Parking Ticket for Parking in undersized bay: Widney Manor Park and Ride

KeithP

...and another one of your pictures has those words VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD even clearer - at the foot of the entrance sign...

LDast

The signage at the car park clearly identifies Vehicle Control Services (VCS) as the operator. As such, any contract for parking was made with VCS, not Excel Parking. Excel, being a separate legal entity, has no standing to issue a parking charge, as no contract exists between Excel and the driver.

The signage makes no reference to Excel, and you would require proof of the contract between Excel and TfWM that grants them the right to manage and issue PCNs at this location. In the absence of such proof, Excel has no legal standing in this matter.

The PCN has been issued by a different entity than the one referenced on the signage (VCS), which is misleading. This breach of transparency and fairness violates sections 62 and 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The IPC Codes of Practice require operators to ensure signage is clear about which company is managing the site and issuing PCNs. In this case, the signage only mentions VCS, not Excel Parking, creating confusion and breaching the Code. The PCN is therefore not enforceable, not that Excel, VCS or the IAS would care.

Castle

OP
1) As Transport for West Midlands are subject to the F.O.I.A, I would suggest you request a copy of their contract with the parking company at the car park.
2) Contact DVLA and find out who has requested the RK's personal details.

MajorDanby

So, just to get the facts absolutely straight here and sorry for the confusion that has been caused.

I've just found the window sticker PCN - it was issued by VCS
My appeal submitted to myparkingcharge was responded to by noreply@excelparking.co.uk
My appeal outcome letter was letterheaded VCS and sent by noreply@myparkingcharge.co.uk (although its name appeared as Excel)
My SAR request was sent to dataprotection@excelparking.co.uk but was responded to by dataprotection@vehiclecontrol.co.uk

Apologies for the confusion, the fact that they were showing as Excel on my emails just made me think that it was they who issued it.

MajorDanby

Castle said:

OP
1) As Transport for West Midlands are subject to the F.O.I.A, I would suggest you request a copy of their contract with the parking company at the car park.
2) Contact DVLA and find out who has requested the RK's personal details.

Thanks Castle. I doubt they have requested the RK's details. Unfortunately I submitted my appeal before coming to this forum. From my SAR request I clearly identified myself as the driver (unfortunately). All correspondence has been electronic thus far. I will certainly request the contract though

Johnersh

Highly relevant, but if it were me, I'd not take the point now. Interesting to see if it's excel or vcs that initiates the proceedings...

Coupon-mad

Except that if this is early doors and the OP has a rejection letter dated October, they SHOULD take this case to the IAS.

Popcorn out!

P.S. there's no 'mystery' here and of course we already know all about VCS and Excel who are sister companies. We know all that.  We've been here for more than a decade and know our stuff.

Appeal to the IAS if you are within the time to do so free.  Show a copy of the PCN and a copy of the signs and point out that there's no contract with or offered by Excel. 

MajorDanby

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I am still within the 28 days to appeal to IAS. How does the following look?

PCN: VCS XXXX

 

To who it may concern,

I am writing to appeal the above PCN issued by Vehicle Control Services, (“VCS”) on the grounds of:

i)                    Inappropriate and incomplete signage

ii)                   Lack of clarity over the enforcing agent and potential breach of GDPR

 

Inappropriate and incomplete signage

The signage at Widney Manor Park and Ride does not comply with the requirements set forth in ‘the private parking sector single Code of Practise’, (“PPSCoP”).

 

3.1.1. An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited, …

…NOTE 1: Entrance signs should be designed to avoid clutter and display only the key information drivers need to know before entering controlled land…

 

Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.1, entrance signage should display the key information that drivers are required to know before entering the controlled land, subject to additional terms and conditions being supplied on additional signage within the controlled land.

 

3.1.3. Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must: a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;

b) be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach…

 

Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.3, additional signage at Widney Manor is insufficient to determine additional terms and conditions from the entrance signage when parking or leaving their vehicles. Image 1 shows the signage visible from the vehicle at the time of entering the alleged contract. This fails to meet PPSCoP in the following areas:

i)                   The type font on the signage is too small to be legible from all parking bays in the area of controlled land, including the parking bay from which it is alleged a contract was entered in to.

ii)                 The location of the signage is such that it is further obscured when certain parking bays are filled.

It is therefore refuted that it was possible for any relevant contract to be entered into by the driver with VCS, specifically the requirement to park wholly within marked bays, as it was not included on the entrance signage and illegible from the additional signage in the carpark.

 

Lack of clarity over the enforcing agent and potential breach of GDPR

·         The Parking Charge Notice, (“PCN”), was issued by VCS on 19/09/2024

·         An appeal was made via myparkingcharge.co.uk on 19/09/2024

·         The appeal was acknowledged by Excel Parking Services Ltd, (“EPS”) on 19/09/24 (noreply@excelparking.co.uk)

·         Further communication from noreply@myparkingcharge.co.uk; however, using an email display name of EPS, on 10/10/24 and 14/10/24, including the rejection of the original appeal. Correspondence was on a VCS letter headed template.

·         A subject access request was made to EPS (18/10/24) via dataprotection@excelparking.co.uk and was responded to by VCS (dataprotection@vehiclecontrol.co.uk) on 24/10/24

The relevant contract that was allegedly entered into was with VCS. As legally separate companies it is apparent that GDPR data has been indiscriminately passed through separate organisations evidenced by an appeal application that should have been submitted to VCS being answered and acknowledge by EPS.

Such opacity results in the driver of the vehicle being unable to identify the organisation responsible for the management of the appeals process making any defence process impossible. Additionally, it is clear that there may have been a breach of GDPR.

 

The driver therefore requests that this PCN is cancelled immediately due to:

-          Signage incompatible with the requirements laid out in the PPCCoP

-          Lack of clarity over the organisation responsible for the appeals process

-          Evidence on personally identifiable information being passed between separate organisations, contravening GDPR

Coupon-mad

Oh.

Your OP says the PCN was issued by Excel.

MajorDanby

Yeah sorry,

I tried to clarify in an earlier post - as I appealed the PCN on the same day as receiving it, and the automated response was an email from Excel I convinced myself that Excel were the issuer. It was only when I posted the images of the car park that someone pointed out that it was actually VCS.

Worth appealing to the IAS anyway seeing as I have already written the above?