VCS Driveway? parking permit misunderstanding??

[stulux23]

My daughter is a student living in student accommodation. 

For her final year of studies she has moved to a property that has no allocated parking

so she purchased a permit from the landlords which permits her to park at another of their nearby properties. 

 

At the street where she has a permit to park there are some spaces with house numbers painted on them and she assumed that her permit was for one of these spaces as the number on her permit corresponded to one of these spaces so parked there. 

 

She has subsequently received 4 separate parking charge notices (for 4 separate occasions) but the vehicle was moved as soon as we received notification of the first offence (by post - nothing was attached to the vehicle).

 

We accept that the vehicle was parked incorrectly due to the simple misunderstanding that, although she had a permit to park at 101, it was not in fact for the space numbered 101 but should in fact of been on the driveway of house 101 (about 30 yards away!). 

 

despite appealing against the first notice the parking company (VCS) has simply continued to spout legal jargon insisting that they are right, regardless of the innocent mistake and the fact that a permit is held, albeit not for their land. 

 

I don't think we have a case with regard to signage etc. but I have appealed to their better nature (seems they don't have one).

 

Would love to hear other forum members opinions on possible courses of action and also advice on the other 3 notices. 

 

In their case submission they claim to have affixed a notice to the vehicle but this is simply not true as my daughter would have moved the vehicle immediately that she was notified that a contravention had taken place (as she did when we received the first notice by post).

[dx100uk]

they wont careless

 

vcs authorising driveway parking on private homes urm..that's a new one! don't think they can do that

sounds like a nice little sc@m for someone.

 

fill this out please.

 

 

 

 

[stulux23]

Sorry I may have been unclear

- this is a residential street (Headford Gardens, Sheffield). 

 

Each property has a parking space (i.e. driveway) outside the property but there are additional parking spaces with painted numbers (corresponding closely to the nearby house numbers) and it is these separate spaces that are controlled by VCS. 

 

Unfortunately my daughter didn't look closely enough at her permit (which states driveway) and assumed that she had a permit for the space numbered 101.

 

The PCN is still at appeal stage, I have responded several times

- I will attach further details shortly.

[stulux23]

FIRST SUBMISSION

 

My vehicle was issued with a parking ticket on 5th July 2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued (it should also be noted that subsequent tickets were issued on 8th, 9th and 12th July for the same reason, these will also be appealed). 

The vehicle was moved on 12th July as soon as I was notified that it was parked incorrectly. 

 

I

declined the company's invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as keeper of the vehicle. 

I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:

 

1.  There was insufficient clear signage

The parking area in question is not clearly signposted to make it clear which areas are subject to the parking restrictions as it is now been clarified to me that there are some parking spaces that are subject to these restrictions and some that are not. 

This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. 

 

The signs that are posted do not clarify exactly which areas are subject to restrictions and which are not. 

As there is permission for this vehicle to park at 101 Headford Gardens I genuinely thought that by being parked in the space marked as 101, the vehicle was complying with the permit that has been paid for (see attached PDF document from MAF properties) (which does not require the display of anything in the car confirming this). 

 

If the landowner wishes to apply parking restrictions then the spaces should be clearly identified as restricted instead of being marked with numbers that closely comply with the nearby house numbers, as this will clearly lead to confusion.

 

2. Mitigating circumstances

There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason. 

 

I attach evidence from MAF properties (from November 2018) confirming that I have paid for a permit for this vehicle to park at 101 Headford Gardens from 1/7/19 to 26/6/20 and the space that the vehicle was in is clearly marked as 101, therefore I believed the vehicle was correctly parked and does not require a permit to be displayed.

 

I have also attached a picture of Headford Gardens showing both the space used in error (in red) and the space that should have been used (in green) there is barely 20 yards between the two spaces and it can be clearly seen that this is a genuine misunderstanding about where the vehicle was permitted to be parked.

 

SECOND SUBMISSION

 

Vehicle registration xxxxx was issued with a parking charge notice on 5th July 2019 but I believe this was unfairly issued (it should be noted that subsequent tickets were issued on 8th, 9th and 12th July for the same reason, these will also be appealed). 

The vehicle was moved on 12th July as soon as I was notified that it was parked in the incorrect space.  I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:

 

1.  There was insufficient clear signage

The parking area in question is not clearly signposted to make it clear which areas are subject to the parking restrictions as it has now been clarified that there are some parking spaces that are subject to these restrictions and some that are not.  This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. 

