Appeal rejected for private parking fine - what next?

Ange1402

Hi,

I received a Charge Notice Hirer Notification by VCS for stopping at the infamous East Midlands Airport on 26 June 2023. My partner was driving (he was coming to pick me up) and I lease the car from Volkswagen, who initially received a Charge Notice Notice to Keeper and passed on my personal details to VCS who then wrote to me with the CN HN.

I used this template from this forum to dispute the charge but got the reply at the bottom of this post (sorry it's long). Late arrive of PCN for leased vehicle - Highview Parking — MoneySavingExpert Forum

VCS may as well be speaking another language but my understanding is, I can't reappeal through them but need to go through IAS, who I've read on this forum are a joke and not worth appealing to.

Should I just pay the fine or is there another way to get this written off?

For context, my partner did stop where he wasn't supposed to. It was his first time driving to EMA and he has bipolar with bad anxiety, he didn't know where he was going and saw an enforcement car following him around and panicked and stopped- not really an excuse but thought full context would help! Lots of signs in the area saying no parking. I've checked out the CCTV stills and you can't see for certain that the car was stationary. 

Any advice would be gratefully received. 

Thanks

We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 19/08/2023.

Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

The signs at the entrance to the East Midlands International Airport and the access roads within, clearly state "No Stopping", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.

In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was when your vehicle was seen to be stopped on the access road.

You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 on the Notice issued to you; however we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper.

It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped for an unreasonable amount of time on the access road where restrictions apply.

Vehicle Control Services is a member of The International Parking Community (IPC) which is an alternative Accredited Trade Association to the British Parking Association (BPA).

As Accredited members of the IPC we therefore do not use the services of the BPA or POPLA. The BPA has its own Code of Practice and offers motorists the opportunity to engage with POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals) service. 

There are over 240 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable. The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping). Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that location.

We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk.

What you should do next - Either:

1. Pay the Charge Notice (CN): In order to settle the Charge, the payment of £60 to reach us by 08/09/2023 or £100 to reach us by 22/09/2023 must be made. Failure to pay this charge within the stated times, may result in Debt Recovery Action being taken and further costs up to an additional £70 being incurred. Payments can be made online at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk by following the links for "Pay Now", or over the phone by calling 0845 226 9138 by using a valid Credit or Debit Card. 

OR:

2. Appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS): If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the IAS. In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is also contained in the subject header of this correspondence).

Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this correspondence. Please visit www.theias.org for full details on how to submit an appeal online.

It is important you note that if you do make an appeal to the IAS, the reduced charge offered above will no longer apply. You should also be aware that if a payment is made prior to an appeal being made to, or adjudicated by, the IAS AND this is accepted as Full and Final settlement against the CN, the appeal will automatically be dismissed and the matter will be deemed closed. Should you appeal to the IAS and it is unsuccessful, the full amount outstanding (£100.00) will become payable within 14 days of the date the IAS decision is notified to you. Failure to pay this sum in the 14 day period will result in debt recovery costs of up to £70.00 being added to the outstanding balance. 

It is important we also highlight that no further appeals will be accepted at this office; any such appeal must be made to the IAS. 

Please also note that further costs may be incurred should it be necessary for us to subsequently recover any outstanding charge using further debt recovery and/or court action.

B789

They have stated "It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided."

They can assume as much as they like but they have no idea who the driver is. It will be up to them to provide strict proof of who the driver was... which they can't. It is not your job to provide "information/evidence" to the contrary.

Just put up with their useless debt-collector letters until/if they decide to send you an LoC or an actual claim. They cannot transfer liability to the RK under any circumstances. You are dealing with ex-clamper thugs who have a sub-standard intellectual ability to do anything but try and bully and threaten their scam victims into paying.

Coupon-mad

Complain to the Airport.  They might cancel it next week and sort it out.

This isn't a fine and no-one pays these.  Certainly not a person who wasn't driving and can't be held liable because it's not relevant land.

Assuming you just got the rejection letter (and you are the hirer but not the driver) why not try IAS with a simple appeal by the words from EdnaBasher's appeal for hirers? Add in an extra paragraph that Airport land is not 'relevant land' and the driver was male (but will not be named) and conclude by telling the IAS goon that a hirer can't be held liable when they were not driving, except on relevant land. This is a matter of law and no amount of sympathy that the IAS may have for VCS' position changes that legal fact.  A hirer who was not the driver cannot be held liable at an Airport, due to the Byelaws making the land under statutory control, and the lack of enclosures with the non-POFA NTH.

Show us first.  We'll help.  But you only have a few days to bung in an IAS appeal.

It will be interesting to see if IAS get it.

No skin off your nose.  A Judge would!

Ange1402

Super grateful for both your comments. My partner is so stressed but I will happily fight them if they're in the wrong. They make me so angry trying to scare people to pay up. I dread to think how many just do.  Yes, got email rejection by VCS today. I'll draft something shortly to IAS and share on this thread before I send through to IAS. Thank you again! 

Ange1402

Ok, so here's the appeal email that I will send to IAS. It was the same template I used with VCS but I edited it down a lot following VCS' reply above and added in the para about the relevant land byelaws as suggested by Coupon-mad. Any thoughts/comments before I send off to VCS? 
Thanks

Dear Sir/madam,

Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11ABC]

I refer to the above-detailed Charge Notice (CN) issued to me by Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this CN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. 

