Why did cops support Liverpool Airport detaining me behind barrier at car park?

[CTRL-H]

Hi I'm new to forums.

 

I dropped an air passenger off at Liverpool Airport's "Express Drop Off" zone,

in a car park that I could not avoid as it was on the end of a No Stopping road.

I was stopped for 30 seconds.

 

 

When I went to the barrier to leave they demanded £2 and went on about a contract and a sign on the road which I had not seen and more ....

 

 

after about 20 minutes I snapped the barrier by pushing it out of the way and went to leave in my car.

The car park called the Police who asked very similar questions about a contract.

 

Now I've investigated and found PoFA S54 and do not like the idea that a person can detain me on the grounds that they demand that I have agreed to a contract of which I am unware.

 

Oh my defence for snapping the barrier is that I was trying to prevent a crime. No further action.

 

So I've begun the Practice Directions pre-action letters and get a reply from the car park supervisor.

 

They have a ParkMark accreditation, but don't bother to display T&Cs, as required.

 

No T&Cs = no contract, not just for me but to anyone. They detained me for 45 until cops let me go. I asked the cop if he was recording his trying to coerce me into agreeing to a contract. He was.

 

Snapping the barrier was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances cos I felt trapped.

 

Does anyone know where they got the right to detain me from cos it ain't S54(3) PoFA 2012?

 

No one should be confused into accepting a nonsense contract, that is not on offer, by hostile, sneering people claiming that a sign on a 40 m.p.h. road which is only in view for 3 seconds as it flies past means you've agreed a contract and pay up to leave.

 

Already found, item 24 Sch 1 unfair terms, signage is substandard and does not conform to BPA, Fraud by false representation and abuse of position.

 

Thanks in advance. I know I'm a nuisance but I don't want other people barracked like I was.

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG. I have moved your thread to a more appropriate forum where I'm sure there will be plenty of opinion.

 

Although it was only a couple of quid, the principle of the matter is what should be discussed, not the cost. This is a first for me.

 

On entering the road to the barrier, does it allow you the opportunity to turn around? Is there anywhere you could stop to read the signs without getting a charge for stopping?

 

Ideally, photographs of the signs could help.

 

You say the police recorded the incident. On camera or paper? Either way you should get a copy of it even though the police have said, no further action.

 

I suspect the parking company will try and bill you for the barrier.

[CTRL-H]

Hi. No chance to read signs as they are too small for the road and no chance to avoid going into the car park, after following filter lane from r/about.

 

SAR to the airport and the Police .... waiting for responses.

 

Trying to upload tariff sign, which I would read as take 20-30 minutes cost £2 i.e. under 20 mins free. Its Express Drop Off.

 

I agree its not abour £2. It is about this is the only place where they quantify their loss of having a customer dropped off as at least £2.

 

The airport will not be billing me, they will "absorb the cost this time."

 

The approach road layout is confusing. I'm going to measure the "clearway" roundall and capitals to show they are too small, but Liverpool City Council are part owners so involving trading standards may well involve another conflict of interest.

 

I'll also take pics of the sign being obstructed and then from the most disadvataged driving lane i.e. the left

 

Thank you and sorry if I can't rotate the photo. I'll put them up separately.

pix.pdf

[ericsbrother]

VCS cannot win a claim and as you say ahve no right to detain you or demand anything.

 

 

However, if the police believe that you have caused criminal damage to someone's property they may use local justice restitution and make you pay for the damage.

 

Basically a slippery slope argument from all sides.

[CTRL-H]

Thanks for rotating the photo.

 

Another point is because there is nothing on the tariff sign to say whether the alleged contract is with VCS or Liverpool Airport, there is no way for a motorist to know with whom they have the alleged contract.

 

My Dad also says that you can't have a car park on a highway.

This car park and the multi storey are accessed by driving on the highway,

for the multi storey you drive straight ahead,

continuing on on the highway.

 

Would it not be action estoppel to now claim for criminal damage when they said they would not?

