Liverpool Airport stopping on a roadway

Stroma

nigelbb wrote: »

You get a chance to read the signs.

That's true then you start pushing lol

dacouch

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436708/MP-attacks-predatory-airport-parking-patrols-fine-drivers-100-dropping-passengers-stop-just-seconds.html

HO87

dacouch wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436708/MP-attacks-predatory-airport-parking-patrols-fine-drivers-100-dropping-passengers-stop-just-seconds.html

If this article, based on the Parking Prankster's blog (Click here to read), is true then this gives the clearest evidence yet that what PPC's are actually doing is running what amounts to a tax farming exercise. Something I have been arguing for the last 3 years or so. This has nothing to do with "management". What's more JLA must accept some of the responsibility because they must know darn well that they are getting a really cheap deterrent - because that is all it is. Applying the usual BPA BS about "recovery of losses" who is actually out of pocket here? And why, if this was not simply about printing money, VCS were being so magnanimous in giving JLA £25,000 a year for the privilege of recovering "losses"?

xyzperson

This is to let you know that my appeal has been successful. So many thanks to everyone's comments - particularly the threads to other people's appeals. As you will have seen above I wrote a very long appeal letter to POPLA and made a subsequent detailed reply to the VCS reply to my appeal. POPLA had a short reply back. This is what I received:-

On 7 July 2013, the Operator observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the private land at the approach road to John Lennon Airport, via the mobile traffic enforcement camera. The Operator’s case is that the vehicle was stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited, in breach of the
displayed terms and conditions, and therefore, the parking charge notice
was correctly issued.

The Appellant disputes the issue of the parking charge for several reasons,
including one such reason that the amount of the parking charge notice is
not a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss. I will only address this
submission in order to justify why I have decided to allow the appeal.

The Operator has produced images of the signage on the land, and the
wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Therefore, the onus is on the Operator to
demonstrate on the balance of probabilities, that the amount sought is a
genuine estimation of potential loss as a result of the Appellant’s alleged
parking breach.

The Operator has produced a statement and a list of costs in order to justify the charge. Such list includes but is not limited to: the employment of parking operatives, erection and maintenance of signage, the costs of
machinery, equipment, and postage; and also the cost of the mobile patrol
vehicles. However, all of these headings appear to be general operational
costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

I need not decide on any further issues.

Coupon-mad

Well done! We had two VCS at Airport victories as POPLA today, both added in the 'POPLA decisions' thread now. I encouraged the other poster(s) to consider a MCOL small claim against VCS for harassment and your expenses and wasted time/postage/paper etc. over this matter, like in this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85641

VCS pursuing a registered keeper at an Airport, with paperwork which cites a law that doesn't even apply on land covered by bylaws, is a breach of the CPUTR 2008 and harassment of a party who cannot be held liable in a case where the driver hasn't been identified.

xyzperson

Thanks for the suggestion. However I think that I am more interested in pursuing both the Airport since they give a contract to VCS to do this - and also the press. Is parking prankster interested?

Coupon-mad

He might be if you email him - which is on his Blog.

Or the MP in the newspaper article maybe?

You can certainly pursue Peel Holdings or whoever own the Airport, and the basis that the place isn't signed properly AND VCS are alleging a law that doesn't even apply. I would name VCS and the Airport as jointly and severally liable, send them a compliant Letter before Claim under the Practrice Direction and if no reply go for the MCOL claim without further ado, against both parties.

I will be watching this thread with interest, like the pepipoo one.

If more people did what you are planning to try (for the sake of a £40 small claim fee or whatever, up front) then PPCs would be fired much more often by the principals who blindly contract them.

Luddy

I received a ticket for stopping near the roundabout at John Lennon airport while a passenger jumped out and went into the airport - stopped for less than a minute. I then received a parking fine asking for £60. I appealed to them but of course as they had issued it, they knocked it back. I now have been issued with a letter from a debt collectors agency asking for £160 inside 14 days. Totally unjust of course. Any advice?

Stroma

Luddy wrote: »

Any advice?

Yes please start your own thread below, and read the sticky threads by coupon mad on the link below first.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163