Liverpool Airport parking charge

The_Deep

Northlakes wrote: »

Can trading standards not do something about this?

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

I am sure they can if enough people bring it to their attention. I think that more of the regulars should include it in their advice to the incognoscenti.

MaxBob

Letter submitted online, and awaiting next step.

Redx

the next step should be an email verification of your submitted popla appeal coming from LONDON COUNCILS as they administer it

then its wait 5 to 8 weeks or so, plus you "should" get an evidence pack from the PPC , the one they may submit to popla, say 10 days or so beforehand

Coupon-mad

The evidence pack from VCS should be rebutted by you emailing POPLA, this is covered in other threads if you search 'POPLA VCS GPEOL rebuttal' or similar.

MaxBob

I won my appeal. The letter from POPLA is copied below to highlight the result of the appeal.

Many thanks to everyone for their help with this! :beer:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was stopped in a no stopping

zone in John Lennon Airport, that this was detected by the operator’s ANPR

system, and that a charge notice was issued.

The appellant made representations, stating that: the charge was not a

genuine pre-estimate of loss, the camera system was an ANPR system which

did not comply with requirements, there was no contract with the driver, the

signage was misleading and unclear, the alleged breach is not one which

keeper liability applies to, and the land is not land in respect of which keeper

liability for parking charges is possible.

The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine pre-
estimate of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a

genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.

Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not

provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to

enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the

case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once

such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a

loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow

from a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect

of them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a

genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge

is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the charge notice is invalid.

Having found this, I am not required to consider any further issues raised by

the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Umkomaas

Well done MaxBob - good result.

Once again the POPLA Assessor sidestepped the 'Not Relevant Land' appeal point.

I wonder when just one of them will have the cojones to make a decision on that one point of law, then VCS can pack up their ANPR van and head for the Woodhead Pass!

Redx

agrreed, and well done

please pop it here for posterity

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337