 

Thanks for the advice. I may go to court for

1) detained without 'lawful authority' by the airport; &

2) coercive questioning to get me to agree a contract with repeated attempts made and snarling (curling of lip) when their claims are countered with facts.

 

Take care all.

[CTRL-H]

Hi all.

 

Does anyone know whether Terms and Conditions on a website are simply informative or can they be in effect and constitute an "express contract?" .. when not for distance selling/purchase from website.

 

I ask because a company just keep stating that their T&Cs are on the website, when the law expects them to be clearly on view and on site (in a car park).

 

If there are no T&Cs as the express contract, then there is nothing for any proposed 'implied term' to be implied into. Unless the 'implied term' is implied into 'common law and custom.'

 

Thanks in advance.

[dx100uk]

threads merged

please keep to on e thread.

[dx100uk]

you need to refocus

[silverfox1961]

As I see it, the road signs belong to VCS and the exit point from the drop off zone is owned by the airport. IF there is no entry barrier which clearly lays out the terms and you only find out about this charge when it comes to leaving, I would challenge.

 

As the airport is on private land, the landowner can do what they like, including putting up barriers

[ericsbrother]

T&C's on a web site for a parking area are not T&C's as no contract may be formed that way. You need offer and consideration. In your position. if you havent paid and you havent been arrested by the police, I would just leave it at that. To try suing for false imprisonment is a very tricky thing, it has to go in front of a jury, same as a criminal court and the level of the actual deed will be taken into account. There are precedents for this but it will be VERY expensive to pursue. Barriers themsleves cannot make you falsely imprisoned BUT you can mitigate any criminal damage the same way-ie they were preventing you from leaving when requested but as the claim is about an individual rather than a vehicle you must somehow show that your car was at risk by some criminal act as well.

[CTRL-H]

 

As the airport is on private land, the landowner can do what they like, including putting up barriers

 

I agree landowner can do what they like with the land. However they cannot do what they like with the people whom they invite onto the land. The landowner cannot control people on the land, but we do tend to comply with reasonable expectations. I don't have a problem with their putting up a barrier, just that they think they can detain people and coerce people to agree that there is an implied contract.

 

But the contract is an unconscionable contract coming from the 'inequity of bargaining power' & thus simply wrong.

[ericsbrother]

I am trying to make the point they didnt detain you in the sense of a civil tort. Basically they stopped your car and that is different. If you paid then the £2 you could have sued them to get your money back, that would have been interesting as an explanation as to why they rely on a web site for T&C's on land that is covered by an act of parliament that overrides anything they say would be interesting.

[CTRL-H]

Thanks ericsbrother that does make sense. So what is the civil remedy for a breach of S54(1)(b) of PoFA? I do not want to leave it at that.

 

I got a reply to the FOI request to the CPS and they offer no advice on S54 PoFA, but there has been a single magistrates case (no outcome known)

 

The government advice is here: Google => "fact-sheet-part3.pdf gov.uk" The title is Part 3 protection of propety......

 

Car park failed on every aspect of gaining/earning 'lawful authority.' The Police will not apply or follow the GVMT advice so motorists will continue to be ripped off.

 

Thanks to everyone for the advice. It is invaluable. I appreciate your time and accept your advice.

[CTRL-H]

ericsbrother you make a good point. Without T&Cs I would not know what they would do with my car, but I bet it would be more expensive.

 

Lots to consider. Thanks

[ericsbrother]

they are not the only airport to introduce this wheeze, they know they have no lawful authority to make you pay up when they demand money so a new method of ripping people off is needed. The airports make millions from a very poor service and getting into bed with a bunch of less than honest partners is just par for the course I'm afraid.

Changes to several acts of parliament are needed to put these people in check and that isnt going to happen.

[CTRL-H]

It is accepted that this is a national problem. Is there a way to ask a judge to decide what S54 PoFA really means so that the cops have to follow the 'recommendation.' I understand it won't set a precedent, but it is informative.

 

I have a real problem with people thinking they can control me without authority.

 

I do appreciate your advice.

[dx100uk]

yea we notice that...

 

 

dx