Liverpool Airport Parking Charge Notice

hoohoo

pinkyjane12 wrote: »

Just doing my rebuttal and this is one of their points-
1. The appellant questions the validity of the PCN issued on the airport approach roads but airport byelaws are not currently in use. The last sets of byelaws relate to the old airport site and are consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company. The access roads are private land and have been designated as a car park by the landowner. No bye-laws cover this matter and, therefore, the appellant’s reference to the Airports Byelaws Designation Order (1987) is irrelevant. Keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) is unaffected.

Are they just talking out of their a**e again?

If the byelaws are regarded as obselete, then presumably anyone could wander airside and the airport could not do a thing about it.

This is therefore highly unlikely and the !!!!-talking seems to me to be the most likely scenario.

I would rebuff this to POPLA.

The operator states that the byelaws are obsolete. However, this is highly unlikely as an airport without byelaws would be unmanageable and a security nightmare. In the absence of a written letter from the airport stating the byelaws are obsolete, the assessor is asked to take this with a pinch of salt.

pinkyjane12

I just feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall with this. There is so much information to read through in their evidence and also on this site! :-(

Redx

this is one of the downsides when dealing with legal issues , but its better to get it done now instead of the legal MCOL small claims court issues you could face if you dont kill this at popla

the important part to realise is that you learn from this and be more careful about parking and stopping restrictions in the places you visit, be it an airport, railway station, port , supermarket, retail park, healthcare centre , hospital , hotel or the dozens of other places that have private parking restrictions in place (or stopping restrictions)

you did have the option to use PTAS for £16 and let them have all the legal jargon headaches, but as you are doing this yourself then just rebut what you can , using previous rebuttals on this forum as examples

ie:- as a lay person, you can only do so much

bear in mind Mr Beavis didnt realise all the stuff he would have to learn and deal with when he parked on a PE car park , I am sure going to the court of appeal in london did not figure on his agenda either

pinkyjane12

To be honest with having a poorly toddler and then being ill myself for the last 4 days I am struggling to focus correctly on this! I had all the information ready and available on my work computer but with all the other information it just send my head into a spin and I am used to reading contracts as part of my job!


Needless to say I have certainly learnt not to allow my husband to use my car!! Here is where I am up to-

• The driver has not been identified, yet 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 VCS 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.
  In point 15 of VCS’ evidence they state that:
  “The appellant questions the validity of the PCN issued on the airport approach roads but airport byelaws are not currently in use. The last sets of byelaws relate to the old airport site and are consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company. The access roads are private land and have been designated as a car park by the landowner. No bye-laws cover this matter and, therefore, the appellant’s reference to the Airports Byelaws Designation Order (1987) is irrelevant. Keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) is unaffected.”
  The operator states that the byelaws are obsolete. However, this is highly unlikely as an airport without byelaws would be unmanageable and a security nightmare. Therefore I would like VCS to supply me with a written letter from the airport stating the byelaws are obsolete.
  Due to this incorrect information being used I am therefore going to also raise a complaint to the DVLA and the BPA to address this issue.
• There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown to how they have come up with £100, as business costs are not losses and therefore should not be passed down to the motorist.
• There seems to be no unredacted contract, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract, hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed.
• Signage- The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. VCS have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
• In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co.
  Lord Dunedin said that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.''...''it is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".
• In the case of Clydebank Engineering and Talal el Makdessi, McAlpine and Filmcilik
  These are commercial cases between two large companies of equal bargaining power whereas I am a consumer & no contract was ever negotiated with me. Consumer law prevails; there can be no 'commercial justification'.
• Parking Eye v Beavis & Wardley
  This is a County Court case, considered flawed. HHJ Moloney went out on a limb and expects the case to go to the Court of Appeal. The charge WAS found to be a penalty which is wholly unsupported by any case law. Not a persuasive nor binding argument, especially now that Mr Beavis has lodged a case for the Court of Appeal to consider, rendering the original decision unreliable.

Dee140157

I think that looks fine and for someone unwell with a poorly toddler I think is good.

My gut feeling, is that POPLA are getting used to the main rebuttal ideas, that you should be ok.

esmerobbo

Interesting that the company has designated the road as a car park yet you cant stop or park. They also deny any byelaws yet they refer to them here.

http://www.ryanair.com/doc/apt/parking/LPL.pdf

The_Deep

84 pages. Are they totally devoid of any common sense. This is an alleged parkjng infringement not a report on corruption in Rotherham Council.

Do they nor realise that sending something of this length is totally counter productive, that it will annoy the adjudicator and leaves an open target for the defendant.

If it was not for the stupidity of the general public these companies would have gone to the wall years ago.

pinkyjane12

Sorry it was actually 87 plus a CCTV video which clearly shows a male driving!

Dee140157

87? Oh my goodness. All electronic I hope.

Coupon-mad

pinkyjane12 wrote: »

Sorry it was actually 87 plus a CCTV video which clearly shows a male driving!

Did you point that out too in the rebuttal, seeing as only the driver can possibly be the liable party on Airport land (because VCS are lying about the byelaws)?

And re the claim about the obsolete byelaws, read this success thread where a person on pepipoo appealed about a VCS John Lennon Airport case on the single POPLA appeal point that it isn't relevant land:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90606&st=0&p=991464&#entry991464

His appeal included a FOI request link showing there ARE byelaws! You can use the same link to show POPLA.

And the funny thing was POPLA sidestepped it and found in his favour based on the PCN not arriving by day 15. Did yours?! If not then that's another point to shove in your final words!