Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light.

Fruitcake

Spottydog65 said:

@KeithP that's the photo I'd looked at before. Coludn't recall whether it was Bristol though. So they are out and out lying then. Thank you!!

The important thing is that the wording fails to mention that it is a scamera vehicle taking covert images of personal data (VRMs). Since it fails to state for what purpose the images (personal data) will be used, every photo taken is a breach of the CCTV CoP.

This only applies where a PCN/NTK has been issued using images from the scamera van. It does not apply to images taken by the CCTV scamera at the temporary pedestrian crossing relatively near the main entrance.

Spottydog65

@Fruitcake thanks for that. It is interesting that the email back to me from the Bristol Airport exec states the following 

1. The vehicles utilised on site are marked clearly with company livery which fully identifies the company and clearly states, “Traffic Enforcement”.

yet the photo shows that it doesn't state traffic enforcement and it is certainly not clear that it is for 'undercover' photos.
Where you say the wording fails to mention the purpose - could you clarify - do you mean the workding ON the vans themselves?
I'm trailing a little beind 'wontpay' here and have just received the LoC, so following this hread closely. Would it be best to start a new thread as my situation isn't exactly the same (being a newbie I dont wish to waste anyone's time!) your advice much appreciated. 

KeithP

@Spottydog65, it really would be best if you were to start a new thread about your parking incident.

Trying to progress two different incidents in the one thread will only lead to confusion.

Spottydog65

@keithP many thanks  - just starting one now.
I am continuing to follow this thread as well as it is really useful to see the steps to take. many thanks!

Spottydog65

Spottydog65 said:

@keithP many thanks  - just starting one now.
I am continuing to follow this thread as well as it is really useful to see the steps to take. many thanks!

@KeithP I've started

Bristol Airport VCS - PCN for 15 seconds

Imnotpaying

Latest Up-Date - I have just received a response from DCB Legal to my latest letter, the draft of which I posted on 28 October. 

Dear 

I apologise for the previous admin error; I can confirm VCS is not regulated by BPA. The client is regulated by IPC and would like that to be made clear to yourself to avoid any confusion. In any event, IPC confirm pursuant to 7.2.1 “If the charge remains unpaid after 28 days, it may increase by up to a further £70 and could result in enforcement through the Courts with additional costs being awarded.” The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business, and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.  

The Client regulates the land to ensure that terms and conditions that are set on the private land are kept to. The claim that has been issued is between VCS and yourself, the contract that was sent in previous communication is the contract between VCS and the landowner agreement to confirm the client has the authority to regulate the land and set out terms and conditions. When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. I acknowledge you have stated you stopped as it was a pedestrian crossing however the reason the Parking Charge Notice was issued, was due to no stopping to pick up/ drop off in a restricted zone. The photographic evidence shows you picked up/dropped off in a restricted zone, the evidence has been included within the email. 

If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not enclosed with this letter, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.   

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to pay BLAH BLAH BLAH......

Unsurprisingly, as you can see from the text, they have refused to provide answers to three of the four requests for information on the grounds that they consider them "disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute" Their refusal to provide a copy of the contract authorising them to operate is in contrast to their response to the same request from @LDast and, in my view, indicates their increasing concern that no current contract exists.  They then have the cheek to "respectfully" refer me to the wording of para 2.1(c) of the PAP protocol that they seem to ignore. Apart from "respectfully" drawing their attention to para 2.1 (a), which encourages "early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute,"   I'm just considering how best to proceed in the light of this response. Unbelievable! (not really!)

Coupon-mad

Dear Sirs,

Kindly stop this series of misleading communications:

1. You have stated that your client is 'regulated'by the IPC. No. The rogue parking industry is UNregulated. 


2. You say "IPC confirm pursuant to 7.2.1 “If the charge remains unpaid after 28 days, it may increase by up to a further £70 and could result in enforcement through the Courts with additional costs being awarded.”

Errrr... where?  7.2.1. of what?  Clause 7.2. of the new joke 'Joint Code' is about camera vehicles.  I can't find those words anywhere.  And it isn't that the parking charge has 'increased', it is surely that you've added £70 to line your own pockets hundreds of thousands of times per year.  This is your bolt-on costs.

So it's a debt recovery fee but you are dressing it up as part of the PCN.  Is that a ruse to avoid VAT on DRA fees?

3.  You say "The claim that has been issued...".  No claim has been issued.

4.  You've declared release of documents and information under the PAP as 'disproportionate' but I respectfully draw your attention to para 2.1 (a), which encourages "early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute,"

Supply the information that I requested.

And don't get me started on "had you of" which has provided hours of fun on MSE and makes your firm a laughing stock. Where was the author educated?

Yours faithfully

Your name

Imnotpaying

Thanks, @Coupon-mad.  I will make good use of this, though possibly in a more measured way.  I think I have what I need now to demonstrate that I have really tried to resolve this dispute in a professional way to avoid wasting the Court's time.

Like you, I get great pleasure from the many examples of DCB Legal's excellent command of the English language.  I'd love to know where they went to school and what are their qualifications.  Some of it has found its way into correspondence to me from BAL, indicating how BAL cut and paste VCS/DCBL/DCBLegal's information directly into their responses. 

Fruitcake

"... a more measured way..." is probably best because the last word in any sentence used might one day be, "judge," or, "your Honour."

Do include the content though. I am a firm believer in highlighting every failing, no matter how small, to highlight to the courts how the unregulated parking industry tries to bully, belittle, and in some cases, lie.

I can't remember, but have you mentioned bylaws, and if so, have you had anything saying that the airport operator considers bylaws to be obsolete?
Also, have you had any communications from Excel? If so, you should be challenging this as a DPA/GDPR breach since they are a completely separate company to VCS.

Half_way

I havent checked recently, but if the airport or its agents say the bylaws ate obsolete then this could cause issues with the CAA (civil aviation authority) as having aset of bylaws for the airport/airfield and operations could be part of the airports licence to operate.
 if it is, then raise a complaint with the CAA