VCS/ELMS PCN PAPLOC now claimform - No Stopping - John Lennon Liverpool Airport

[lookinforinfo]

I agree with FTMDave that you have produced a well researched WS.

 

A couple of points. In 2019 Ancala bought into the Airport and the share distribution is Ancala 45%, Peel Group 45% and Liverpool council 10%.  One would have expected that for there to be a legal contract between VCS and the others it would require signatories from all three companies plus witnesses too as per the companies Act 2006. But VCS tend not to observe such niceties as complying with legislation.

 

On the 7th February the Government brought out its new Code of Practice to "keep cowboy private companies in check". There is a belief by many people who are aware of the parking situation in England that VCS are one of those cowboys.

 

One of their aims is to reduce the charges by up to 50% to put them on a more equal footing with Councils many of who use more expensive methods of control by the use of many warden patrols as opposed to the use of a few spies and extensive use of ANPR cameras that are often inaccurate and don't always bother to obtain Council permission for their signs despite this being a legal requirement.

 

Another new clause will be to ban" rip off" [the Governments words] debt collection fees charged by such companies as VCS who are still doing them in your case despite the Government saying that they are a rip off. if they will be a rip off when the CoP comes into force, it is obviously a rip off now which is one reason for VCS being referred as a cowboy company. Even when the situation is pointed out to them they blatantly continue doing it. The sooner VCS and its are removed from being able to access the DVLA, the better.

 

Obviously there may be other points to raise when you receive the WS from VCS so there may be quite a few additions to come. Please post up their WS when you receive it. 

We have seen a few of VCS witness Statements just recently and it is worthwhile for you to read the suggestions at other JLA threads such as Ray's and Doomtrooper. 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

 

 

 

Ancala acquires 45% interest in Liverpool John Lennon Airport

WWW.LIVERPOOLAIRPORT.COM

---

Welcome to the official Liverpool John Lennon Airport website - connecting Liverpool and the North West with the world.

 

[lookinforinfo]

You could put them to strict proof what changes to the contract and the running of the airport have occurred since the arrival of Ancala. If VCS aver no changes the put to strict proof that Ancala has agreed to retain the status quo.

 

More important though is the new CoP that is coming out and why VCS is not taking them into account as they are not in force but have been introduced because the rogues among the parking fraternity have made a new charter necessary.

 

For instance Bye Laws- this is what the new CoP guidance states

"   3. Where byelaws have been made, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.  "

 

And what they say on No Stopping

 

Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from their conformity assessment body, following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.

 

Did VCS do this? Of course not. That would have impinged on their ability to rip off motorists.But do give them stick on not even trying to comply with the new code. It just confirms that they are one of the parking companies that are described as rogues.

{i am trying to find another piece on the No Stopping part of the CoP where stopping to check directions etc was a legitimate short time halt that would not broach the No Stopping rule

 

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Flamjam I know you have produced an excellent WS but there is another section that you could add at the start . And that is the new CoP that is coming out.  The reason for it coming out is to use the words of one Minister   " Drivers to receive greater protection against rogue private parking operators "

 

Neil O‘Brien, Minister for Levelling Up, said: “Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a system of misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

 

Given the severe criticism handed down by the Government and the necessity to bring out new legislation to control parking company excesses you would have thought that VCS would have attempted to distance itself from being described as a rogue operator, by already embracing at least some of the new regulations. They have not and the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that VCS is one of the principal targets of the new legislation.

 

For instance the airport is governed by Bye Laws and therefore not relevant land .

 

The new legislation covers this-

 

4. Where land is governed by byelaws, those byelaws cannot legally be set aside unless specific provision is made to do so, hence it is important that parking operators do not confuse the enforcement of byelaws with the contractual application of parking charges.

 

However you can see that the Notice to Keeper includes VCS invoking PoFA2012 by claiming they can transfer the driver liability to the keeper when this is patently untrue. Furthermore the paralegal refers to being able to transfer the liability to the keeper  in her WS at Point 19. This is tantamount to fraud. PoFA cannot apply where Bye Laws are in force. No wonder she does not want to be involved in the Court hearing.

