POPLA Liverpool Airport help

TBone1978

Hi all, a bit of background. In february upon entering the car park at JLA it soon became clear that there were no available parking spaces, apart from disabled bays. I did notice that other cars had taken to pulling up on some curbed areas that were scattered around. Having seen this practice before in private car parks at Trafford Centre etc I followed the lead and did the same. I was not obstructing either traffic or pedestrians and left in a hurry to catch my flight as I had already wasted 10+ minutes looking for a parking space and as it turned out only barely made it onto the plane.

I returned to find a PCN for £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days for the offence of being parked in a restricted area of the car park, £100! How can that be justified?

Being so early in the morning it was dark on the day of my departure, furthermore there were no signs in the immediate area. The nearest sign was some 20 metres away and was not illuminated in the darkness and so was not visible from where I parked and there were no traffic attendants at all in the car park.

I have already called Liverpool Airport to complain at the charge and the lack of spaces, they aren't interested and have ushered me back to VCS, I appealed to them around a month ago on the grounds above and also complained that the charge was too much. I have just had the rejection letter today. They are not interested. I am just wondering what grounds to go for now with the POPLA?

If I go down the GPEOL route will they just come back saying the £100 is a fine for parking in the restricted area and not a loss? And also I have been reading that the bye laws at Liverpool airport were written in 1962 and the laws state that the fine is £5 with 40 shillings for each recurring day, should this then also be used in my appeal?

Any thoughts, hints suggestions would be very welcome.

T.

ColliesCarer

Did they give you a POPLA code? If so check it with the POPLA code checker you will find on post #4 of the NEWBIES sticky - which also tells you all you need to know about putting in a successful POPLA appeal.

Don't worry the circumstances as you will see are largely irrelevant. What matters are the legal arguments you can raise in your POPLA appeal.

Also search the forum for similar cases use "liverpool airport" as a search term with the quotes in the search forum box - top right of main page - choose posts

Redx

use the search words JLA or LIVERPOOL and you will find loads of threads you can plagiarise that have won already

also this newbies thread too https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

TBone1978

OK so having read through alot of info on the site I have drafted an appeal to POPLA. I would be grateful for any pointers or improvements.

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) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) Misleading and unclear signage
5) No evidence provided that a contravention took place



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 parking in a restricted area. 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) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
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. Further to this I have found a copy of the airport byelaws which can be viewed here

=== LINK REMOVED=====

According to the above byelaws covering Liverpool airport since 1962 the fine levied for the first breach or non -compliance with parking regulations is set at £5, therefore the charge of £100 is excessive and unenforceable.

3) 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.


4) Misleading and unclear signage.
The signage on display at the airport is poorly illuminated and does not carry the appearance of official signage. It looks more like advertising signage when it must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping as the text is too small, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.


5) No evidence provided that a contravention took place.
VCS in their response to my appeal have failed to provide any evidential photographs showing the alleged contravention to prove if any such breach had occurred.



VCS are already aware that I was the driver because I stupidly revealed that info when I submitted my soft appeal to them.


Thanks for taking the time to help!

TBone1978

That's a good start. This thread needs merging with your first one though, not sure why people keep posting their POPLA appeals in isolation as it makes it more difficult for us to comment. We need POPLA appeals added as a reply on the original thread instead, so we can see the background info:

****LINK REMOVED****

The only bits I think need amendment are towards the end where the signage point needs to talk about the POPLA Lead Adjudicator's words in the POPLA Annual Report 2013 where he outlined signage requirements for a 'no stopping zone' (it's nothing to do with the TRSGD2002 as such). You should find this quoted in other VCS threads or by searching this parking forum for 'stopping zones' as keywords.

And if this was an ANPR or camera van postal ticket then shove in a standard paragraph about the secret camera van not being a transparent and fair ANPR operation...should be findable by searching this forum for 'secret camera van' as I recall writing a POPLA appeal for someone in a case just like yours, and I used those words.

When using the 'search this forum' heading next to 'forum tools' just above the sticky threads on page one, always change the default search to 'SHOW POSTS' not 'show threads' because the former gives much more matched and simple hits as search results.

TBone1978

COUPON, thanks for your comments, please see my 2nd draft incorporating the comments made around signage. Please read it all again as I have changed some of the wording slightly.

Your help is much appreciate, thanks.

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) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) Misleading and unclear signage
5) No evidence that a contravention took place



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 / parking in a restricted area. 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) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
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 byelaws. Further to this I have found a copy of the airport byelaws which can be viewed here:
***newbie, link removed****
According to the above byelaws covering Liverpool airport since 1962 the fine levied for the first breach or non -compliance with parking regulations is set at £5, therefore the charge of £100 is excessive and unenforceable.

3) 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.


4) Misleading and unclear signage.
The signage on display at the airport is poorly illuminated in hours of darkness (it was dark when the alleged contravention was deemed to have occurred) and does not carry the appearance of official signage. It looks more like advertising signage. Further to this there are vast areas of the car park where signage is not in place. My vehicle was parked in just such an area. Furthermore the signs at this location are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping as the text is too small, 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.''

1. The BPA AOS Code of Practice sets out in detail how the operator should lay out their signs. The appellant contends that the operator has failed in all respects to comply with the requirements of the Code.

2. The appellant contends that such signage as has been deployed by the operator in terms of the type face and size used, its location- particularly being fixed above head height on lamp standards at the roadside - render them unreadable.

3. Even if a driver was to look up, were he travelling at a speed of just 25mph (11metres/sec), he would be unable to read the sign before passing it. The Operator has therefore failed to comply with sections 28.2, 28.3 and 28.4 of Appendix A of the Code and so cannot consider the driver to have been properly informed and cannot therefore seek to rely upon those signs as the basis of any contract.



5) No evidence that a contravention took place.
VCS in their response to my appeal have failed to provide any evidential photographs showing the alleged contravention to prove if any such breach had occurred.

TBone1978

Oh, there was no ANPR or camera van involvement in this case, I was just parked in a restricted zone in the car park (a raised curb area, not causing an obstruction to either traffic or pedestrians) And came back from my trip to find a ticket attached to my window.

da_rule

This looks good.

esmerobbo

Which car park did you use? Was it prepaid or pay on exit?

According to their T&C's

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE OF CAR PARKS

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Entry to or use of the car parks at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (“the airport”) is subject to the current terms and conditions of Liverpool Airport Limited (“the Company”) and the airport byelaws regulating the use and operation of the airport and the conduct of all persons while within the airport. These conditions contain limited exemption clauses affecting all persons who enter or use the car parks. Copies are available for inspection on request.

http://bookings.liverpoolairport.com/EN/SearchResults.aspx

da_rule

OP, the notice you received definitely mentions the Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't it? Rather than byelaws?

TBone1978

It was prepaid. Who or what is is 'OP' DA RULE? COUPON MAD, are you there, any thoughts?