VCS Rejection Letter - Liverpool Airport - Not in Car Park

Redx

do not overthink this process

your appeal will not be "thrown out"

they will look for the easiest item to deal with and rule on that which then means they would IGNORE all other aspects of your appeal

let us assume they home in on not a gpeol , they rule on that and its game over, appeal allowed

therefore not a gpeol becomes the main point of your appeal, although many other factors like RK not liable due to not relevant land so POFA 2012 doesnt apply would be another appeal point, not parking as its an access road is another point (you dont stop or park on roads and be issued with a parking charge) , bylaws apply on airport land, yet you havent been given a bylaw "ticket" - the list goes on and on

the VCS airport appeal examples are almost template letetrs so not sure why you are over thinking your appeal, its good to understand it seeing as you are sending it in, but the not a gpeol paragraph will be written to the nth degree in the example appeals for VCS and JLA, SO LITTLE OR NO WORK FOR YOU TO DO

tekskin

Perhaps I am overthinking it - I like to have everything correct so that I cannot be caught out on a technicality, but if as you say it is not necessary then ok.

I will still however be visiting the car park for my own amusement, and making a video of it using my onboard camera. It will not be used for any appeal etc, just for me to view and examine. I'm not far away from there so it's not a chore.

Kevin

esmerobbo

tekskin wrote: »

Perhaps I am overthinking it - I like to have everything correct so that I cannot be caught out on a technicality, but if as you say it is not necessary then ok.

I will still however be visiting the car park for my own amusement, and making a video of it using my onboard camera. It will not be used for any appeal etc, just for me to view and examine. I'm not far away from there so it's not a chore.

Kevin

Don't forget to wave at the camera van!

Johno100

esmerobbo wrote: »

I was there yesterday and there must have been 20 or so taxi's and minibuses in a 100yd section all on double yellow lanes, and they were causing an obstruction, and which is the road any emergency vehicle would use to enter the airport. However this is a public highway, but it sort of defeats VCS's claim for the need for security and safety.

But if it is anything like my local airport they (the airport operators) charge the taxi drivers/taxi firms handsomely for the privilege of picking up there and they are not going to let the PPC disrupt that income stream.

tekskin

Hello everyone. Just wanted to let you know that this morning I received an email from POPLA upholding my appeal against VCS.

This is the response:-

---

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On <<DATE REMOVED>>, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for
being in breach of the parking terms and conditions.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant used their vehicle for stopping or
waiting in an area where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force. There is
photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the
site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also
photographic evidence which shows the appellant’s vehicle in an area
where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force.
It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not
represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the
operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as
a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has
included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process
costs which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the operator
has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. I am not
minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not
all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also
find that the operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate
heading of losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is
because the procedure of dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way
so that the appellant can re-appeal to the operator. Therefore I find that it is
not reasonable for the operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list
submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a
result of the appellant’s breach. This is because it appears that a substantial
portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage
Process”.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages
sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate
of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

---

Thanks to everyone on here for your help :-)

tekskin

They even provided a video of the car and of someone getting out of the car too, along with a copy of the contract with the airport, their ridiculous 'costs; incurred, and lots of other titbits!

Coupon-mad

That silly old '2nd stage process' strikes again!

trisontana

Did they mention in their evidence pack anything about "security" and the need to dissuade cars from stopping near the airport? All nonsense of course. I don't think you are going to stop a car-bomber by posting them a letter a couple of weeks later after the event.