2 VCS PCNs from JLA Liverpool Airport

esmerobbo

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

More than interested in helping out if you ever get a real letter before claim or court claim.

I presume this is a bluff, but I seem to remember vcs did do court at an airport once before. From memory it was a car which broke down and it went something like this.

Judge. If you knew the car had broken down, would you have issued a charge?
VCS bod. Of course not your honour.
Judge. Well I find the car did break down. Case dismissed.


...but my memory may be playing tricks

You are correct, however they issued a claim as the OP had lost at POPLA as they used the broken down mitigation. Useless at POPLA as we know.
VCS it seems incorrectly assumed as the OP had lost at POPLA a DJ would also find in their favour.

They were wrong.

CorrieOrrie

They just duck the issue and say they are not considering who the driver was. It is interesting taht they say I must prove that it is not relevant land - i had attached the byelaws, I presume they are suggesting the access road is not subject to the byelaws. If it wasn't, surely they would be able to prove this?! I say it is for them to prove not me?!

i find it very irritating that the "independent" person likens this scenario to stealing from a shop!! - i usually find the prices in shops quite clear and easy to read! I certainly have never driven through a shop at 30mph in the dark anyway!! Grrrrrrr!!

Anyway, here is the response....

I am grateful to the appellant for her arguments. I am familiar with all of them, especially in relation to appeals against parking charges issued at Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

The appellant is being pursued by the operator as the registered keeper. Since October 2013, POFA has allowed private parking companies to make a claim against the registered keeper where the identity of the driver can not be ascertained. Before I am able to conclude that the appellant is liable for the conduct of the driver, I must, of course, be satisfied that the driver entered a contract with the operator to pay the parking charge. The appellant's argument at point 5 (the \"reasonable assumption\" that the registered keeper is the driver) is therefore redundant. I am not considering whether the appellant was the driver at the time.

During the course of adjudicating on the placement and content of the signage at LJL, I have become very familiar with it. I know that signs are placed at the entrance to the approach road and that there are repeater signs along the road. I have also examined the content of those signs. I am content that the signs constitute an offer to motorists. The operator is entitled to make this offer to motorists and to enter a contract with them, since it has the landowner's permission. Point 2 of the appellant's grounds is therefore dismissed.

Since this is private land and the operator has the landowner's permission, it is entitled to charge motorists whatever it likes for stopping on the land, so long as it makes that reasonably clear to motorists before they enter the land. I have already indicated that I consider the signs to reasonably and clearly communicate this to motorists. In my view, it is akin to entering a shop or business where the proprietor advertises the prices of its goods or services. At that stage the customer is put on notice and can chose to accept or decline the offer. It would be trite if the custome r picked up and purchased an item and later complained about the price.

Here, the signs make motorists aware that stopping on the red route will cost them £100. The motorist has a free and informed choice to make: put convenience over cost and stop thus agreeing to pay the £100 charge, or use a less convenient but considerably cheaper car park on the airport grounds. No one forced the driver to stop where they did. A contract is not void simply because it may be a bad bargain.

The appellant's argument about pre-estimate of loss is dismissed for two reasons. Firstly, this is arguably a fixed price contract for a service (i.e. parking) because the driver was made aware of the price before stopping. Secondly, even if an assessment of loss was required, the persuasive authority of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis is a sensible approach to loss. In modern parking contracts loss should include the deterrent effect (of stopping a car on a busy airport approach road) as w ell as a degree of commercial justification. In this case, stopping in such close proximity to the airport building (as opposed to a designated car park further away) quite rightly comes at a premium.

The appellant further argues that the approach road in question can not be \"relevant land\" pursuant to the POFA because there are Byelaws within existence. If the appellant seeks to assert this, then the appellant must provide evidence of it. No such evidence is provided and it is a point specifically denied by the operator.

In all the circumstances, attractive as the appellant's arguments may seem at first blush, they are in fact void of any merit. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities from having reviewed the cctv evidence, that the driver of the appellant's car did stop on the red route. In so doing, the driver agreed to pay the parking charge. Since the driver has not been identified I am satisfied that the operator is now entitled to pursue the appellant registered keeper for the charge.

hoohoo

That is a very interesting piece of text. It is obvious that the writer does not understand POFA 2012 sch 4, which only allows the registered keeper to be liable if certain conditions are met.

VCS do not issue compliant notices.

Do the IAS assessors even understand the legislation?

Parking-Prankster

Let me know if this goes further. This is the most bizarre rejection I have seen yet.

enfield_freddy

that's even more interesting , a knolagable adjudicator that did not know when POFA came into force


"The appellant is being pursued by the operator as the registered keeper. Since October 2013, POFA has allowed private parking companies to make a claim against the registered keeper where the identity of the driver can not be ascertained

poor tracy the office junior needs to learn more

umm , I thought the POFA was about parking , not the claimed offence of stopping

the adjudicator is a buffoon

CorrieOrrie

Thanks guys will let you know if anything official arrives. I would relish the challenge to be honest! x

enfield_freddy

did the letter actually say 2013 , or was it your typo?

CorrieOrrie

It said 2013 - i copied and pasted direct from the email! i didnt even notice initially but well spotted! :rotfl:

enfield_freddy

email parking prankster that one , (jpg) shows how there independent barrister work


look nice in court as well

Umkomaas

Stay strong on this CorrieOrrie, we're all behind you.