Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


tom a

VCS PCN for breaking down on DYL robin hood airport

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2016 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

We were near Robin Hood Airport when our car started misfiring.

 

Turned off the main road onto the airport approach roads,to avoid the traffic,

and pulled up on double yellow lines.

 

Normal practice to clear the misfire was to turn off the engine,

leave for a few seconds and then start up normally without problems.

 

While parked on double yellows a white van pulled up behind us.

 

Six days later I received a Parking Charge Notice from VCS Ltd.

 

This was the first we knew about it.

 

It shows pictures of the car and registration number with a time lapse of 13 seconds.

 

I'm the registered keeper but wasn't driving at the time.

 

I've read through the forum and the general advice I've seen is just to ignore all letters from this company.

 

Is this the best course of action or should I write and tell them the car had broken down ?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yellow lines on private land are graffiti and nothing more. Appeal and if rejected they should give you a POPLA number. Then appeal to POPLA which will cost the PPC £25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,

let us consider what is normal for double yellow lines on the public highway.

 

You can stop to allow a passenger to alight and you are allowed to break down if it is not a recurrent or forseeable problem like running out of petrol or coolant causing the engine to overheat.

 

So, with a private road where the painting of lines means nothing in law,

what does your situation mean?

 

Well, they would claim that you are not entitled to break down and you can argue that the lines mean nothing as their demand is not an actual penalty but a claim for a breach of contract.

 

How are you supposed to agree a contract if you dont stop to consider any signage that created that contract?

Did the employees of VCS mitigate their employers loss by helping you clear the highway so your vehicle was no longer an obstruction? Of course not as it is not a proper claim but a money generating fraud.

 

Appeal to VCS as the keeper of the vehicle, not as driver(or mentioning driver's name as it is easier to defeat these claims as the keeper because of procedural errors often help) and say what you say here, vehicle broken down and VCS staff failed to help and therefore failed to mitigate any loss that could have been caused by your vehicle's presence.

 

They will undoubtedly reject the appeal and claim breach of contract but they are obliged to gove you a POPLA code that allows you access to the independent adjudicator.

 

You can then use the agruments that no signage visible that would allow offer and consideration so no contract to breach and in any case no loss to VCS and amount claimed does not represent their actual loss and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through the forum and the general advice I've seen is just to ignore all letters from this company.Is this the best course of action or should I write and tell them the car had broken down ?

Thanks in advance.

 

What threads have you been reading to get that advice?

 

You appeal as registered keeper denying liability for the charge and give the reason why you stopped.

 

Or go into more detail as ericsbrother has said , which shows you know why you do not have to pay the charge.

 

They can cancel the charge (unlikely) , or issue you with a code for the independent appeals service POPLA.

 

The charge will get cancelled at POPLA.

 

Have a read of these Pranksters blogs;

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/vcs-spanked-in-court-as-motorist-and.html

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-simon-renshaw-smith.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies so far.

I appealed to VCS Ltd stating I am the owner of the vehicle but wasn't driving at the time and explained that the car had broken down.

Has expected they have rejected this appeal and state

"a helpline telephone number is situated at the bottom of some of our signs. By making a telephone call on the number provided you can inform us of any problems while within the site,and most probably prevent a Parking Charge Notice being issued to yourself."

The driver never saw any signs,and if they had it would have taken longer to make the call than move the car !!!

I've been issued a POPLA verification code and now wonder what my next course of action should be please ?

Do I just fill in the online POPLA form ?

Which box should I tick ?

 

I was not improperly parked.

 

The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount.

 

The vehicle was stolen.

 

I am not liable for the parking charge.

 

Thanks once again in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sit tight and youll get help. My idea would be to go right for the throat with a GPEOL appeal. But others will suggest appealing on multiple points to make sure you get rid of them.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tick 'I am not liable for the parking charge.

 

GPEOL will win the POPLA appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to appear thick but what's GPEOL ?

Do I state that the car had broken down in the reasons for appealing ?

Thanks once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the road is covered by airport byelaws, have VCS the authority claim from the keeper as would not be relevant land, POFA - Sch4, 3, (1) ©.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to appear thick but what's GPEOL ?

GPEOL is Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss.

 

Something that they stand a snowball in hells chance of proving ;)


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent POPLA decision;

 

 

POPLA*Decision re Doncaster Airport PCN from VCS ltd. number*

9061054507*

 

 

xxxxxxx*(Appellant)*

 

 

-v-*

 

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)*

 

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx arising out of the presence at*Robin*Hood*Airport, Approach Roads, on xx March 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.*

 

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.*

 

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be*allowed.*

 

 

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.*

 

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.*2 10 June 2014*

 

 

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination*

 

 

 

The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at*Robin*Hood*Airport, Approach Roads, on xx March 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was stopped where it was prohibited to do so.*

 

The appellant has made a number of submissions; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.*

 

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.*

 

The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. However, the operator has not provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim. I am unable to see how the parking charge amount has been calculated. In addition, the operator has included "Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect Overheads". I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct result of the appellant’s breach. As the operator has not produced a breakdown of costs, I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in relation to other heads of claim listed by the operator. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.*

 

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.*

 

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.*

 

Amber Ahmed*

 

 

 

Assessor*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the road is covered by airport byelaws, have VCS the authority claim from the keeper as would not be relevant land, POFA - Sch4, 3, (1) ©.

 

Correct.

 

http://www.robinhoodairport.com/_assets/downloads/byelaws.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POPLA*Assessor*Chris*Adamson*has stated in June 2014 upon seeing*VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around*POPLA*- that:*

 

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

 

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POPLA sent of on the grounds of GPEOL.

I'll keep you informed of any development.

Thanks for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news thanks to you.

Appeal allowed on the grounds of GPEOL.

VCS claimed it costs them £166 to issue a parking charge. POPLA were having non of it.

Thanks to everyone for your advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VCS /Excel have produced several version of their "loss" statement. All as useless as the previous ones. POPLA have seen through their creative accounting and found in favour of the motorist time after time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the land is not "relevant land" as it is covered by its own byelaws so VCS cannot calim from you in a court anyway. If they did try apart from being easily defended they would leave themselves open to criminal complaints so they carry on telling porkies to POPLA in the vain hope that someday someone will believe them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...