Help I've got a PCN for pulling into an access road

esmerobbo

After a little research you will find VCS use the excuse of no stopping on these roads as a security measure, or easy access for emergency vehicles.

I am sure a terrorist is going to worry about receiving an invoice as they launch a SAM at an aircraft or a Mortar, at the terminal. Then regarding the emergency vehicles, I would assume an emergency vehicle driver would be trained adequately to negotiate around a temporarily stopped vehicle, as they do most days.

I think you may find its more of a cosy relationship between Excel/VCS and Peel holdings and trying anyway they can to remove money from a person.

fisherjim

AdrianC wrote: »

One of us is, but I suspect it's crusading zeal which is leading to it. (Oh, and going back a few replies, I meant that a normal public-sector PCN was easier to enforce in court.)



The OP, just in case you'd forgotten, deliberately chose to drive into an access road and stop for a couple of minutes. He didn't "stall for 10 seconds", and he wasn't in a location where stalling would have rendered him stationary even briefly.

I know exactly what the OP did, but I asked YOU a direct question which you are evading!

nobbysn*ts

esmerobbo wrote: »

............I am sure a terrorist is going to worry about receiving an invoice as they launch a SAM at an aircraft or a Mortar, at the terminal. ..............

Now as you've brought it up, a terrorist may not be worried. But, if a car is observed parked on the access road for a period of time, security may take an interest. However, if the access road is regularly full of parked cars, stalled cars, cars simply driving up and down, then a terrorist would simply fade into the general melee. So, like all things in life, the mundane tasks get sub contracted to the private sector. So keeping the access road clear may not be a major security task, but giving the terrorist with the SAM missile no opportunity to park up with the general public, and get it out of the boot could well be. Depends on your view of what security is really.

trisontana

But do "security" actually monitor these roads. I bet it's just the PPC van with a ANPR camera.

AdrianC

fisherjim wrote: »

I know exactly what the OP did, but I asked YOU a direct question which you are evading!

Apart from the fact that I'm a competent enough driver that I don't just randomly stall my car (my first driving lesson was sufficient to gain that level of clutch control, thanks), I've already pointed out that the question is a non sequitur, since the scenario you posit bears no resemblance to the one under discussion. Nor do I believe for one moment that a penalty would be issued in the event of a vehicle being slow to move off when the traffic in front does, as you suggest.

nobbysn*ts

trisontana wrote: »

But do "security" actually monitor these roads. I bet it's just the PPC van with a ANPR camera.

It's an airport. You would assume security is there. It doesn't always need to be the SAS, armoured cars, and tanks. And to be honest, keeping the access roads free of clutter should be done cheaply, it doesn't need excessive counter intelligence. If they're not free of clutter, the and the clutter becomes the normal, then security have lost control, and anyone can hide or gain access where they shouldn't. Maybe we need legislation to make it a criminal offence if security is at risk, then real 'penalties' can be used to deter possible risks.

Coupon-mad

AdrianC wrote: »

Nor do I believe for one moment that a penalty would be issued in the event of a vehicle being slow to move off when the traffic in front does, as you suggest.

That's where you are wrong - we deal with this scam every day on the parking board. Here's today's version, very similar, at an Airport:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5004299

'The photos shown on the ‘notice’ received show a vehicle moving slowing in the correct direction for approximately 16 seconds. A vehicle moving slowing in the correct direction for approximately 16 seconds does not constitute a parked vehicle in any case. From the images provided it is clear that at no time was the vehicle stationary.'

Posted just over an hour before you said you didn't believe it happens!

It's well known that APCOA and VCS play this game. Blogged about several times:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/apcoa-admit-luton-airport-fines-are.html

HTH, you are missing a scam if you still think these invoices are kosher.

fisherjim

AdrianC wrote: »

Apart from the fact that I'm a competent enough driver that I don't just randomly stall my car (my first driving lesson was sufficient to gain that level of clutch control, thanks), I've already pointed out that the question is a non sequitur, since the scenario you posit bears no resemblance to the one under discussion. Nor do I believe for one moment that a penalty would be issued in the event of a vehicle being slow to move off when the traffic in front does, as you suggest.

Well it shows how little you know then doesn't it because it has happened but, once again you have evaded the question.

Would you just pay up if they sent you one of their fake charges if your car stalled (you know the ones you keep wrongly calling penalties).

Catterwaul

Hi everyone who has replied to my enquiry about should I appeal this PCN for pulling in to adjust my sat nav. I'm new to this so here's my reply. I received my PCN from VCS. I will read the threads for Robin Hood Airport/VCS next. Thanks for all your help.

esmerobbo

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Now as you've brought it up, a terrorist may not be worried. But, if a car is observed parked on the access road for a period of time, security may take an interest. However, if the access road is regularly full of parked cars, stalled cars, cars simply driving up and down, then a terrorist would simply fade into the general melee. So, like all things in life, the mundane tasks get sub contracted to the private sector. So keeping the access road clear may not be a major security task, but giving the terrorist with the SAM missile no opportunity to park up with the general public, and get it out of the boot could well be. Depends on your view of what security is really.

Well airport security would be the responsibility of the police not someone sitting in a white van with a camera taking photos.

I cant speak for Robin Hood but for VCS at John Lennon I know this site very well if there was a security problem it would come from Hale road which is the main road running parallel with the airport, and not from Speke hall avenue. However Peel holdings don't own Hale road the council do, and even on DYL's cars are parked there all day.
So it seems security is not the real reason for the issuing of these invoices. As if it were the real security agencies would move the vehicles from Hale road. As it happens Peel own the neighbouring industrial estate and the same no stopping trick is carried out there. Yet the one next door but use the same roads, have no restrictions and no parking problems. The only people who ever park are a few who go fishing in the estates ponds.

I have no problems with security measures but these have nothing to do with security or safety and are simply a way of making money.