Liverpool Airport parking charge

MaxBob

Hi all,

Phase 1
I got a letter from VCS for a 10 second stop at a roundabout near the airport, captured by a video van parked on a pavement! I replied to their letter appealing using the format described elsewhere on the forum (quoted below - thanks to all who contributed!). I think a hundred pound fine is ridiculous for a 10 second stop. I do also think that they have installed even more signs after my incident. They have also changed the parking fees from 5 mins free to £2 for 10 minutes - I think that change happened a few days prior to my incident.

My next step is to write my appeal letter, which I intend to submit online. I'll post my letter as soon as I can for comments prior to submission. Thanks in advance for your help.

Central Payments Office
Vehicle Control Services Ltd
PO Box 4777
Sheffield
S99DJ

3rd July 2014

Dear Vehicle Control Services

PCN number xxxxxxxxxx

I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking ticket. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.
You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in your own right.
C) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power. Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'. If not, under your Trade Body's current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:

1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). As a decision at small claim level, ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley would not be binding. There is no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.

2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention. If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail is necessary for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.

3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves. Consideration from both sides is required for a contract.

4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.

5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for written communications for this appeal and complaint, and I will look to recover my costs when this matter is resolved in my favour.

Yours sincerely

Redx

using the template letter for the initial appeal, then using the dozens of recent 2014 popla appeal examples for this airport (use search words like JLA , Liverpool , John Lennon , Airport etc) will sort out the popla appeal

nothing to do really, its all copy and paste as this JLA has been done to death by humdreds before you, and no doubt hundreds or thousands more in the future

just follow the crowd

like this one on the same page 1 as yours https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5021040

The_Deep

Perhaps someone, (I am sure that DM have a conduit on here), can interest the Mail in Airport rip offs.

MaxBob

draft 1 of my letter (I amended Edensides letter - thanks!!!)

Dear POPLA

Re verification code xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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) The alleged contravention did not take place
3) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
drivers
5) No Contract with driver
6) Misleading and unclear signage
7) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not
a car park

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss. The first ten minutes in the Liverpool John Lennon Airport pick up / drop off car park costs £2; the alleged contravention lasted seconds, which is significantly less than ten minutes and Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) are demanding payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for what would have been free parking.


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 and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. As 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. I would also like to see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time.

' POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant
purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc vZambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank of Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations
an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

2) The alleged contravention did not take place.
The notice issued states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.

The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply.

The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place.


3) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
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 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.

4) 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.


5) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see 'misleading and unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever, no consideration was capable of being offered.to the driver, who was simply queuing on a road in traffic and saw no pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.

6) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'stopping on a clearway' which is a misleading term because of its similarity to the Highways Agency term 'urban clearway'. If VCS intend this apparently private road to treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs and terms used must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading.
Any repeater signs in this area do not face the oncoming traffic and are sporadically placed if at all at this junction. So they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking
restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''


7) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park
The BPA code of practice contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on
the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, the secret camera van does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that VCS have failed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. They will need to show evidence to the contrary on every point, and explain how this hidden camera van can be compliant when this is not a car park, it is a road, and there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the use of a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a van fitted with a hidden camera, patrolling land which is not a 'car park' and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'.


Yours sincerely,

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

Perhaps someone, (I am sure that DM have a conduit on here), can interest the Mail in Airport rip offs.

Indeed. Having put the boot into hospitals airports are the obvious next target.

SailorSam

Op we get people like you coming on our local radio almost every day to complain about the airport, I remember one man who was a tanker driver delivering fuel to the airport, he like you stopped for just a few seconds at that roundabout at the airport entrance while he looked at the signs for which way he needed to go. Still he got a parking ticket and the firm he was working for refused to pay so it came down to him.

Umkomaas

MaxBob wrote: »

draft 1 of my letter (I amended Edensides letter - thanks!!!)

What you've got here in your post #4 is a draft POPLA appeal - you're not there yet for this 2nd step in the appeals process. Keep it for later.

The initial appeal in your post #1 is from the NEWBIES sticky and should be sent to VCS now you've had your NtK.

MaxBob

I have sent letter in post 1 and got a reply from VCS, who refute the points made in it, and insist on the parking charge. They also affixed my POPLA verification code and directed me to the website for an appeal.

I assume I send the letter from post #4 to POPLA????

Thanks

ColliesCarer

The appeal you have posted in post #4 looks good to go to me but would suggest you make one minor addition by adding the sentence I have inserted in red as shown below:

.......breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time.

Nor is the charge commercially justified. POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented ........

You can submit it on-line via the POPLA website, which is POPLA's preferred method, but if you decide to post your appeal take it to the post office and get a free Certificate of Posting from the counter staff.

MaxBob

thanks Collies. I'll run through it in the daylight and submit it tomorrow.

Thanks for everyone's help.

Max

Northlakes

Can trading standards not do something about this?

2006 Fraud Act encompasses the old common law of;
Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception