Viking Solutions Ltd / ISA

Edito

Hi guys, 

Long time creeper and benefiter of the forum, first time poster! 

Initially years ago I used the forum for a ParkingEye PCN, and have both used and recommended it to get success. 

Recently, I had taken the advice of a cabbie parked on the street to use a parking lot of a portion of a closed hotel / and part used for a job centre. Stating that no one ever pays there, he uses it all the time etc. 
Looking around I could see no payment machines, so paid no mind, parked, left, life was good. Then i received a PCN from Viking Solutions ltd, and used an old generic template from years before (see below). Now naturally, I didn't pay for a ticket and the signs on inspection when I went back very clearly said to pay online, or via app. Geniuely this was just a daft error on my part. Now I sent the below letter off, got it knocked back and I know people often on the forum have stated the pointlessness of appealing at IAS stage when the company (Viking Solutions Ltd) knock back the appeal. but I would feel better sending something off even if this is just going to get knocked back, and wondered if anyone could point me in the direction of a generic appeal letter if someone had used one similar, naturally I know you guys prob get bombarded constantly. but I have always sent an appeal letter to POPLA, and the first time with IAS just feels off not responding. 

Dear COMPANY NAME,

PCN number *Insert number*

I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking fine. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.

 You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in your own right.

C) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power. Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'. If not, under your Trade Body's current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:

1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.

(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).

(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.

(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). Should you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, I will of course point out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.

2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention. If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail is necessary for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.

3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves. Consideration from both sides is required for a contract.

4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.

5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written communications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.

Yours,

Edito

* First time poster (In a long, long while)

Coupon-mad

Never heard of them (must be a new kid on the block/bandwagon).

But no harm done, if you really want to bung in an IAS appeal for the LOLs, as long as you go into it knowing that if the PPC doesn't drop out, you will lose because IAS is a worthless kangaroo court, by all accounts. Then you ignore them.

Don't use a template.  Don't talk about no GPEOL!

Edito

Well they cite IPC at the bottom (of the cheapest feeling paper ever) if that helps! But after reading onwards I feel ignoring them, and awaiting the next correspondence feels like the most considered point of action from scrolling the forums. But thanks for the quick response!

Coupon-mad

Maybe they run off PCNs in someone's back bedroom. Sounds like a small minnow in this very murky pond.

The rogue operation we see from this industry is either cheapo or wallowing in money. Either way, it operates with a consumer blame culture.

Look at the ParkingEye thread by Grizebeck, with the £160k McLaren supercar parked across 3 bays (yep - allegedly - 'top' staff of a PPC enjoy their own rules that us mere plebs don't) and you'll get the mentality and hypocrisy.

Fruitcake

The correct company name is Viking Solutions UK Ltd, incorporated in October 2021. Only one officer recorded at Companies House, so it looks like a small outfit.

Viking Solutions Ltd was dissolved in June 2021 and appears to have had nothing in common with the new company.

KeithP

Interesting to note that there is no link to a Privacy Policy on their website.

But by using the tried and trusted method - googling Viking Solutions privacy - one can find a webpage entitled - Privacy Policy - VIKING SOLUTIONS UK LTD at www.vikingsolutionsuk.com/privacy72d351b4

The colour scheme/typeface make it very difficult to read though.

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

The correct company name is Viking Solutions UK Ltd, incorporate in October 2021. Only one officer recorded at Companies House, so it looks like a small outfit.

Viking Solutions Ltd was dissolved in June 2021 and appears to have had nothing in common with the new company.

From the IPC AOS list:

Bio

We are a parking operator who have been delivering expert solutions to businesses all over the UK, with over 60 years combined experience. Using our experience and expertise, we provide both off-the-shelf and bespoke products and services in a variety of sectors.

Only a few months old, but straight in with BS! 😁

Castle

KeithP said:

Interesting to note that there is no link to a Privacy Policy on their website.

But by using the tried and trusted method - googling Viking Solutions privacy - one can find a webpage entitled - Privacy Policy - VIKING SOLUTIONS UK LTD at www.vikingsolutionsuk.com/privacy72d351b4

The colour scheme/typeface make it very difficult to read though.

Section 10 on their Privacy Page is interesting, because that would actually rule out using ANPR cameras:-

10. Do We Use Your Personal Information In Automated Decision Making Processes?
We do not use your personal information in any automated decision making processes. All our processes and systems require some form of user input or confirmation, when processing or handling decisions which incorporate your information.

95Rollers

Weren't Vikings notorious for stealing, looting and pillaging?!? This is high tech version of those activities. 

Umkomaas

95Rollers said:

Weren't Vikings notorious for stealing, looting and pillaging?!? This is high tech version of those activities. 

I think rape was also high on their agenda!