VCS CCTV PCN Claimform - no stopping - Access Road to Pontefract Race Course, WF8 4PR***Claim Struck Out***

[pinkabvelvet]

Hi All,

I am in a similar situation to Sean Miller

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460082-Parking-Charge-from-Vehicle-control-Services-do-I-pay-help-please&p=5158775#post5158775

 

in that I received a charge notice.

 

On 25/09/18, my car broke down and 02/10/18 I received a parking charge notice in the post for "stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited".

 

They have CCTV photos of me on the telephone standing beside my car waiting for the Recovery Services to register my breakdown.

I had to be towed away and there was no way that I could have moved my vehicle without assistance.

 

They state that there are signs clearly marking it is a no stopping zone and I should have notified them that i had broken down.

I didn't notice any signs, and I certainly didn't see that i had to call any numbers. I was busy worrying about what was happening to my car and making sure I was towed to safety. I passed my test about a year ago and I had never been in this situation so you can imagine I was scared and worried!

 

It has gone through the so called independent appeals service and they have, of course, ruled in their favour.

I have written to Watchdog and i was just wondering if anyone had any tips about how i can handle this?

 

On principle I refuse to pay this charge, £100.00 is a hefty price to pay for something I completely disagree with!

 

Hi All,

 

On 25/09/18, my car broke down and 02/10/18 I received a parking charge notice in the post for "stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited". They have CCTV photos of me on the telephone standing beside my car waiting for the Recovery Services to register my breakdown. I had to be towed away and there was no way that I could have moved my vehicle without assistance.

 

They state that there are signs clearly marking it is a no stopping zone and I should have notified them that i had broken down. I didn't notice any signs, and I certainly didn't see that i had to call any numbers. (I have also since taken photos of said signs and if you are in a moving vehicle there is no way that they can be read!) I was busy worrying about what was happening to my car and making sure I was towed to safety.

 

I passed my test about a year ago and I had never been in this situation so you can imagine I was scared and worried! It has gone through the so called independent appeals service and they have, of course, on 02/11/18, ruled in their favour and said i had to contact the Vehicle Control Services, who issued the charge, within 14 days to either pay or let them know i am seeking further legal advice.

 

I have written to Watchdog and i was just wondering if anyone had any tips about how i can handle this On principle I refuse to pay this charge, £100.00 is a hefty price to pay for something I completely disagree with!

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks to everyone reading.

[silverfox1961]

Can you fill this in to the best of your knowledge

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket&p=4883055&viewfull=1#post4883055

[ericsbrother]

WHO has issued the chage and where was the place that lead to this?

 

 

As it is VCS and they are a member of the IPC of course your appeal was rejected, they reject every claim regardless, they dont even read them properly.

 

 

Not paying on principle can be very expensive but as you broke down in a no stopping place the that wasnt a breach of contract because there never was a contract to park there to breach in the first place. VCS know this but they are greedy bullies so it wont go away very quickly but will be beaten in the long run.

 

 

I hope you are up for that but you must use the correct arguments and forget aboutfairness and being nice.

Edited November 13, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[pinkabvelvet]

In response to Silverfox:

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 25/09/18

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]02/10/2018

 

3 Date received 05/10/18 (this was the date that i wrote to them an appealed the charge)

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] No

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? They have included 3 photographs on the original PCN

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] Yes

You completed the appeal on 17/10/2018 11:29:11.

 

On 25/09/2018 my car broke down and I received a parking fine for stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. I explained in my original appeal that as I approached the roundabout I was unable to control my vehicle and it rolled to a stop. My hazard warning lights were on and it was clear that I had broken down, if it were possible for me to move to a different location I of course would have. At the time that the photographs were taken, 12:30, I was on the telephone to Green Flag. The call started at 12:27 for 5 minutes. I received a series of Text Messages from them from 12:34 onwards and they advised when they would be able to come and assist me.

Although there are signposts stating no stopping/ waiting - I had no other option but to do so and even saw the vehicles taking the photographs stopping in this same area for their lunch break. I did everything possible to ensure that I was not causing an inconvenience; my hazard light were on and waited beside my vehicle until the recovery vehicle arrived. I hope you can appreciate my shock when I received this parking fine after what was an already distressing experience.

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes

 

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/10/2018 16:54:58.

 

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 02/10/2018.

A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.

The ticket was issued on 02/10/2018.

The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.

The charge is based in Contract.

 

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

1. The Racecourse Retail Park Phase 2 Access Road is private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use.

 

2. There are 11 warning signs on site which state: “No Parking or Waiting on Access Road” and “Charges Apply 24 Hours Per Day”. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed throughout the site. 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).

 

3. The adjudicator will note that this site and its signage have been audited by the International Parking Community (IPC) and that the signage complies with the IPC Code of Practice.

