Liverpool airport PCN - help please

Coupon-mad

This was what I was thinking of. I know yours isn't 'APCOA at Luton' but:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63651104#Comment_63651104

That one would be a basic Airport POPLA appeal wording to adapt (not the decision, the POPLA appeal shown below it).

Also get detailed as regards their claim it as a 'no-stopping zone' which I wrote this 'signage' POPLA appeal point for, the other day on a VCS thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63763097#Comment_63763097

Show your draft here first and compare notes with 'morrisoscar' whose very similar thread is near yours on the front page of this parking forum today.

MrsG1980

Thanks very much coupon-mad. I did have a look yesterday and used your links to copy and paste some bits. So I will get my popla letter together and post on here for approval.
Thanks once again, your time and effort is very much appreciated by someone who feels like I'm lost in a maze of information. But I am getting there with your help and the others from this fab forum

MrsG1980

Here is my draft popla appeal. Does this look ok?

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Limited
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Sep-2013
Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013
Alleged Contravention: Stopping on a Roadway where stopping is Prohibited.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

My Appeal.


1) The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Vehicle Control Services Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Vehicle Control Services Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

　

2) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to VCS Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that VCS Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

3) Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between VCS Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that VCS Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


4) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. VCS have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

　

5) The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details. 'The PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions as a generic catch-all. This does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

　

6) Prominent, clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a "No Stopping / Waiting in Restricted Areas or Roadways" area, bearing in mind that this is an area of multi-lane moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style.
The signs in this area do not comply with the regulations set out in the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013.
I contend that any signs in this area can not be read from a moving vehicle.

　

7) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. 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.

　

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

''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. 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.''

I request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours sincerely

Mrs G

MrsG1980

Just wanted to bump this. xx

Coupon-mad

That's much better IMHO!

'The PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions

Does it? Just checking this point is relevant!



You could perhaps expand a bit in the signage paragraph:

''...driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style. If the operator intends this to be a no stopping zone then they must make that abundantly clear to mitigate any loss and to avoid contraventions if they are contracted to keep the roadway clear. And yet VCS' use of a secret camera van and unclear signs at this Airport have caused so many visitors to be unfairly penalised that the operation here has been exposed by MP Nick Smith very recently as 'predatory' and 'profiteering'. I contend this is a cash cow for VCS and that there are no illuminated clearway 'repeater signs' facing oncoming drivers along the road and there is no 'red route' marked out at this site, so I put VCS to strict photographic proof to the contrary.

And I would swap point 6 and point 7 so that the signage point then flows into the no stopping zones point seamlessly.

And just get rid of the italics on the Matthew Shaw quote and also get rid of the bold on the no stopping zones phrase. I know these were lifted from examples that I wrote, where I had used the bold/italics to emphasise a point. Not needed when using the phrases in a POPLA appeal.

MrsG1980

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: Vehicle Control Services Limited
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Sep-2013
Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013
Alleged Contravention: Stopping on a Roadway where stopping is Prohibited.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

My Appeal.


1)The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Vehicle Control Services Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Vehicle Control Services Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include businessrunning costs nor the POPLA fee).

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be agenuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.


2) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to VCS Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that VCS Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.


3) Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between VCS Ltd and theowner/occupier, containing nothing that VCS Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


4) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify"the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. VCS have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.



5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. 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 landis not already covered by bylaws.



6) Prominent,clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a “No Stopping / Waiting in Restricted Areas or Roadways” area, bearing in mind that this is an area of multi-lane moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style. If the operator intends this to be a no stopping zone then they must make that abundantly clear to mitigate any loss and to avoid contraventions if they are contracted to keep the roadway clear. And yet VCS' use of a secret camera van and unclear signs at this Airport have caused so many visitors to be unfairly penalised that the operation here has been exposed by MP Nick Smith very recently as 'predatory'and 'profiteering'. I contend this is a cash cow for VCS and that there are no illuminated clearway 'repeater signs' facing oncoming drivers along the roadand there is no 'red route' marked out at this site, so I put VCS to strict photographic proof to the contrary.


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

''Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line...of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line. 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.''


I request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours sincerely

Mrs G

Coupon-mad

Just looking at the contract parts again if you've not submitted it yet, you could add a bit to it:


2) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore VCS Ltd has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to VCS Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that VCS Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the [STRIKE]owner/occupier [/STRIKE][STRIKE]and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.[/STRIKE] landowner, which must be BPA CoP compliant. This means specifically, that the contract must be dated before this parking event and show that VCS Ltd are granted rights to form contracts with drivers on site and to pursue their charges in the courts in their own name.


3) I believe VCS Ltd have no standing to support pursuing a charge at this site. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between VCS Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that VCS Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. I challenge VCS Ltd to rebut this point in the light of two very recent small claims decisions about a parking operator with a similar contract. In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well, especially as it was also the case in VCS Ltd v Ibbotson, Case No. 1SE09849 on 16/5/2012, where District Judge McIlwaine found as fact that only the landowner can take the matter to court and not firms like VCS Ltd acting merely as their agents.

MrsG1980

Brilliant, thank you so very much.

Would you submit online or by post?

Coupon-mad

I would do it online as long as you check when you get the acknowledgement that all your text right to the signatory has been received as we've seen some text - in very long appeals - chopped off. I think yours will fit but check it doesn't cause an error code or shows only part of the text in the auto-response.

I have just added a bit about VCS v Ibbotson as well, above in the previous post, so refresh the page if it's not there yet!

I reckon that will do the job.

MrsG1980

Managed to add that bit in :T
Regardless of the outcome of this, I actually cant thank you enough for all of your help. :A:beer:
All submitted now, and email confirmation received with all content on.

Fingers crossed and I will update when I hear. xxx