 

The sign that is posted does not clarify which areas are subject to restrictions and which are not.  As there is permission for this vehicle to be parked at 101 Headford Gardens (see attached permit issued by MAF Properties) it was believed that the vehicle was complying with the permit by being parked in the space identified as space 101. 

 

Please also note that this permit does not require anything to be displayed in the vehicle.  If the landowner wishes to apply parking restrictions, then the spaces that are controlled by these restrictions need to be more clearly identified instead of causing confusion by marking the spaces with numbers that also correspond to the properties in that street.

2.  Mitigating circumstances

 

There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was, and the charge should be waived for this reason.  The attached parking permit issued from MAF properties in November 2018 confirms that a permit has been purchased to allow this vehicle to park at 101 Headford Gardens from 1/7/19 to 26/6/20 and the space where the vehicle was parked is clearly marked as 101 and therefore believed to have been parked correctly in accordance with this permit.

 

THIRD SUBMISSION

 

I have read the case summary as submitted by the operator with the following observations:

1.   This document states that the contravention date is 11/11/2018 and that the PCN was issued on 19/11/2018 and therefore does not relate in any way to vehicle xxxxx as this vehicle was not in this area on this date. 

Therefore their whole case is invalid and should be dismissed.

 

Notwithstanding this I also have the following points to make:

2.  Even if the signage on site is deemed to be clear as audited by IPC the driver of the vehicle parked in the honest belief that they were complying with the parking regulations as there is a permit held allowing the vehicle to be parked at 101 Headford Gardens and, by parking the vehicle in the space marked 101, within Headford Gardens, was under the belief that it was being parked within the regulations. 

 

The driver had already clarified with MAF properties that there was no need to display a permit and therefore assumed that the notice did not apply to vehicles that had purchased a permit and assumed that, as MAF Properties had a record of the vehicle registration, this was sufficient.  The signs themselves also state that "If a valid permit/ticket is required the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed...." - it had already been established that a permit was not required to be displayed.

 

3.  Although it is stated that no formal PCN is attached to the vehicle the summary does state that ".... as a means of forewarning the driver that a parking contravention may have been identified an MPC (MyParkingCharge) card is affixed to the vehicle in order to prevent a possible re-occurrence....".  It also states that the "....Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ for 10 minutes and 53 seconds before issuing the MPC card....". 

 

On NO occasion was such a card placed on the vehicle and none of the images supplied, in relation to any of these notices, show any such card attached to the vehicle.  After already paying £365 for a permit why would anybody then park in a space that purports to be charged at an additional £100 per day? 

 

4.  As already stated yyyy is a student studying in Sheffield, she does not live in Headford Gardens but has done the right thing by purchasing a permit to park there and this is simply a misunderstanding about exactly where the vehicle was allowed to be parked, there is barely 30 yards distance between the space used and the space that should have been used.

 

5.  The final PCN was issued on 16/7/19 relating to 12/7/19, it was on 12/7/19 that we first received notification, by post, of the contravention on 5/7/19 - as soon as yyyy found out about the possible contravention the vehicle was moved after contacting MAF properties and meeting a representative on site to clarify the correct parking space (this was actually within c. 15 minutes of the final contravention having been observed on 12/7/19).

 

6.  We are simply asking that the operator accepts that this is a genuine error on the driver's behalf and show some leniency to somebody who clearly cannot afford such exorbitant amounts of money for simply parking their vehicle.  There has been no loss to the operator as the space is not being rented or used by any other vehicle.

 

The operator made their response on 30/07/2019 11:46:45.

1. The appellant states: “This document states that the contravention date is 11/11/2018 and that the PCN was issued on 19/11/2018 and therefore does not relate in any way to vehicle  as this vehicle was not in this area on this date. Therefore their whole case is invalid and should be dismissed.”

2. We acknowledge the administrative error in our case summary and can confirm the charge was issued on 09/07/2019 for a contravention observed on 05/07/2019. As the PCN, which forms the legal basis of the charge, was correctly issued this error in our case summary does not invalidate the charge.

3. As noted previously, any incorrect advice the motorist received from a third-party does not affect their liability for a charge. The appellant was parked in close, visible proximity to our signage informing them that where they were parked is private land which is enforced/operated by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. If the motorist did not possess a valid permit issued by VCS Ltd. then it was their responsibility to seek alternative parking. 