 

4. This PCN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on a private road. Any vehicles obstructing this route, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for access to the retail park. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) patrol, manage and enforce on this access road, where parking and waiting are not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.

 

5. In their appeal the appellant states: “On 25/09/2018 my car broke down and I received a parking fine for stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. I explained in my original appeal that as I approached the roundabout I was unable to control my vehicle and it rolled to a stop. My hazard warning lights were on and it was clear that I had broken down, if it were possible for me to move to a different location I of course would have. At the time that the photographs were taken, 12:30, I was on the telephone to Green Flag. The call started at 12:27 for 5 minutes. I received a series of Text Messages from them from 12:34 onwards and they advised when they would be able to come and assist me. Although there are signposts stating no stopping/ waiting - I had no other option but to do so and even saw the vehicles taking the photographs stopping in this same area for their lunch break. I did everything possible to ensure that I was not causing an inconvenience; my hazard light were on and waited beside my vehicle until the recovery vehicle arrived. I hope you can appreciate my shock when I received this parking fine after what was an already distressing experience..”

 

6. The CCTV images supplied show that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the access road where parking and waiting is prohibited at all times. A review of our our CCTV footage has confirmed that the appellant’s vehicle was stationary when first observed and remaining so for approximately 46 seconds. The position of the appellant’s vehicle is shown on the annotated site map supplied. This also highlights the close proximity of the appellant’s vehicle to site signage, as does the annotated CCTV still supplied.

 

7. As noted above, and as shown on the supplied site map there are 11 warning signs on site which state: “No Parking or Waiting on Access Road“ and “Charges Apply 24 Hours Per Day”. We contend that the appellant had been given sufficient notice that parking or waiting was not permitted in the area in which they were parked. To reach their stationary position the appellant would have passed at least 1 entrance board and 2 warning signs.

 

8. Whilst the appellant states that they had broken down at the time the contravention occurred, this does not mitigate their liability for the PCN. Signage on site advertises a helpline number for any motorist experiencing difficulties, this was never utilised by the appellant. The appellant does not deny being aware of signage on site and the annotated site photos show the proximity of the appellants vehicle to the signage on site, the motorist is required to make us aware as soon as possible if they are unable to comply with the clearly advertised terms and conditions if they wish to avoid liability for a PCN.

 

9. With regards to our Enforcement Officers, we can confirm that they are authorised to utilise the area as we are contracted by the landowner to provide management and enforcement on the access roads and prohibited areas.

 

10. When entering this private land it is solely the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with, and to fully comply with the terms and Conditions displayed on the signage located onsite.

 

11. By stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.

 

The appellant made their response on 20/10/2018 17:23:47.

 

I still dispute the charge notice I have been issued. I have since returned to the area that I broke down in and the signs are not as clearly visible as you suggest. Please compare the warning sign (that hase over 30 lines of dense test) with the 10MPH sign which is clearly visible, even when in a moving vehicle. Also, from where the sign was sited, it was above my eyeline and not at all possible for me to see from where my vehicle was stationed. I certainly wasn't able to read the sign from my position or see that I had to ring a telephone number to alert anyone - my top priority was to get myself and my vehicle towed to a safe location by my recovery service.

I also asked approximately 30 family members, friends and neighbours, all of whom live in the local area, if they were aware of any parking/ waiting restrictions and no one knew of this or had even noticed any signs.

Further more, as per your photographs, there are also no double yellow lines, which again would have been a very clear indicator that this was not a suitable area for stopping. However, as the Green Flag statements report, my car had lost power and was unable to start and had to be towed to a local garage. There was no possibility whatsoever for me to continue to move my vehicle out of this zone and as you can see from the photograph - once the recovery man arrived he had to push my vehicle in order to tow it away and unfortunately, being only 5 foot 2, I was unable to perform this manoeuvre myself.

 

The operator made their response on 22/10/2018 13:48:16.

 

1. Our supplied site photographs, annotated vehicle location diagram, and indeed the appellant’s own photograph show that there is VCS Ltd. signage clearly visible in a prominent location where the appellant stopped. .

 

2. We would note again that this site and its signage have been independently audited by the International Parking Community (IPC) and found to be fully compliant with the IPC Code of Practice for the contract it is intended to create. The signage clearly and prominently states “No Parking or Waiting on Access Road” alongside the nationally-recognised No Stopping symbol.

 

3. We would note that to reach the location they stopped the appellant will have passed our large, prominent entrance board signage (see supplied proof and photographs) and a further 2 reminder signs. As such we contend the appellant received sufficient notice they were

 

4. The adjudicator will note that the appellant’s anecdotal evidence regarding what other individuals have said about this site does not constitute mitigation for the contravention and cannot be taken as the basis for cancelling the charge. Our time and date stamped evidence shows there was signage in place prior to and at the time of the contravention which clearly advertised the No Stopping restrictions.

