VCS/PCN at Liverpool Airport - again

[Clwyd]

Having read other posts on this forum, I see I am one of many caught by the infamous VCS. One rainy, evening in January I picked up our niece at JLA. I used the short stay car park (payment logged on card statement). I drove out of the airport and pulled over briefly on the access road to reset the satnav for the journey home. The stop was no more than 40secs I reckon, no-one got in or out, and then I drove on. The PCN arrived the following weekend.

As advised by this forum, a reply from the Registered Keeper (not me) gave a very brief, non-committal response, explanation re the poor visibility/signage & a request to cease bothering us. After receiving an acknowledgement, we have now had a further letter. VCS state that they are now pursuing the Registered Keeper for payment, as is their entitlement, because the driver's details we not provided in a timely fashion.

It seems they are upping their game in order to get paid. Has anyone experienced this level of harassment?

 

Oh, I'm well aware that VCS personnel may monitor this forum - especially if successful results in combating them are posted.

[f16]

They should have given you a POPLA code in their reply.

[armadillo71]

Bit of reading for you before the advice that will follow....

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=vcs

[ericsbrother]

No POPLA code then theoretically no use of PoFA to pursue keeper of vehicle. What construes an appeal? Not specified so they should have provided POPLA code. Complain to the BPA

[Clwyd]

@ f16 & ericsbrother:

If the POPLA code you refer to is a 'verification code' that is given at the bottom of the appeal form, then we have indeed received one. I hadn't realised the significance of it, but we can now plan our 'defence'.

[esmerobbo]

@ f16 & ericsbrother:

If the POPLA code you refer to is a 'verification code' that is given at the bottom of the appeal form, then we have indeed received one. I hadn't realised the significance of it, but we can now plan our 'defence'.

 

You don't need a "defence" the verification code is for a further appeal to POPLA as long as you are still in time 28 days from the date of the letter (or it should be) appeal to POPLA the main point of your appeal should be no lose to VCS look around the forum and build an appeal but don't miss your window.

[Clwyd]

Thanks esmerobbo

I am within the time period and will look at other people's responses before putting pen to paper (or the email option might be better).

[Clwyd]

Had a look through a POPLA search - but cannot find the best way to pitch an appeal to get a (hopefully) successful outcome. Any pointers from other appellants would be appreciated.

[ericsbrother]

Usual for soem of these companies to hide the code. Complain to BPA anyway for their deception.

appeal should be on 2 things-inadequate signage and no loss caused by your action to landowner or VCS. The usual wording is charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and you can quote the case number for the one that VCS lost in court yesterday and posted about here. If a transcript is forthcoming it might be worth having a read to get the wording right.

[esmerobbo]

Had a look through a POPLA search - but cannot find the best way to pitch an appeal to get a (hopefully) successful outcome. Any pointers from other appellants would be appreciated.

 

PM me an email address and I will send you one that has won you can adjust it as you wish.

 

I have no problem posting it up but its looooong!

[armadillo71]

Clwyd- you do not need to PM. You do not need a long POPLA appeal.

State that the driver had paid for parking on the site. Please could VCS show the breakdown of the pre estimate of loss that this charge must represent.

Add the details of the situation if you wish, speaking as the registered keeper, for the driver.

[Clwyd]

Thanks Armadillo, I know I don't need to send a long POPLA - probably the more concise & focused the better. However, for a guide on how to select & present my best arguments, this must surely be helpful. I've read that some appellants have lost their case through a misguided approach.

[armadillo71]

Thanks Armadillo, I know I don't need to send a long POPLA - probably the more concise & focused the better. However, for a guide on how to select & present my best arguments, this must surely be helpful. I've read that some appellants have lost their case through a misguided approach.

 

Have you read the parking prankster link above?

The parking charge notice the registered keeper received, has to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to the landowner for breach of contract. That didn't happen. Or..

Damages for trespass. On the road leaving the car park, that the driver paid to use....

Or a contractual charge. It does not say it is a contractual charge does it?

[esmerobbo]

Two points you can hit them with at JLA to keep it short.

 

The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. I wish to see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

 

The BPA Code of Practice which VCS have signed up to as an approved operator states:

 

“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.

 

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum,that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."

 

And.

 

The alleged contravention did not take place

 

The notice issued states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.

 

The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

 

This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply.

 

The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place.

 

 

 

However I would include this also.

 

 

Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.

 

The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Liverpool Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply. I put VCS to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

[Clwyd]

My thanks go to everyone who has contributed information, suggestions and support. I did spend quite a long time browsing through the parking prankster's blog - I have a lot of admiration for the crusade he is waging against these companies.

As I see it, I have one shot at this POPLA appeal. I know that even if this in not upheld all is definitely not lost - but I'd rather not have to face the possibility of a court appearance. Pushing three score & ten, I've had my fill of such money-grabbing parasites!

[Clwyd]

I was particularly struck by the parking prankster's revelation that:

 

'A set of the byelaws for the Liverpool Airport have now been obtained from a reliable source, Liverpool City Council, which sets out the airport’s stance on roadway use, or misuse. It also lays down a penalty upon summary conviction for a breach of the byelaws of £5 for the 1st offence and a further amount of 40 shillings for a continued daily breach.'

 

I gather that these byelaws were current during November 2013 - and probably still are today! VCS's overheads must be exceedingly high.

[ericsbrother]

byelaw makes it not "relevant land" for PoFA so VCS cannot claim from keeper Therefore POPLA cannot adjudicate so appeal and cost VCS the money and then get a decision that means they cannot claim or do court. If the airport want to go the whole hog for a fiver then that is up to them but I doubt if they will as they have to show who was driving at the time.

[esmerobbo]

I would not get too hung up on the bye-laws situation, even if they are in force Speke hall avenue is not within the boundary of JLA. However its owned by Peel holdings from Dunlop road up until the Airport entrance. Peel own nearly all the land and industrial estates around the old airport site. (which was the original site for these bye-laws) Peel are a minority shareholder in JLA, however as I have said they own most of the land around the area, and they have a cosy relationship with VCS.

 

Liverpool city council owned the old airport, which was sold to Peel holdings, it then moved from the original site to the new site. The bye-laws were drawn up by Liverpool city council. Who at the time had their own police force at the airport, even if they were still in force I would assume it would need to be Liverpool city council who instigated a prosecution. Since they have nothing to do with JLA I don't see how they can.

 

Saying that JLA should be controlled by bye-laws as it is under CCA control and should be relevant land. However as stated the road is not within the boundary of JLA in fact the boundary is the fence along the side of the road.

[esmerobbo]

There is no problem posting it up its just that it is 5 pages long. It was a successful appeal to POPLA against VCS at JLA so the OP can use it to build their own appeal.

 

Post #18 gives all that is needed but if the OP wants to let them have a full broadside they can have the whole appeal.

[ims21]

If it could be posted up as a PDF it may well help others too.

[esmerobbo]

JLA appeal not my work but a winning appeal.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]50011[/ATTACH]

[ims21]

JLA appeal not my work but a winning appeal.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]50011[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Many thanks

[Clwyd]

Many thanks esmerobbo for the info. I'm sure other 'offenders' will benefit greatly from the info you've provided. I think it should be made a 'sticky'!

[citizenB]

Clwyd, seems as though you are sorted now

[esmerobbo]

Make sure you read through it and make any necessary changes, I supplied one for someone once for parking at Aldi and they sent it to POPLA non-amended quoting parking at Morrisons.