 

The new legislation will include

"Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned"

"     the Code prevents parking operators from adding any additional fees to the original parking charge or parking tariff

 

So you would think that VCS would not want it felt that they were ripping off motorists and remove any costs above that stated on their signage. You would be wrong. In fact far from that picture painted by Ambreen Arshad on the background of VCS on point 4

 

VCS are notorious for ripping off motorists at every turn including issuing a PCN for a motorist stopped at a pedestrian crossing.

 

The Minister goes on to say 

 

"    And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely.  "

 

Surely it is right to call time in this rogue company who have even failed to pinpoint the spot on any of their copious maps where my car was stopped.

 

Given the size of the airport and the number of approach roads [four] it shouldn't be that difficult. Could it be because the road in question is not included in the contract with JLA.

 

1. "The Site" means the car park(s), un-adopted roadways and/or land situated at LlvERPooL JoHN LENNoN AiRpoRT .

 

Is the approach road a car park? No. 

An un-adopted road? NO 

Land situated at the airport? No it is a main approach road.

 

You could if you want insert it as is on your WS just to push home what a load of codswallop their case is.

You may want to have a look at 

Private Parking Code of Practice - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

and 

Private Parking Code of Practice: explanatory document – how was it developed and what will it change? - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

 

since I remember reading in there somewhere that Council planning permission was included

Edited February 19, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[lookinforinfo]

Found it.   Relationship with landowner  s1[g]

 

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs.

 

 

Private Parking Code of Practice - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

That is another item that VCS continue to ignore but Judges should now take more notice of it since it is now included in the CoP. Add it to the list to further help you against this bunch of rogues.

[lookinforinfo]

Something else to add Flamjam. I have just read that on the preamble by the Minister on the subject of the new CoP  said

 

"       The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible.

So he is expecting the parking world to come into line now as far as they can. VCS have not moved at all so you should bring  that to the attention of the Judge as I believe    it is more that the paperwork has to be amended rather than that will take time rather than the est practices that they should already be moving to. VCS have not moved a jot.  Still the same old dinosaur. The clock is ticking.........................will Judges take action? Be very afraid VCS. 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Flamjam you have done an excellent job and a lot of research -very time consuming. However and I hate to suggest it, but you are still short of getting across to the Judge who may read your WS how the new CoP should be bringing in changes now. Here is what the Minister said-

"The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation."

What the Minister is saying that as the Code has now been published that adjustments from the old CoP to the new one has begun. So while new paperwork will take time to be permitted, things like additional rip off debt charges for example should already be a thing of the past. 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

That is a lot stronger and may give the crooks second thoughts about going to Court. Please include the new CoP and the comment by the Minister Neil O'Brien who made the comments about the Code starts now [Not Greg Knight] to see if the Judge will start to root out the rogues.

[lookinforinfo]

Good luck tomorrow Flamjam-not that you should need it.

I expect the Judge will be asking their brief most of the questions. 

Although there is a new Act some of the things in it are just reinforcing  PoFA2012. Such as the maximum charge is £100-the amount stated on the signage and the amount quoted on the PCN. I t has always been that so when the Government Minister said that the extra charges were "a rip off", that was not new-it has always been the case. It was the Will of Parliament then and it still is and will be.  

How any paralegal can aver that there WS is true and accurate where extra charges are included in the face of such evidence against the charges is tantamount to perjury and should be subject to exemplary damages.

Don't forget to ask for your costs when you win. 

[lookinforinfo]

I don' t know if VCS are disorganised or deliberately messing defendants about, but they do seem to claim not having received documents quite often.

Don't let it get to you Flamjam they are probably trying to put you in a bad light with the Judge. You could  say to the Judge that you understand that VCS often claim not to have received the WS from defendants. And that one reason  could be that they are trying to show the defendant in a poor light. 

[lookinforinfo]

I would certainly say that VCS appear to be trying to pervert the course of Justice by constantly advising the Court that  Defendants are not providing them with a WS often followed by suggesting the Defendant's WS be ruled out. One would have thought that if it was inefficiency  at their end,  that they would have managed to tighten up their operation after the first five "missing" WS. 