4. 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 terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.

5. The appellant states: “The driver had already clarified with MAF properties that there was no need to display a permit and therefore assumed that the notice did not apply to vehicles that had purchased a permit and assumed that, as MAF Properties had a record of the vehicle registration, this was sufficient.”

6. Third parties are not permitted to alter the Terms and Conditions on display. The signage displays no affiliation with MAF Properties so there is no reasonable cause to assume that they would have the authority to alter the terms of the parking contract. The signage clearly and unequivocally states: “Parking for Valid Permit Holders Only”.

7. The appellant states no MPC card was left on the vehicle. As the formal basis of the parking charge is the notice that is subsequently issued by post the fact that an MPC card was not received does not affect the appellant's liability for a charge.

8. The purpose of the IAS adjudication process is to establish where a parking charge was issued correctly in relation to the displayed Terms and Conditions and the IPC Code of Practice, and not to consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

9. In response to the appellant's comments in relation to the amount of the Charge Notice charge, our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would refer to the recent judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].

10. The appellant parked on site without displaying a valid permit for it and became liable for a charge as per the displayed Terms and Conditions.

 

FOURTH SUBMISSION

 

Thank you for nothing, you obviously have no heart and feel it is quite OK to try and extort ridiculous sums of money from a student who obviously cannot afford to pay them. 

 

You can reiterate as many times as you like that the charges are not extravagant and that this has been backed up by other judgments but if £100 per day is truly commercially justified then other parking companies would be charging a similar amount. 

I don't know of anybody who would be willing to pay £100 per day to park their vehicle nor of any company that charges such an amount.

 

I feel that you simply don't want to listen or understand that this is simply a mistake, made by the driver, who parked in the space marked as 101 Headford Gardens as they held a permit to park at 101 Headford Gardens.  By doing so they did not enter into a contract to pay further parking charges as they had already paid to park in this area.

 

This is now the fifth time that this has been pointed out to you but on every occasion you have simply chosen to spout legalities and have shown no understanding whatsoever of the mitigating circumstances that caused the mistake in the first place.

 

What this dispute boils down to is that a vehicle was parked within your area of control, by mistake, for a number of days, until notice was received that the vehicle was incorrectly parked, at which point the vehicle was immediately moved to the correct space, which was merely 30 yards away.

 

You have suffered no loss of revenue or inconvenience to any of your customers and we are simply asking that you apply some common sense and compassion and stop chasing down payment when you have clear evidence that it was a mistake.

We have furnished you with evidence that the vehicle actually does have a permit to park in this area and that this is simply a misunderstanding about exactly which space it should be parked in.

 

If, as you say, this process is '.... not to consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances.' then could you please advise what the process is for that as we gave you the facts of the case from the outset and you basically ignored them.

 

I suggest that this is now referred to the adjudicator and if their only purpose is also to consider the legality of the charge, and not the circumstances that caused the mistake to be made in the first place, then we will need to see what a court of law will judge to be a fair and equitable solution as we have no intention of making any payment in relation to this, or the other Parking Charge Notices, that were issued in relation to this vehicle on that site.

 

NEW APPEALS (relating to the subsequent 3 PCNs)

This parking charge notice was received as part of a series of 4 PCNs all issued for the same vehicle at exactly the same location and the whole case needs to be considered as one incident, The PCNs concerned are:

vcs - date 5/7/19

vcs- date 8/7/19

vcs - date 9/7/19

vcs - date 12/7/19

 

we have already submitted a lengthy appeal with relation to vcs which explains that the vehicle was parked at 101 Headford Gardens with a permit to park at 101 Headford Gardens but that a mistake had been made as to the actual space that should have been used.

The space marked as 101 (which is where the vehicle was parked) was the incorrect space as it should have been parked outside the actual property at 101 Headford Gardens.

 

I have stated that this was an honest error and you can easily see how the confusion arose as a permit to park at 101 Headford Gardens was held (see attached).

 

According to your own case summary for the appeal on vcs your policy is to attach an MPC (MyParkingCharge) to the vehicle in order to prevent a possible re-occurrence of a parking contravention.  You failed to do this on any of the 4 occasions that this vehicle was issued with a PCN.  Had you followed your own policy and attached a notice on the 1st occasion then the further 3 notices would not have been issued, as the vehicle would have been moved as soon as it was pointed out that it was parked incorrectly.

