VCS/PCN at Liverpool Airport - again

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[esmerobbo]

JLA appeal not my work but a winning appeal.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]50011[/ATTACH]

[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.