[lookinforinfo]

I tend to think that while it is trying to hoodwink the Court by saying that heaven't received the Defendant's WS, once they then carry on and ask the Judge to ignore the Defendant's WS they are moving into perverting the course of Justice. A much more serious charge. Call a spade a spade. One sure way too to put an end to VCS not being able to find a WS.

[lookinforinfo]

 

 

Ambreen is on a flight of fancy here. The airport is covered by Bye Laws there is no need for her to talk about rights of way, there are bye laws. That means that PoFA does not apply as the land is not relevant land.

Tell Ambreen not to be so stupid. This is an airport. Is she seriously suggesting that the land owner can prevent passengers who have booked and paid for their flights entering the airport. The land may be private but it is used by the public to travel by plane

if you haven't already done so, please get VCS to pinpoint exactly where you stopped. I am pretty sure it will not be within the red lines that they have painted..  Their maps in the WS are worse than useless as there are no road names anywhere and nor is there the name of the road where you stopped.

The NTK is unlawful as it includes a section that explains that there is keeper liability when there is none.   .Please mention the no keeper liability in your supplementary. The Judge may wish to comment on it.

With the BPA POPLA appeal PCNs are frequently cancelled when no keeper liabilty is in force. The IAS never cancel them so no point in appealing.

 

Point 9 Airport Laws are not arbitrary they are statutory and have to observed for the safety of passengers and workers on the airport. 

To confirm here is a new set of Bye Laws just brought up to date last year. Hardly arbitrary then Ambreen. How can she sign that hre statement is the truth. She is the most ignorant para legal ever if she thinks that what she said there is true.

 

In the contract at 9.3 it is stated that the contract is governed by English Law and that obviously over rides the ISC code of Practice. So as the Law is that no more than is quoted on the sign can be pursued in Court  PoFA2012  and that is confirmed by the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022  section 9

"The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

So that rules out points 14,15 and 16 even though the ISC code allows charging the extra £60 it is against the Law. I am surprised that the para legal does not know that and am left wondering how the Statement of Truth can be signed and shows what a venal bunch ISC, VSC  and Elms are.

[lookinforinfo]

I think you could add a bit on the end about VCS and the post.

You understand that in the past month or so VCS have claimed that they have not received a WS from  at least 10 people they are pursuing in Court.  I would not claim that this could be  anything but either a problem with their mail deliver or in their own mail room. However a n ethical company would surely not come to Court and ask to have my defence dismissed knowing that the liklihood for the missing document was at their end rather than mine. Incidentally, their SWS arrived with me three days late so perhaps the problem may be in their mail room.

 

[lookinforinfo]

You can only ask them. If they play hardball then show them what you are going to say about them losing Ws's all the time and say that if they agree, to the date change, you will drop the losing mail part. 

[lookinforinfo]

Flamjam I am sorry that I missed this when looking through their WS and am unsure if you can use it in your defence if you have responded to their SWS already

 

It is taken fro the new Act -Private Parking Code of Practice which has been withdrawn for a short time-partly I suspect because the BPA have lost their bottle and do not want to ament their Code of Conduct since it would be admitting that their current one is unlawful.

 

However in this particular section what is stated holds true for  PoFA 2012 also.

 

It's Section 14 Relationship with the Landowner.

 

[3.] Where byelaws have been made, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.

In their SWS  point 9 they say that Byelaws are arbitrary whereas they actually take precedence. 

 

So if you could find that it should be known to the VCS legal department also or if they were unaware of it why do they bother with a Legal department. Besides ignorance of the Law is no excuse. It beggars belief that they can say that Bye laws are arbitrary when under PoFA they are patently not, then have the effrontery to aver that they signed to say they are telling  the truth.

 

That was a blatant lie and you should call it out in Court.  They are trying to minimise the effect that Byelaws have in this case partly to help win their case and partly to pull the wool over your eyes and the Judge's. It is tantamount to perjury since there is no doubt that nay legal department would go over the new Act with a fine tooth comb.