Jump to content


Pcn vehicle control office ltd


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3177 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thanks Vondoothoven, great reading :)

I also found a similar thread on money saving expert, but for some reason it won't let me post a link.

I copied the rejection letter below:

 

 

 

"The appellant relies upon a number of well rehearsed arguments.

 

First, she claims the signage along the red route at John Lennon Airport is inadequate. Linked to this is her assertion that there could be no contract with the operator.

 

I have been provided with photographs of the signs and a plan showing where the signs are placed along the red route. I note that the signs are large. The writing is large and set against a bright red background. It clearly indicates no stopping. Beneath this is further information indicating that vehicles stopping will be filmed by cctv and a parking charge of £100 will be payable. In my view the construction of this sign is more than adequate and a reasonable person would know exactly what it means. I am also satisfied that the wording on the sign is capable of constituting a contractual offer to motorists using the red route: stop and pay the parking charge. Contrary to popular belief, to be binding, a contract does not always require signatures; a person's agreement to the contract can often be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the appellant's car did stop on the red route. In my view, this signalled the driver's acceptance of the operator's terms to pay the parking charge.

 

Given that the operator clearly communicates to motorists the amount payable in the event they stop, I am satisfied that this constitutes a contract for a fixed sum. Pre-estimate of loss is therefore not relevant in these circumstances. If the driver considers the charge disproportionate or excessive, they do not have to stop.

 

The appellant further asserts that the operator has no standing to enforce parking terms on this land. I have seen a contract between the management of LJL airport and the operator giving the operator permission to control parking on the land. I am therefore entirely satisfied that the operator did have standing and is entitled to enter into contracts with motor ists on this land.

 

I have reminded myself of the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act in relation to \"relevant land\". I am entirely satisfied that this land is land to which parking terms could be imposed and enforced wight he use of cctv against members of the public.

 

Having carefully considered all the points made by the appellant, I am confident in rejecting each of them. I am satisfied that, by stopping, the driver of the appellant's car agreed to pay the stipulated parking charge.

 

I was going to use her appeal letter but it looks like there's no point in sending one (other than getting VCS to pay the fee)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to use the IAS, then I suggest just writing what I advised (numerous times) as post #6.

 

 

There is no keeper liability, they admit to not using the POFA, and you are stating that you are not the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rejection letter is typicla but is erroneous in law and doesnt satisfy the requirements for evidence in the important parts. Fo r those reasons VCS wouldnt go to court and calim that this decision is a determination that has any standing in the way that a decision by an Ombudsman would.

You have been told that appeals to the IAS are of little consequesnce but we recommend that you appeal so they produce this kind of twaddle and you can then use it against them should the parking company want to waste more money taking it further. Most parking companies dont because they know that it is rubbish as well and since 75% of peolpe pay up it isnt really worth losing a small fortune trying to gain an extra £50

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...