HELP! Popla email with loads of attachments

jeanie49

Any help on what I say to challenge their pre-estimate of loss, or is it just a quick sentence challenging this? Sorry to be so unsure on all this. Is that all I challenge?

jeanie49

Also, it says that the airport bylaws are not currently in use at liverpool airport, and therefore the access roads are private land.

hoohoo

What version of their pre-estimate of loss are they up to now? Does it still say 1.8 at the bottom of the form?

jeanie49

I don't know. It does not say 1.8 anywhere. Their submissions have been emailed.

Redx

dosnt really matter what they say , you are setting too much store in what they have done or are doing

you cannot enforce parking laws on private roads in this manner and they always lose on these and other issues

if you wish to challenge them and trade blows then do so asap , and send in further submissions to popla asap refuting their submissions , or ignore and let popla do its job (providing you included not a gpeol , no contract , poor signage , not pofa compliant so cannot chase the RK etc etc)

the fact remains that this has been discussed to death many times despite them changing their popla submissions month after month , which is why you were asked what revision the paperwork is at now

so if you feel competent to challenge it further , do so asap, or if not - dont and just await your popla decision , which isnt binding on you anyway but IS on them

if they wish to say byelaws are no longer in force then they should prove it , same if they have a legal contract that allows the policing of the roads at JLA , also if they use anpr they should have to prove its compliant and not defective etc , its all about proof , not he says - she says)

they have sent all that "evidence" in to bamboozle everybody , doesnt means its true, but you should certainly refute their claims if you can do so

hoohoo

jeanie49 wrote: »

I don't know. It does not say 1.8 anywhere. Their submissions have been emailed.

Its usually in small print at the bottom of each page on their two page explanation of their charges.

