Liverpool Airport - Parking Charge Notice

EddieMetal

Thanks Coupon Mad. I've emailed the MP and will copy him in. I can't see any way to contact the Daily Mail journalist. I also asked the MP if he has had any coverage in the Liverpool Echo. I've emailed the Liverpool Echo to see if they're interested in the story. The local rag might like it.

EddieMetal

And here is the first draft of my appeal.


Points 5,6 and 8 are copied from the sticky thread and the other points are tweaked to suit my circumstances. I've changed the order of the points in the sticky thread to what I feel are the strongest being sequenced first.


I'm not sure that point 8 applies to my case although I can see how the last para does.


Point 7 is gleaned from information elsewhere and is not part of the sticky thread.


I'm not sure about the reference to 'urban clearway' at the beginning of the last para of point 4. I can see the point is relevant but CVS do not use the term 'urban clearway' in the notice to keeper.


Please note that due to personal circumstances I need this out of the way by Thursday at the latest so I don't have much time left. I really appreciate all the effort to help but I will come to a point on Thursday night when I have to submit the appeal.

---

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. The alleged contravention did not take place.
3. No Contract with driver
4. Misleading and unclear signage
5. Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
6. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
7. The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012
8. Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park

1. Amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre estimate of loss

At Liverpool John Lennon Airport there is a pick up / drop off system that is free for five minutes. The alleged contravention took place in seconds, which is clearly less than five minutes and yet Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) demand a payment of £60 for what would have been free parking.

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 stopping. As VCS are alleging 'stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited' 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. The alleged contravention did not take place

The notice issued to me states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.

The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply.

The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place.

In addition, in their refusal of my appeal VCS state 'the driver stopped on the junction where they could have caused an obstruction'. This is disingenuous and misleading. The driver pulled off the roundabout onto an exit from the long stay car park. He did so to avoid causing an obstruction. The car park exit has two barriers and the car is in front of only one of them. The car still had its engine running and would have been moved in an instant if anybody had approached but, of course nobody did. It was past midnight and no car either entered or left the long stay car park.

3. No Contract With The Driver

VCS contend that signs on Speke Hall Avenue, the road in question, are adequate proof that the driver has entered into some form of implied contract with them but I content this is not the case. They stated in their refusal of my appeal, ‘There are numerous warning signs in place along the access roads’ and ‘the terms and conditions’ are ‘clearly placed’‘in prominent places throughout’ but this is not the case. I have returned to the scene since they issued the notice both in daylight and at night. There are only two signs on Speke Hall Avenue, the route the driver took. The two signs are also adjacent to each other so there is only one chance to take them in. The signs have six sections containing different pieces of information. They are impossible to read from a moving car and in this case the driver did not see them anyway. 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 with Dunlop Road. The incident also took place at night which makes the signs impossible to read. They are not lit up in any way.

The notice issued to me also states ‘The terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the car park are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and in prominent places throughout’. Seeing as the driver never entered any car park this assertion is completely irrelevant to the circumstances in which the noticed was allegedly issued. It also illustrates that VCS are unable to prove any such ‘contract’ was ever achieved.

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 simply stopped on a road and saw no pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.

4. Misleading And Unclear Signage
The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. VCS’s signs are in the style of a commercial venture and similar to the myriad of commercial ventures along Speke Hall Avenue. Because the signs are not in the style of a standard road sign there is nothing to draw a driver’s attention to them. They could be an advert to one of the local hotels, for example. I would also contest the VCS signs are not positioned correctly. It is the case that there is a ‘No entry to coaches’ sign a few yards before the VCS sign on the driver’s side of the road. Any driver would have a split second to for his attention to move from the ‘No Entry’ sign to VCS’s sign containing six sections of information. I would hope that the assessor can see this is not humanly possible.

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.''

If VCS intend this apparently private road to be treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002 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. Repeater signs in this area are located in the area of the car parks, do not face the oncoming traffic and are not positioned where the driver in this instance would have seen them. Therefore they were unable to be seen by the driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and consequently do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

5. 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 VCS 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.

6. 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.

7. The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012


Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA stipulate the mandatory set of information that must be included on the notice to keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

The Parking Charge Notice issued to me and attached to this appeal does not
a. Stipulate the period the car was parked.
b. Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of POFA indicates that the ‘creditor must be identified’. To “identify” a “Creditor” VCS must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has been legally contracted.

8. Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park


The Parking Charge Notice issued to me states ‘the alleged contravention was detected and recorded by Mobile Traffic Enforcement Cameras’

The British Parking Association (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'.

Coupon-mad

That looks perfect to me - a certain winner (and we win 100% of the time). All of it does apply to your case including the fact that VCS need to show this is an urban clearway (with appropriate signs facing the oncoming traffic) if they want to mimic a roadway no stopping zone. This would be the only fair and clear way to sign such an area - but VCS want to use it as a cash-cow of course, so they fail to make it clear. Point 8 applies because the use of a secret camera van doesn't seem to comply with paragraph 21 and it's not for you to guess where it might comply, it's for VCS to rebut your suggestion that they have failed to comply.

Submit this online to POPLA right now.

Umkomaas

Looks good to me. GPEOL is covered writ-large and is the silver bullet (or is that the golden bullet now!!), but I do wish that POPLA would adjudicate on the 'relevant land' issue which would kill off the VCS operation.

Leave it up for another 24 hours for others to comment, but from my point of view, it's ready to go.

Well done on an excellent piece of researched work. Let us know when you've won.

esmerobbo

Address your complaint to Matthew Thomas he is the CEO at JLA.

nigelbb

These 'stopping on roadway where stopping is prohibited' charges are an utter farce. No motorist entered into any contract either with VCS or the landowner simply by driving on the approach road to the airport. They are given implicit permission by the landowner to drive on the road as this is the only way to access the terminal. If there are conditions attached to that permission then it becomes a matter of trespass not breach of contract. It's the same way as passengers are given implicit permission by the landowner to enter the airport terminal. They don't enter into a contract.

If there are safety or security reasons for stopping to be forbidden then the correct form of management is to use bylaws to prosecute the offending motorists but even this would only be possible if very clear signs are in place that the driver could not fail to see.

trisontana

If it is a security issue, how are they going to stop a potential car-bomb by taking a photograph of it?

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

If it is a security issue, how are they going to stop a potential car-bomb by taking a photograph of it?

Exactly, although they'd be able to sell 'before and after the blast' photos to the Daily Mail

EddieMetal

My appeal and complaint have now been sent off. Unfortunately my letter of complaint was already in the post before I read esmerobbo's suggestion above to send it to the CEO but that gives me an option to complain again should I get no reply or a rejection. Thanks to all for your help. Let's see what happens now.:)

EddieMetal

I received copies of all the evidence from POPLA today. It fills me with rage to read. Couldn't stomach it all. Happy to copy it to anybody who is interested and authentic.