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

bod1467

Catterwaul wrote: »

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.

All the info you need is in the NEWBIES sticky thread (as already advised), including the first appeal text (to send to VCS). See my signature for how to find it.

atilla

AdrianC wrote: »

So, iyho, the OP did nothing whatsoever wrong?

Nope.

And just to confirm:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4973183

nobbysn*ts

atilla wrote: »

Nope.

And just to confirm:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4973183

Would you pull into a bus lane in a town centre to set your sat nav? I reckon airports will soon be covered by bye laws, GPEOL is fine in Tesco's but airports can't have random parking, stopping, picking up and setting down of passengers. I'm not agreeing with PPC's, I'm not calling it a 'penalty', but we all know penalties as a deterrent work. If you think it needs the police to enforce the parking, that's viable, but it will need to be self funding, and I reckon it would take the penalties well over £100 to fund police 'policing' , so be careful what you wish for on this area.

Coupon-mad

But parking penalties from private companies as a deterrent, only work when the sheep-like UK public continue to believe they have got a real 'parking ticket' and roll over and pay the stupid amount, worried about escalating costs (in fact, POFA 2012 doesn't allow it) and being stupidly thankful for the discount (the bribe).

Typically, these firms get rich based on heinous crimes such as genuine disabled people parking in disabled bays and people shopping and overstaying a time limit at a retail park or supermarket, a limit they never knew existed. It's an industry where the operators carry out a protection racket against customers of the real businesses - make no mistake, these are parasite firms leeching off legit businesses and 'farming' their car parks. This is not about parking management.

And as far as Airports are concerned, this MP understood exactly what these 'fake PCNS' are really about, this being VCS at an Airport:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436708/MP-attacks-predatory-airport-parking-patrols-fine-drivers-100-dropping-passengers-stop-just-seconds.html

It's not just predatory, it's unlawful. Not only are there bylaws at Airports which set the real penalties at a fiver:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-simon-renshaw-smith.html

...but also VCS and APCOA and others have been known to send out PCNs which say that the registered keeper is liable. But they are not liable, because the POFA 2012 and 'keeper liability' does not apply on land such as Airports, railways, Ports and any other car parks covered by statutory control.

atilla

And wasn't it APCOA who tried towing a car at Luton airport last year?
Claiming it was a bomb threat no less!!
All got out of hand when two know nowt plods escalated the issue by trying to implement non existant Law.

bazster

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Again though, why avoid paying the charges to use the pick up and drop off zones? I have no great objection to them, if I use public transport, I don't pay the fees. Seems a fairer system than simply adding the cost to everyone's flight, and penalising those who don't travel by car. As to dropping off at one secure point, again, I have no problems with that aspect of security. I would prefer it to anyone and everyone being dropped off anywhere they fancy, then just wandering around the airport at random. That's a security risk that needs controlling.

What do you mean "again"? The point under discussion is whether these fake fines are a matter of security or a matter of money, it's not a discussion about charging for dropping off.

As it happens Robbing Hood Airport doesn't charge for dropping-off, but doubtless they still make a tidy screw out of their supposed "security" measures.

But, since you've brought it up, I will say that you are clearly not familiar with Luton Airport. The main reason for not using the picking-up/dropping-off area is that it is infested by predatory tow-truck operators who wait until someone moves just a few feet away from their vehicle (say, to help someone with their luggage) and then, in an act of blatant illegality, lift one end of the car off the ground and demand hundreds of quid to put it back down again.

How exactly is that a security measure? Luton Airport claims that it's a security risk to have unattended vehicles in the drop-off-area, whilst failing to explain the fact that the drop-off area is separated from the short-term car park by just a chain-link fence. So it's NOT a security risk if I leave my car in the short-term car park for a week, but it IS a security risk if I leave it six inches away on the other side of a chain-link fence. And the short-term car park is actually closer to both the terminal building and aircraft movements!

Clearly it's like all the rest of these airport scams: the security risk is somehow magically neutralised by demanding large sums of money.

bazster

AdrianC wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, my sole comment on the legalities has been to say that whilst it is easier for public-sector penalties to be enforced than private ones, they can still be successfully enforced via courts.

Not at airports they can't. No parking company has ever brought a court case over a fake fine issued for stopping on an airport approach road and none ever will. Why? Because their legal position is shot full of holes and they dare not have this exposed in a court of law. If you want to understand why come over to the parking sub-forum and learn.

In other locations some companies issue large numbers of court cases with the intention of intimidating their victims into paying up. Inevitably this goes wrong sometimes when some awkward cuss decides to fight back and a court hearing ensues. Sometimes the parking companies win, sometimes they lose, it's a lottery, mainly because district judges have very mixed levels of understanding of the legal issues involved.

VCS itself has been involved in some of the most hilarious court fails, including the side-splitting "toothbrush" case:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

What's more, the private parking "industry" has its own kangaroo court, the supposedly-independent Parking on Private Land Appeals service. But, despite it being in the pocket of the "industry", any appeal which goes to PoPLA and which includes the magic formula "the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to parking company or landowner" is automatically upheld. Yes, that's right, any and every appeal which includes those magic words is upheld. In fact the biggest parking company by far doesn't even bother contesting PoPLA appeals now when it sees the magic formula, because it knows it will lose.

arcon5

AdrianC wrote: »

You _can_, but it's nowhere near as straightforward as an official parking fine. Unlike a few years ago, recent legal changes have meant that the penalties are much more likely to be enforceable through courts.

Bod seems to be supporting the right of muppets to park anywhere they desire in such a carpark, with impunity and regardless of inconvenience caused to others or the business whose land it is.

That's pretty much most of the parking tickets forum, whom think every single ticket issued is the result of some kind of evil corporation rather than the fact in most cases it's down to the ignorance or arrogance of the motorist.

Although I do admit the sums they demand are rather high - but then so are the sums demanded by many local councils for trivial offences like crossing in to a bus lane 5 yards too early (or even god forbid, to let an ambulance past) or crossing the line at a traffic light by a few inches.

arcon5

Just recently I read a thread whereby a person received a ticket in airport grounds and defended it on the grounds a certain act didn't apply as the airport grounds was subject to alternate bylaws.

So if that's a valid argument, surely it works the other way round making the standard template replied moot?

The_Deep wrote: »

The OP Has done nothing wrong. Issuing unenforceable invoices for ridiculous sums of money is a result of the ban on clamping, The Private Parking Companies are trying to recoup their losses by exploiting people ignorant of The Law of Contract.

Had op not done anything wrong then this thread simply wouldn't exist.

Not seeing signs also doesn't mean they are not there.

I didn't see the 'congestion zone' signage the last two times I entered central London - but that's because I was distracted by the billions of cyclists and like squeezing round me.... not because they didn't exist.

arcon5

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).

Don't think anybody in the right mind would - doesn't make it right though does it.