jeanie49

I cannot find any numbers at all. I have copy and pasted what they replied:
John Lennon Airport and all its approach roads are private land. Motorists are allowed to enter that land provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of entry. In this case the requirement is that they do not stop at any time on those approach roads, where signage states: “Restricted Zone - No stopping at any time”.
• We have been employed to carry out traffic enforcement against drivers that stop or wait on the private airport approach roads and the dedicated bus access routes. There are large highly prominent signs at the entrance to the airport approach roads and at regular intervals that state: “RESTRICTED ZONE – No Stopping at Any Time – Strictly no parking, stopping or waiting on double yellow lines, red route zones or roadways at any time”.
• Entrance signage states, “Mobile CCTV & Number Plate Recognition Enforcement Cameras in operation”.
• Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind.
• The appellant has copied and pasted her appeal from the internet as the wording is identical to many that we receive.
• The appellant questions signage at the John Lennon approach roads. There are 46 highly prominent information signs situated at key locations throughout the area. Photographs confirm that signage can clearly be observed at the entrance and throughout the site.
• The appellant will have driven past an absolute minimum of 10 prominent signs, including 4 Entrance Signs and 6 Restricted Zone “No Stopping at any time” Mobile CCTV Signs.
• Signage on the approach roads is reflective and positioned to face the oncoming motorists and has been approved by senior management at the BPA. Text size is relative to the average approach speed of an approaching vehicle on the approach roads, which have a 30mph maximum speed limit.
• Entrance signage states, “Mobile CCTV & Number Plate Recognition Enforcement Cameras in operation”.
• Use of CCTV on airports adheres to the Code of Practice and complies fully with the Data Protection Act 1998. CCTV video and images are recorded by mobile enforcement cameras solely to show vehicles in contravention of the “no stopping at any time” requirement.
• All operational CCTV vehicles are marked clearly with the ANPR Ltd company livery which fully identifies the company. The operators of these vehicles are employed solely to record CCTV images of vehicles which stop or park on the airport approach roads where signs state: “No Stopping at any time”; they no not issue parking charge notices or involve themselves in other parking issues and do not approach road users to offer advice or directions, except in cases of emergency.
• The appellant’s vehicle was stopped in an area where stopping is prohibited (see CCTV file in Section: G).
• A free collection/drop area is located within close proximity to the airport terminal together with several well advertised short stay car parks. Neither was utilised by the appellant.
• Upon reviewing the video taken from our CCTV vehicle, it is clear that the appellant stopped the vehicle where stopping is prohibited. The appellant’s vehicle is observed for 30 seconds and made no clear sign of moving at the end of the recording. A passenger loads a suitcase into the boot and gets into the vehicle (Section F and Section G).
• A helpline telephone number is located on signage to help all motorists who are experiencing difficulties or have any queries. This was not utilised by the appellant.
• The appellant mistakenly refers to the use of ANPR technology on the airport approach roads and makes reference to a ‘hidden camera van’. Vehicle Control Services Ltd holds 'Approved Operator Status' (AOS) with the British Parking Association (BPA) and is thus required to strictly comply with the 'Code of Practice for the control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated car parks'. All operational vehicles are marked clearly with ANPR Ltd company livery, which fully identifies the company.
• The document referred to by the appellant was not an invoice as stated but was a Parking Charge Notice which correctly identified the VAT Number and registered company details.
• Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) vs. HMRC, we refer to paragraph 46 of the decision where it stated, “VCS is permitted under contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action”. The VCS vs. HMRC case was won by VCS on appeal and we do have the relevant authority.
• Airport byelaws are not currently in use. The last set of byelaws relates to the old airport site and is consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company. The access roads are therefore private land.
• The appellant also questions the rights of Vehicle Control Services Ltd to issue Parking Charge Notices at The John Lennon Airport (Liverpool) and requests a copy of the contract with the landowner.
• A statement of authority signed by the landowner, which states, “The operator is authorised by the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the Terms and Conditions of parking” and, “The operator is authorised by the landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice”, can be found in Section G and is marked ‘Confidential’. If the POPLA adjudicator requires further information not covered in this document, then it can be produced at a later date on request. This is provided for the sole purpose of evaluation of the information submitted herewith and, in consideration of receipt of this document, the recipient agrees to maintain such information in confidence and not to reproduce or otherwise disclose this information to any person.
• The appellant considers the charge to be unreasonable. The Parking Charge Notice is a reasonable charge for liquidated damages following a breach of the parking contract and we contend that it is not ‘unreasonable, excessive or punitive’ and therefore cannot be considered a ‘penalty’.
• The Terms and Conditions displayed on site clearly state that if motorists fail to adhere to them, they agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £100.
• Where a motorist enters a private car park or land and by his or her own actions, breaches the advertised Terms and Conditions, a series of events are initiated that require addressing by the parking operator in order to recover its losses. This necessitates the parking operator to follow up that breach and consequentially, costs are incurred in identifying the person responsible, correctly issuing the relevant parking charge notices and subsequently following due process in order to recover the costs incurred in respect of that breach.
• We have calculated a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as £103.21, as we incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated Terms & Conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified. The charge in this instance was established after consideration of costs which may be incurred as a result of a breach of our Terms and Conditions and does not include any day to day operational costs or the cost of any subsequent appeal to POPLA.
• Our charges are in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice for Parking Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Private Car Parks. The Code recommends that the maximum Parking Charge shall not exceed £100.00 and our charges follow this guideline.
• A breakdown of our genuine pre-estimate of our loss with regards to The Liverpool John Lennon Airport can be found in Section G; which is identified under the headings of CCTV and is marked ‘Confidential’; this is provided for the sole purpose of evaluation of the information submitted herewith. In consideration of the receipt of this document, the recipient agrees to maintain such information in confidence and not to reproduce or otherwise disclose this information to any person.
• A press release from our client, which also appears on the John Lennon Airport website, clarifies our position, which is wholly supported by the Airport Police, whom assisted in constructing the press release. It states: Drivers accessing JLA are requested to either use the clearly signposted official airport car parks or the drop off/pick up area, which unlike many airports, still has a five minute free period.
• High profile signage advising drivers of the consequences of not complying with the highway restrictions have been installed throughout the relevant areas.
• Inspector Bob Daly from the Airport Police Team at JLA added, “Vehicles parked in unauthorised areas can present a risk to airport security and can hamper access of emergency vehicles. Merseyside Police continues to support the airport’s measures implemented to enhance security and safety for the benefits of the travelling public using Liverpool John Lennon Airport” (see Section G).
• Vehicle Control Services Ltd operates in Common Law under the Laws of Contract and Trespass. It is trite law that a motorist choosing to enter and use private land for authorised uses does so in full and tacit acceptance of the Terms and Conditions in operation. Those Terms and Conditions are in operation from the moment a person enters onto private land. It follows that should the motorist breach the Terms and Conditions or commit a trespass to the land, we are entitled to seek damages from the motorist to the value of the charges as indicated on the signage on site. On the day in question, the appellant’s vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice because it broke this contract; the relevant charge is consequently recoverable under Contract Law.
• A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of stopping in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop.
• Vehicle Control Services Ltd holds 'Approved Operator Status' (AOS) with the British Parking Association (BPA) and is thus required to strictly comply with the 'Code of Practice for the control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated car parks'. All correspondence was made within the 35 day timeline allowed within that Code of Practice.
• By stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for a Parking Charge Notice as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
Key Events:
13/02/2014: Parking Charge Notice issued
18/02/2014: Correspondence received via post
15/03/2014: Appeal received via post
25/03/2014: Appeal acknowledged via post
15/04/2014: Response letter sent
24/04/2014: POPLA notification received

