Liverpool Airport VCS

Coupon-mad

So the OP could add when saying that no contravention occurred:

''The vehicle was not parked; it was queuing on a road. Vehicles have to queue to turn right into Dunlop Road. At this Airport in this road, queuing cars are common every day on arrival and on leaving and would all be temporarily stationary, waiting for the inbound road to clear. There is no way that a driver could stop and read the sign as they enter the road, as they would block the junction.''

morrisoscar

POPLA appeal first draft, comments please.


As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds.

1)None compliance with BPA code of practice
2) Not relevant Land for POFA 2012
3) Misleading Signage
4) No Contract with driver
5) Signage not BPA compliant
6) The alleged contravention did not take place
7) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss

Appeal not acknowledged within BPA code of Practice time limit

An appeal by the registered keeper was sent within the required 28 days of the date of the PNC, VCS ignored this appeal and sent a notice to keeper claiming the driver had not been identified. It is the right of the registered keeper to appeal and there is no requirement to identify the driver. VCS were sent a copy of the appeal upon receipt of the notice to keeper and at that stage should have cancelled the PCN as they had exceeded the time limit allowed to reply.

Not Relevant Land for POFA 2012.
The driver has not been identified, 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.

Misleading signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' which is a misleading term because of its similarity to the Highways Agency term 'urban clearway'. If VCS intend this apparently private road to treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the Road Traffic Signs and Regulations Guide published by HMSO or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading.


No contract with driver.
As VCS are not the owners of this land they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract, a witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions.A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction.


Signage not BPA compliant.
As it is necessary for the driver to stop their vehicle in order to read the terms and conditions before being able to consider them and whether to agree thereby breaching the terms and conditions the signs erected at this location are none compliant with the BPA code of practice. The repeater signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic and so are unable to be seen by a driver and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice.

The alleged contravention did not take place.
VCS have provided an evidential photograph which allegedly shows the vehicle to be stationary at this location, the photograph taken at night shows a line of at least three vehicles with their headlights on. The vehicle is allegedly in this line although it is impossible to identify which vehicle it maybe. As VCS state the reason for preventing parking or stopping at this location is because to park or stop at this location causes an obstruction I put it to VCS to prove that the car was not just in a line of traffic and as such was unable to proceed without colliding with other traffic.

The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive, is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Coupon-mad

Here are my suggestions, you may wish to convert it all to black to make it readable straight away but I have shown in red where I have added ideas:



Dear POPLA
Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds.

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) Non-compliance with BPA code of practice appeals procedure
3) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4)No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
5) No Contract with driver
6) Misleading and unclear signage
7) The alleged contravention did not take place
8) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park



1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. [STRIKE]and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.[/STRIKE] As VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.


2) Appeal not handled within BPA code of Practice time limit
An appeal by the registered keeper was sent within the required 28 days of the date of the PCN. VCS ignored this appeal and sent a notice to keeper claiming the driver had not been identified. It is the right of the registered keeper to appeal and there is no requirement to identify the driver. VCS were sent a copy of the appeal upon receipt of the notice to keeper and at that stage should have cancelled the PCN as they had exceeded the time limit allowed to reply. There were no extenuating circumstances which could have led to their delay, so they have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the handling of appeals, which renders this charge unenforceable.


3) 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 the Operator 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.


4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
As VCS are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.


5) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see 'misleading and unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever, no consideration was capable of being offered.to the driver, who was simply queuing on a road in traffic and saw no pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.


6) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' which is a misleading term because of its similarity to the Highways Agency term 'urban clearway'. If VCS intend this apparently private road to treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. Any repeater signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic and are sporadically placed if at all at this junction. So they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''


7) The alleged contravention did not take place.
VCS have provided an evidential photograph which allegedly shows the vehicle to be stationary at this location, the photograph taken at night shows a line of at least three vehicles with their headlights on. The vehicle is allegedly in this line although it is impossible to identify which vehicle it maybe. As VCS state the reason for preventing parking or stopping at this location is [STRIKE]because to park or stop at this location causes[/STRIKE] to prevent an obstruction, I contend that the car was [STRIKE]not [/STRIKE] just in a line of traffic and as such was unable to proceed without colliding with other traffic. There was no parking contravention at all.



8) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park
The BPA code of practice contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, the secret camera van does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that VCS have failed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. They will need to show evidence to the contrary on every point, and explain how this hidden camera van can be compliant when this is not a car park, it is a road, and there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the use of a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a van fitted with a hidden camera, patrolling land which is not a 'car park' and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'.

esmerobbo

One small point not that it matters everything else is covered. They are not DYL any longer they have redone them since streetview they are double red now.

Also since the local paper reported on this matter the van has had more identifying livery stuck on it. You can see it but only if you know where it will be, which is sat on the roundabout at the Airport entrance.

Coupon-mad

OK, thanks for that info, I have removed the reference to 'no red route'.

Welsh_Exile

Lynnzer has got hold of a copy of the byelaws (FoI from City of Loverpool) and posted the relevant bits on PePiPoo - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81089&pid=895090&st=80&#entry895090

In a nutshell - no provision for Fixed Penalties, offences to be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court.

Umkomaas

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Lynnzer has got hold of a copy of the byelaws (FoI from City of Loverpool) and posted the relevant bits on PePiPoo - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81089&pid=895090&st=80&#entry895090

In a nutshell - no provision for Fixed Penalties, offences to be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court.

Just read the post - sterling work by Lynnzer. I have to presume the document is the most up to date one, the one thing that puzzles me is the penalty for breaking the bye law is £5 (cheap enough!) but for continued breaking it's forty shillings a day, which suggests there's been no update to the document since at least 1970 (43 years+ according to my calculator ).

Coupon-mad

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Lynnzer has got hold of a copy of the byelaws (FoI from City of Loverpool) and posted the relevant bits on PePiPoo - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81089&pid=895090&st=80&#entry895090

In a nutshell - no provision for Fixed Penalties, offences to be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court.

That's good evidence for morrisoscar, although he'll win this easily at POPLA anyway.

esmerobbo

We used to play football on the fields in the old Airport when I was a kid. They had their own police then, I remember my Dad walloping me because we were taken home by a bobby and he warned my Dad we could be fined £5, I think that was half his wages then!

How times have changed now we have VCS trying to wallop you for stopping for a few seconds.

esmerobbo

Just had a look at the byelaws posted on Pepipoo I do wonder if they are still valid Liverpool city council owned the Airport then, it was later sold to peel holdings, and has since moved location.

Hopefully they have not been superseded or repealed.