Parking charge for stopping at Bristol airport

Boudouche1

@Fruitcake. Wow! This is increadible. I am speachless. What a tour de force. Thank you so much for taking time to write this detailed and utterly convincing rebuttal.

I cannot second-guess the IAS (and they seem to be rather unwilling to take on board the earlier arguments), but you did use all the arguments there are to persuade them. Even if I am to lose an appeal, I will have no regrets battling with VCS - with such amazing support from you.

I will write my reponse to the IAS today, hope they stop all this nonsensical process and cancel the charge.

Thank you again!

Fruitcake

Sorry, I ran out of ideas ...  

When you respond, state which points they have previously failed to address and as such the appeal must be allowed since failing to rebut them must mean they agree with those points.

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

Sorry, I ran out of ideas ...  

When you respond, state which points they have previously failed to address and as such the appeal must be allowed since failing to rebut them must mean they agree with those points.

Ordering the popcorn to see how the IAS worm their way out of this.  However, my forecast is a rather anticlimactic withdrawal by VCS!

Boudouche1

@Fruitcake. Point taken. I will also mntion the points from earlier appeal statements that VCS failed to address (or ignored). @Umkomaas, I am not quite ready for a popcorn yet, but one really needs to be patient (and well versed in the legal language) to fight these stupid charges. Thanks again @Fruitcake

Boudouche1

@Fruitcake, @Umkomaas @B789 . The next installment in the IAS saga is their (very partial) response to the detailed and powerful appeal statement, drafted by @Fruitcake a week or so ago:

"CCTV video and images are recorded by mobile enforcement cameras solely to show vehicles in contravention of the "no stoppong" requirement and have no interest in the occupants, drivers or passengers of any vehicle using private access roads.

VCSholds "Approved Operator Status" with the International Parking Community and thus required to strictly comply with their 'Code of Practice for the control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated car parks'. All operational vehicles are marked clearly with company livery which fully identifies the company".

I think they are repsonsing solely to the ponts made by @Fruitcake about the VCS camera van capturing my personal data (VRM), whjile being marked as "Road Safety Unit".

To the earlier appeal, I have aded the point about VCS failing to address the points 1), 2), 3), 6), 9), 10), 11), 12) raised in the previous appeal - which means they agree with those points. It looks like VCS are doing the same thing again - focusing on minor issues, but not questioning the main argument.

What would you suggest - more popcorn or a stronger drink?

Fruitcake

I would respond again, and again, and again, ignoring their points, re-iterating yours, and highlighting anything they have either failed to address.


It is irrelevant and indeed not true that "CCTV video and images are recorded by mobile enforcement cameras solely to show vehicles in contravention of the "no stopping" requirement" because my vehicle was outside the no stopping zone, outside the area covered by double red lines, outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate, and therefore not in contravention of the no-stopping requirement. It is evident that images are recorded to generate spurious parking charge notices of vehicles that are not in contravention of the no stopping requirement.

This has previously been proven in at least two court cases and one IAS appeal, PCN number VCS4199105, where PCNs were unfairly issued to motorists whose vehicles were photographed at Bristol Airport outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate. In addition it was also proven where a PCN was issued to a motorist who stopped at a Stop Sign at Bristol Airport.

It is irrelevant that VCS have "no interest in the occupants, drivers or passengers of any vehicle using private access roads". It is a fact that VCS has breached the CCTV code of conduct by failing to state what the images they capture are used for on their covert mobile recording vans. This breach of the CCTV CoP was reported to both VCS and the IPC over two years ago but has been ignored.

It is irrelevant that "VCS holds "Approved Operator Status" with the International Parking Community and thus required to strictly comply with their 'Code of Practice for the control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated car parks'. All operational vehicles are marked clearly with company livery which fully identifies the company".
The IPC is not a regulatory body. Approved Operator Status simply means trade association members can purchase vehicle keeper data from the DVLA without any questions being asked as to whether the operator has a valid reason to purchase said keeper's data.
There is no legal or lawful requirement for unregulated private parking companies such as VCS to comply with the IPC's Code of Practice. Compliance is not mandatory. The IPC was set up solely to support its unregulated members, not to assist motorists who have received unfair private parking charges from its unregulated members.

The Independent Appeals Service is not independent, being funded entirely by the unregulated private parking industry, and does not comply with the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.

Complaints to the IPC about the VCS operation at Bristol Airport breaching the IPC code of practice has repeatedly been ignored as was detailed during the appeal stages of parking charge number VCS4199105. Following each complaint, the IPC merely forwarded the complaint to VCS then closed the case without investigating.

This is further evidence that the IPC is neither an independent nor a regulatory body.

For the avoidance of doubt I repeat that I am not liable for this spurious charge because: -

VCS do not own the land.
VCS do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner.
The vehicle was not stopped on double red lines.
The vehicle was not stopped in designated no-stopping area.
There were no No stopping signs where the vehicle was photographed.
The vehicle was outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate by the landowner's sub-contractor, Bristol Airport Limited.
VCS have/had no jurisdiction to operate where the vehicle was photographed.
The Airport is not relevant land.
Airport byelaws apply where the vehicle was photographed.
Stopping with a valid reason (lost and seeking directions) is not a breach of airport byelaws.




Rearrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying.
"Pipe and, smoke it, stick it in your."

Carefully read the IPC CoP.

In the PCN/appeal I mentioned above (my son's case), we were sent emails by Excel, so we complained that this was a DPA 2015/GDPR 2018 data breach since they are completely separate companies as registered at Companies House. If you have received anything from Excel then you should complain to VCS, the IPC, and then the ICO.

VCS/IAS failed to provide a result of our IAS appeal within the IPC/IAS mandated timescales. Each time they said, we are still reviewing the case. They did that six times, so we complained six times that it was a breach of the IPC CoP. Each time the IPC told us they had forwarded the complaint to VCS then closed the case. Proof positive that they didn't investigate and proof positive that they do not care about the interests of the motorists.

If they have failed to meet appeal deadlines in your case then you should complain as well.
The idea is to show VCS that you are not a pushover and will make things as awkward as you can should they decide to take this to court.

This is the IPC/IAS "cough-bullship" ADR process. Note the bottom of the page that states dispute resolution should be completed in 21 days. If you are past that, as we we were in my son's case, then you should be complaining that VCS/the IAS process is in breach of their own code of conduct. Emphasise the word "maximum" in that process.


https://www.theias.org/alternative-dispute-resolution

 

1505grandad

Why is the DVLA not involved  -  oh yes their carpet is even more of a cover.

Boudouche1

Thank you very much @Fruitcake. Back to my weekly email to the IAS. I just cannot get why they are being so awkward - they have already spent too much time on this

Fruitcake

Boudouche1 said:

Thank you very much @Fruitcake. Back to my weekly email to the IAS. I just cannot get why they are being so awkward - they have already spent too much time on this

They just want your money. Perhaps they persist because they will get a rollicking from SRS or get penalised for every PCN that doesn't get paid.
I don't know about VCS, but the Trustpilot employee reviews for their sister company, Excel Parking, tell a story of bullying and rapid turnover because of the way the workforce is treated. Getting PCNs from their own employer, having to pay for uniforms, and multiple deductions for any minor transgression.
The whole place is said to be a toxic work environment that runs on PCN quotas and penalties if they are missed.

Boudouche1

Hi @Fruitcake, I will persevere as you suggest. I will draft a response using the text you kindly provided, and wit for the next installment of this story.