I wish to appeal this charge as the CN was received on airport land which is not classed as 'relevant land' under the appropriate Byelaws. As you will know, a hirer can't be held liable when they were not driving, except on relevant land.

For the reasons given above I, as the hirer, and not the driver, which will not be named, cannot therefore be held liable for the CN.

Please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. 

Yours faithfully

KeithP

I think I would change this paragraph...
I wish to appeal this charge as the CN was received on airport land which is not classed as 'relevant land' under the appropriate Byelaws. As you will know, a hirer can't be held liable when they were not driving, except on relevant land.

...to something like...
I wish to appeal this charge as the CN was received on land which is covered by airport byelaws. On land covered by byelaws a keeper or hirer cannot be held liable for anything the driver may have done.

Coupon-mad

I think you must state at the start that you were not the driver and if the photos show the driver was clearly a different sex than you (sorry don't wish to assume) then say that at the start.

And that you decline to name the driver,

I also feel you need to include this whole section that I suggested:

This is a matter of law and no amount of sympathy that the IAS may have for VCS' position changes that legal fact.  A hirer who was not the driver cannot be held liable at an Airport, due to the Byelaws making the land under statutory control, and the lack of enclosures with the non-POFA NTH.

Also you haven't used the wording from EdnaBasher's appeal about no enclosures and explaining that it is a non-POFA NTH.  It's linked in the NEWBIES thread first post near the bottom.

Le_Kirk

For the reasons given above I, as the hirer, and not the driver, which who will not be named, cannot therefore be held liable for the CN.

If you stick with this point, just change as above.

Ange1402

Ok thanks! Comments taken on board, will let you know how i get on.

patient_dream

Ange1402 said:

Ok thanks! Comments taken on board, will let you know how i get on.

Understand what you are dealing with.  Of course VCS will reject an appeal, they just want your money and normally the IAS will reject because VCS pay money to be members of the IPC and the IAS is the scam part, who will support it's members.  Only about 5% of appeals to the IAS will win

In my opinion, Coupon-mad has dealt an ace card by saying ..

"This is a matter of law and no amount of sympathy that the IAS may have for VCS' position changes that legal fact.  A hirer who was not the driver cannot be held liable at an Airport, due to the Byelaws making the land under statutory control, and the lack of enclosures with the non-POFA".

If the IAS ignore this, it will confirm what we already know, the IPC/IAS is not fit for purpose as an ATA and should be closed down.  That will be the end for VCS/EXCEL/SRS

In your case these two money scammers should bang their heads together and the IAS APPROVE YOUR APPEAL

As said ..... This is a matter of law

Ange1402

Hi, see below response from VCS after I submitted my appeal via the IAS. 

VCS are trying to put the burden of proof on me to show I wasn't driving, quoting case law. They've said POFA isn't relevant. I'm guessing they're full of crap. 

To confirm, I wasn't driving but the stills they've attached as evidence of my car stopping aren't close enough to show it's a male driving, and they won't release the CCTV, if they did I could show that it was a male driving whereas i'm female.

Shall I just ignore or reply to this before it gets sent to adjudication?

Thanks!

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 01/09/2023 16:27:09.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 11/07/2023.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 11/07/2023.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

1. East Midlands International Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 244 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping'. The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100.

2. Signage makes it clear that any motorist stopping in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We are employed solely to strictly enforce the Terms and Conditions as per our contract with the landowner. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed throughout the site.

3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.

4. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport approach roads and the dedicated bus access routes, due to growing congestion caused by vehicles stopping and blocking lanes. The subsequent congestion has created safety risks for other motorists and potential costly delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the Airport. This PCN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on a private road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing this route, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads, where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.

5. The CCTV footage we possess shows that the vehicle stopped on an airport access road, designated by the landowner where stopping is prohibited at all times. A review of the footage shows the vehicle already in a stationary position when first observed and remaining so for approximately 19 seconds before the vehicle begins to drive away. We are unable to provide the CCTV footage due to data protection however the provided CCTV stills cover the period in question and show the vehicle stopped within the no stopping area.

6. In their appeal the appellant states that they are the keeper of the vehicle and that the Charge Notice sent to them, does not fall under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. However, as was explained in correspondence, we have not cited PoFA 2012 nor stated that the appellant was liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982; we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question as no evidence to the contrary has been provided.

7. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver.

8. There are 244 signs onsite; we contend the driver had clear notice of the no stopping restrictions in place. We have supplied the East Midlands Signage map to show the stopping place of the appellant's vehicle. It should be noted that to reach the location at which they stopped, the driver must have driven past several signs, clearly displaying the stopping restrictions and therefore the driver had sufficient notice to decide whether or not to adhere to the no-stopping restrictions.

9. The signage on the access roads is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and the text size is relative to the average approach speed of vehicles, which at this location is 30 mph. Furthermore, all signage at the site uses the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for 'No Stopping' (clearway). It should be noted that the large entrance signs are 2000mm x 1100mm and, to put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door. They are also reflective to ensure they can be seen with headlights.

10. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land on which they park. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions before leaving their vehicle parked in situ.

11. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage at this site, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit and is deemed fit for purpose.

12. Ultimately, when entering this private land it was the sole responsibility of the driver to fully comply with the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions, by their failure to do so the appellant became liable for the PCN, which was lawfully issued.