 

5. The absence of double-yellow lines is not mitigation. The signage in place is sufficiently clear that the roadway is not an appropriate place to stop your vehicle.

 

6. Once the motorist was aware that they had stopped and contravened the Terms and Conditions of access to these roadways it was their responsibility to report their circumstances to us, having had clear notification of the restrictions in place, if they wished to seek to have provisions made for them. Whilst the appellant states “I certainly wasn't able to read the sign from my position”, we maintain that the signs on this site meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so. It can never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say, "I did not read the signage", so long as the existence of the Terms and Conditions of parking are reasonably advertised. Had the appellant consulted the signage once they stopped they would have been aware of the existence of the helpline.

 

The adjudicator made their decision on 01/11/2018 09:18:35.

 

 

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

 

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms.

 

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

 

7. By stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.

 

7 Who is the parking company? Vehicle Control Services Lrd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Access Road to Pontefract Race Course, Phase 3 Pontefract WF8 4PR

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS

 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 

 

copy the windscreen or ANPR section to your thread and answer the questions...

 

Hi Ericsbrother,

 

 

 

I have answered most of your questions in the long post in response to Silverfox.

 

I am glad you are in agreement with me, I certainly didn't stop out of choice or make a conscious decision to put my car there! In fact, in part of there response they state that "A review of our our CCTV footage has confirmed that the appellant’s vehicle was stationary when first observed and remaining so for approximately 46 seconds." and i can vouch that i have waited longer on this road due to the dense traffic coming in and out of Macdonald's!

 

 

 

I hope i havent thrown too much of a spanner in the works by responding myself initially - it wasnt until after they ruled in their favour that I started to do more research and discovered that they are not the most reputable of companies.

 

 

Thank you

[ericsbrother]

we need to know EXACTLY where this took place. As the idiots at VCS have already damned themselves by stating that there isnt a parking contract on offer the rest is fairly straightforward.

 

 

As Said, Simon Renshaw-Sith is particularly dense when it comes to meanings of words and has even told a judge they were wrong in one case. That didnt stop himlosing a number of subsequent court claims at exactly the same site for the very same reason so by logic all judges are wrong but consistently so.

 

 

Or it could be he suffers from hubris.

As siad this will be a long haul so we hope you are up for that.

Edited November 13, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[dx100uk]

Shame you used the word fine in your appeal

Theyll think you are a mug awaiting to be fleeced now

Thread title updated with exact location

 

Dx

[pinkabvelvet]

Hi Ericsbrother,

 

I am unable to post a link as my post count isn't high enough yet, but it is Park Road Pontefract WF8. There is an industrial estate and I broke down between Currys and Pets at Home. I can send the googlemap link when my posts are above 10.

 

I hope this helps you with the exact location, thank you for your quick replies.

 

I am not planning on going anywhere so, I'm up for the fight if you are able to help me. I really appreciate it

 

Hi dx100uk

 

oh no i hope i haven't shot myself in the foot by stating "fine"..

[silverfox1961]

As this is VCS, make sure that anything from Excel be saved. (same company, different names)

 

 

As it stands (and in my opinion) I would now ignore them and only respond to a Letter Before Action (Usually from Gladstones or BW Legal) They think they have you as a mug and will chase you right up to a possible court claim.

 

 

 

The courts are very different to the unnamed adjudicator whom the IPC like to hide and will take all situations into account. It is likely VCS will file a court claim but fail to show up on the day as is their norm in trespass cases such as yours.

[pinkabvelvet]

Hi Silverfox

Ok - I will do, so far I have only received correspondance from VCS and then the IAS.

As I wrote in my initial post, I notified them that I am seeking further legal advice. I will ignore any other correspondence and I will let you know when I receive a letter before action from them and wait for your advice on how to respond.

Thank you for your help and assurance, I know I am not in the wrong but I am glad you are in agreement with me too.

[silverfox1961]

Whilst this thread is not related to this link

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?487017-Liverpool-Airport-Stopping-Charge&p=5118468&viewfull=1#post5118468

 

 

it does show what VCS are like and although a different area, the principle is the same with your case.

[pinkabvelvet]

Thank you Silverfox - the other thread definitely gives me an idea of what I have coming up to deal with!

[ericsbrother]

plenty of persuasive cases to support you on this, read about Liverpool John Lennon airport to get a flavour.

 

 

 

Although there are byelaws that gve additioanl support for motorists there the basics are the same- no stopping sign indicates prohibition and is not an offer of a parking contract whatever the IAS says accepting the conditions. If it isnt lawful you cant agree to it.