Coupon-mad

Calm down, no-one is going to read all that and we don't need to. No idea why people think these evidence emails are from POPLA... This is obviously your copy of VCS' evidence pack. To be fair, any POPLA appellant newbies should be expecting that, it's covered all the time on every thread that the PPC has to show you their silly 'evidence'.

VCS versions of the costs/loss mentioned here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4965761

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4978410

HTH, shows you how to check the 'alleged loss' version used and how to respond to POPLA by email - to add any final objections to VCS' drivel!

HO87

As has been suggested, it is wise to take every opportunity to rebut what VCS, and their ilk, have to say at POPLA. There is a legal saying: "that which is not denied is admitted" and as POPLA assessors are legally trained they are likely to apply it. It is therefore always wise to sift through any such appeal responses and weed out statements which are false, self-serving or, from your standpoint, misrepresent the situation.

In the past, VCS have fallen foul of situations in which their staff have allowed so-called infractions (purported breaches of contract) to occur in front of them without taking any steps to prevent them or reduce their impact. This is a duty placed upon any potential party to proceedings - to mitigate their losses.

VCS's MD and legal adviser will well remember the case of Ibbotson at Scun.thorpe when they were roundly spanked by the judge who kicked the case out because they utterly failed to mitigate their losses. They won't want a repeat of that experience.

• Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) vs. HMRC, we refer to paragraph 46 of the decision where it stated, “VCS is permitted under contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action”. The VCS vs. HMRC case was won by VCS on appeal and we do have the relevant authority.

This is a quote taken entirely out of context. Whilst the case did involve them it did not then and nor does it now relate to all of their activities. The case in question related solely (and I mean solely) to enforcement in a permit-only car park and not to their whole operation. Besides, the case revolved around issues that arose in 2009 and well before the institution of POFA. VCS were involved in 3 cases one in 2011, an appeal in 2012 and the case at the Court of Appeal in 2013. The quote is from the judgment of the 2012 appeal to the Upper Tax Tribunal (VCS v HMRC [2012] UKUT 130 (TCC) para 46) which they lost for goodness sake. In any event this judgment was itself overturned by the later hearing at the Court of Appeal. Talk about cherry picking.

• Airport byelaws are not currently in use. The last set of byelaws relates to the old airport site and is consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company. The access roads are therefore private land.

The fact that JLA choose not to make use of the byelaws is irrelevant. You cannot simply choose to ignore a piece of legislation simply because it is outdated or inconvenient. The fact remains that they exist which means that VCS cannot make use of the keeper liability facility provided by the Protections of Freedoms Act. This is a straightforward attempt at obfuscation and the police cannot re-make the law anymore than JLA or VCS can.

jeanie49

Thanks so much for all help -really appreciated.
I am sending the reply below. Is this ok?

1. I would like to see clear authorisation from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices on their land, and I would like to see the contract as evidence.
2. Please can the defendant demonstrate the charge £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I challenge this and would like to see evidence. There was no damage or obstruction caused, and no loss arising from the incident. I feel the amount lawfully claimed is the amount the driver should have paid into the machine.
I am appealing on the basis I believe £100 charge is punitive.

Thanks all.