The vehicle was moved on 12/7/19 after receipt, by post, of the first parking charge notice as this was the first notification received that the vehicle had been parked in the incorrect space.

 

As you failed to follow your own processes and give the vehicle owner notice, by way of attaching notice to the vehicle (and thereby giving them the chance to rectify the issue on 5th July) we will not be paying these further charges.

 

FIFTH SUBMISSION

I have nothing more to add other than to point out that you have lied in your case summary document attached to the prima facie case submission as you have stated the following points:

 

5. '.... as a means of forewarning the driver that a parking contravention may have been identified, an MPC (MyParkingCharge) card is affixed to the vehicle in order to prevent a possible re-occurrence....'

NO CARD WAS AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE

 

6. '.... The MPC card was affixed to the vehicle directing the driver to the MyParkingCharge gateway.'

NO CARD WAS AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE

 

7. '.... The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ for 10 minutes and 53 seconds before issuing the MPC card.'

NO CARD WAS AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE

 

Whilst it may not be considered relevant to this specific Parking Charge Notice, this is of significant relevance in relation to 3 other PCNs issued as follows:

vcs - date 8/7/19

vcs - date 9/7/19

vcs - date 12/7/19

If, as you claim, a card was affixed to the vehicle on this first occasion then none of the subsequent tickets would have been issued as the vehicle would have been moved as soon as the mistake had been notified. 

 

If the adjudicator feels that it is just and fair for ...to be charged the exorbitant fee of £100 for her innocent mistake then I feel it is important that your failure to follow your own processes is what has led to the subsequent notices and that these, at least, should be nullified.

[lookinforinfo]

You are dealing with VCS who would attach a ticket to their grandmother's car and insist on payment.

 

Your daughter has run up 4 tickets so VCS are looking at collecting at least 640 pounds from her.

There is no way on God's earth that they are going to agree with any of your points.

She made a mistake ergo she must pay.

They do not do mitigation.

They do not do sympathy.

 

All is not lost however.

If they claim that they put a ticket on her windscreen, then they would have had to wait for a number of days before sending out the NTK [Notice to Keeper].

 

So if you could post up the PCNs that you have in pdf form in one post that could help.

 

Please stop appealing to them it is a waste of paper and time and your appeals have already confirmed who was driving which has removed the protection that POFA provides.

 

It also alerts them to the arguments that you will use should it go to court.

I understand that you would want to support your daughter and probably avoid having to pay these charges for her but your actions are making her position more difficult and a Court case more likely.

 

To help her defence could you please post up photos of where she parked, and where she should have parked as well as any of their signs  that are posted in the area.

 

Please ensure the signs can be read. In addition, please check with the local council to see if they have planning permission to erect their signs in the street. It would not be surprising if they didn't have permission which would be good news for your daughter.

 

[dx100uk]

good grief where did the OP get the idea to open all those cans of worms from.

BANG..ouch my foot hurts..

[brassnecked]

Couldn't have done more to ensure VCS get an undeserved Payday, issue is if they did get Judgment in their favour it's above the "Magic" £600 for escalation to Hight Court for Enforcement, VCS could then get the likes of DCBL (the ones who do can#t Pay with Ch5) the bill then would be well over £2,000 by the time they call.

 

The Team will look at the information and should come up with some advice.  First bit is Do Not contact them again for now.

[ericsbrother]

First thing - by appealing you have identified the keeper as the driver so all those add ons that would otherwise be unlawful can be added on.

 

Secondly, if you had done any homework on VCS you would realise that Simon Renshaw-Smith is not an honest person ( just look at VCS and Excel parking's accounts for directors loans etc) so appealing to his better side is pointless, captain clampit hasnt go one

 

So what we need to concern ourselves with is the legality of the demand and that means

showing us in great detail the place where the car was parked,

all of the paperwork she received,

the signs there and all around the development

who her contract was with regarding the hiring of the space and lastly

who actually owns the land in question.

 

Now the owner of the space she rented may not be the same as the owner of the one where she parked

so VCS will need separate contracts.

 

this may mean getting copies of the land regisrty entry for both but that will be at most £14 spent to save a potential £600