 

 

 

Breking down doesnt really come into it but if the signage was a proper contract that would be the get out as there was never any intention to agree to terms. What next, ticket a fire engine called to extinguish the blazing building the sign is next to? Private land so no Crown Immunity for fire brigade and that menas the same applies to them, ie their situation overrides the need to even consider a sign's scribble.

 

You cant sue someone for not murdering your spouse when they said they would and although that is the extreme end it is the same principle of law.

Edited November 13, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[pinkabvelvet]

Hi Ericsbrother,

 

Yes, I will definitely do some further reading to get more of an idea and I agree with the point you made completely - it just seems like madness that they are able to get away with it!

 

Thanks for your help & once i hit 10 posts I can send you the Googlemap link of the exact spot I broke down.

[ericsbrother]

they get away with it because in this country peopel just pay up and grumble afterwards most of the time rather than deciding from the outset to put up a proper fight.

 

 

If everyone refused to pay then the parking co's would spend £10 million on court fees to recover a maximum of £20 million in charges. Thise that pay up without a fight are funding the harassment of those that refuse to pay. Only a very small minority of sites have all the necessary permissions to create a binding contract and even less of them are then subject to a properly worded NTK so it is gfair to say that hardly anyone actually owes them a bean

Edited November 13, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[brassnecked]

VCS are daft enough to send an NTK for a police car, fire engine, or ambulance if you had stopped due to illness and they came to assist you.

[ericsbrother]

was it them who ticketed ambulances at a hospital and then refused to cancel?

[brassnecked]

That is Camden Council at the University College Hospital, but I wouldn't put it past a VCS or Parking Eye trying it on.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/parking-fines-for-ambulances-show-how-the-public-purse-is-drained-a3956286.htmlpital

[ericsbrother]

No, I have seen a report of a private parking co doing it somewhere, they eventually were forced to back down but complained that no-one gave them the reg no's of the ambulances to whitelist. Now as it wasnt ANPR that was a poor excuse

 

Found one from Manchester in Tescos with EPS from July but the one I was thinking about is older than that. Found another from Scotland where hosputals are banned from charging for parking anyway but helped the parking co to chase the driver of a paramedic first response vehicle. It does happen

[pinkabvelvet]

Hi All,

 

I have just received a "Demand for Payment" Letter - they are asking for £160 as there are now debt collection costs of £60 added to the charge, deadline for action 03/12/18.

 

Added to the VCS ignore pile as per your advice

[silverfox1961]

Ooh! an awfully powerful debt collection agency--NOT!

 

You are correct to place in the relevant pile. Later on you can cut them into squares and use them for the purpose they were intended for

[ericsbrother]

if you read the POFA you will see that the parking co can only charge the keeper the amount on the NTK and no more as they were not party to the offering of the original contract.

 

Now the parking co and their pet ferrets hope you dont know this but I sometime think they actually believe they can charge what they like because they know a large number opf peopel will see this suden increase in the demand and think that if they dont pay the new amount it will soon go up to a million quid and they will lose their house.

 

Now if you do get sued and thsi rather inconvenient truth about the actual debt is made clear to a judge then all the parking co will get is the original £100 or so. If you show that the oparking co has abused the court process they get 25-50% knocked off the claim as well so end up shelling out more that they can gain and that assumes they win in the first place (unlikely for a correctly defended claim).

 

I say again, the only way a parking co can make a profit is by deception and coercion so read up on the law surrounding parking contracts and their methods and you will no longer fear them regardless of what they do.

Edited November 22, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[pinkabvelvet]

Well if it comes to that stage I will be certainly asking for your advice to defend my claim correctly. I definitely wouldn't want to lose in court if it does eventually go that far!

[silverfox1961]

As far as I can remember, cases such as this (Mainly at JLA) court papers were issued but when it came to the date to attend court, VCS discontinue as they know they would likely lose. The only times VCS could win is if no-one defended the case and they got a default judgement. This is what VCS hope for. They don't like defended court cases.

[brassnecked]

VCS would definitely try to invoice a cyclist on a bike or electrically assisted bike, the camera van might go after the cyclist if they stopped to check a tyre or read their sign. I phoned and asked them what they would do and they said they would PCN the cyclist even a minor, if they could get their details.

[pinkabvelvet]

Hi All,

 

I just received a "Final Demand" - they say payment of the outstanding balance (£160) must be made within 7 days from the date of this letter by the Deadline for Action date of 11/12/18 . In the event that we commence County Court Proceedings against you for the recovery of any Outstanding Balance, we will also seek recovery of any associated Court Fees, Solicitors Costs and Statutory Interest.

 

I will continue to ignore as per your advice!

Definitely a letter with intent to scare people into paying, angry red lettering and says how it can "affect my current employment or future prospects of employment" if i do not pay!