Check my POPLA appeal please!

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 your time.

Coupon-mad

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:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4925991

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.