Liverpool Airport VCS

trisontana

In a strange turn of events, a poster over on PPP claims that they have recived a letter from VCS regarding Liverpool Airport which says that VCS subcontract ANPR Ltd. (Trev's company) to operate the cameras vans around the airport. They also claim that the vans are clearly marked with that company's logo . This is different from all the reports I have read which say they were plain white vans.

This is what the letter says:-

All operational CCTV vehicles are marked clearly with the ANPR Ltd company livery which fully identifies the company.
The operators of these vehicles are employed solely to record CCTV images of vehicles which stop or park on the airport approach roads where signs state: “No Stopping at any time”; they no not issue parking charge notices or involve themselves in other parking issues and do not approach road users to offer advice or directions, except in cases of emergency. Vehicle Control Services Ltd use of CCTV on airports adheres to the Code of Practice and complies fully with the Data Protection Act 1998.

esmerobbo

This is the van as it was today.



They also have an Excel livered van sneaking around the approach road and the industrial estate nearby.
The driver of which was most annoyed when I warned someone parked on the estate that they were about to be photographed, whilst parked up while giving his dog a run!
Geezer was up to speed opened his tailgate let the dog in and left it up until he got off the estate, so said van could not get the reg No!

trisontana

Does it actually say "ANPR Ltd" on the van?

esmerobbo

trisontana wrote: »

Does it actually say "ANPR Ltd" on the van?

No, it says Mobile enforcement vehicle, on each side on the back and on the bonnet. with pictures of cameras on each panel. It does not have any identifying name that you can see as you pass.

When I have seen them outside the vans they have Excel hi-vis coats on!

trisontana

So why are VCS saying they employ ANPR Ltd in the above letter? Are they just stupid and incompetent?

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

So why are VCS saying they employ ANPR Ltd in the above letter? Are they just stupid and incompetent?

They have probably done a cut & paste from a template letter on a PPC forum (I am sure they have them where they all hang out & moan about motorists scamming them in car parks & cheating them at POPLA).

trisontana

Thanks to Bama on PPP who reckons that its actually this company:-

http://www.anpr-international.com/

"ANPR International" are part of the VCS/Excel "stable". And we all know what a stable produces an abundance of!

Stroma

nigelbb wrote: »

They have probably done a cut & paste from a template letter on a PPC forum (I am sure they have them where they all hang out & moan about motorists scamming them in car parks & cheating them at POPLA).

I think there is one that the bpa opened at one point, could have sworn I saw a link on their website at some point, you had to be verified to join there.

esmerobbo

I walked my dog past the camera van at JLA the other day No company markings on it at all. On each door it says "Camera enforcement vehicle" it has pictures of a camera on the bonnet two on each side panel, and one on the back. I even looked if it had a small sign anywhere but no.

Had some strange looks from the operator as he munched a banana!

Only signed vehicle you see is a Kango/Berlingo van in Excel livery!

While walking around I noticed one flaw in their argument for the need for enforcement. They claim it is for security and to keep the road clear for emergency vehicles.
First point security, now picture JLA as a football pitch, the road they enforce is the away end. If you wanted to launch a missile at a multi storey car park or an Hotel then that's the road for you.
The side line is a public highway parked here and launching a missile you could hit the terminal, the apron, the aircraft parking area, the cargo terminal, and even the fire and rescue centre.
The home end is an open road hardly more then a dirt track were a missile could be fired at an aircraft as it landed or takes off.

Now emergency vehicle entry, unless there is a problem with the multi storey car park, all emergency vehicles would enter from the Hale road side the public highway, its the nearest to all the amenities. It is also the biggest and simplest entrance to the airport. There is also another entrance on Hale road again this would be easier to gain access to the airport amenities then the Speke hall avenue entrance covered by VCS.

So there justification does not hold up and it should really say well this is the only part of roadway Peel holdings own so we can rip you off on this part.

Oh and as far as security on Hale road its DYL all down one side I counted 12 cars parked on it and not one CEO, or BIB to be seen!

morrisoscar

For anybody putting together a POLPA appeal, at this location photographs of the repeater signs on the road which on an urban clearway should face oncoming traffic would be useful.

At POLPA VCS alleged the contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' and claim there are numerous signs of this type and give locations of all their signs on one map, however they omitted any mention of them facing traffic even though this was part of the appeal, because they don't. They also conveniently forget to include any photographs of these signs but do include a photograph of the entrance signs which face the traffic, so possibly leading the adjudicator to reach the conclusion that all the signs are erected in the same way.