within 14 days of the date of this letter.

If you fail to accept my offer of settlement then I will continue with my defence of this claim for the full amount claimed and bring this letter to the courts attention upon the question of costs. To make payment please transfer £380 to the following bank using the reference XXXXCS01

HSBC –– XXXXXX Account XXXX183 – Sort code 5XXXX9

I plan on making Formal complaints against VCS Ltd to several of the governing bodies involved

I look forward to hearing from you within the next 28 days.

Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame I anticipate that court action will be commenced and I can proceed with further preparations?

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

?? I plan on making Formal complaints against VCS Ltd to several of the governing bodies, BP, Harvest GDPR, Trading Standards and uncle Tom Cobeley .... Is this advisable to say on this letter- I’ve had MANY threats from these jokers??

stuopolis

Thank you FruitCake...... hxxps://mab.to/FQy0BNXjb

Coupon-mad

I am not comfortable to use that link as it says:

Prior using the service you are required to provide your consent to the processing of your personal data.

I plan on making Formal complaints against VCS Ltd to several of the governing bodies, BP, Harvest GDPR, Trading Standards and uncle Tom Cobeley .... Is this advisable to say on this letter- I’ve had MANY threats from these jokers?

It is advisable but only as long as you only talk about relevant bodies, such as the owner of the Airport, BP, the DVLA and your MP.  That's about it.

KeithP

I am a bit concerned with these words....

This same letter also stated that “Due to the fact that a contract was made, the driver had agreed to terms and conditions”. Neither my driver nor I entered into any contracts, and if a contract would have been considered I personally would expect the opportunity to become acquainted with that contract, and rightly so that situation is mandatory according to the IPC:

IPC Code of Practice. Part B line 15.1 and 5.2 page 13. That states: Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to consider the contract and make an educated decision to accept or decline the contract.

The Code of Practice talks about the driver becoming acquainted with the contract.
You were not the driver, so why the phrase...
...if a contract would have been considered I personally would expect the opportunity to become acquainted with that contract...

Can you find something different to 'I personally'?
I think you are getting dangerously close to telling them that you were the driver... whether you were or not.
Just my opinion of course.

Redx

stuopolis said:

its in PDF but I cant seem to upload it

None of us can , mse admins don't allow pdf or word doc uploads

Any hosting site you use should be open with no viewing requirements or rules