Parking charge notice from VCS - Liverpool John Lennon Airport

Zero_Gravitas

Are they practising because they are not very good yet?

(already got coat)

ZG.

esmerobbo

Maybe they are using !

M Shwarts or M Schwarts or even Mr M Schwartz.

Northlakes

This is what you get when you take on a hired 'hand'.

Captain_Leaky

Apologies for briefly resurrecting this one. Can anyone shed any light upon the 'Site No' VEH0011 tag as used by VCS? I ask, because I had initially assumed that the site no was a unique identifier for the site where the ticket was issued, (in this case JLA) but it appears not to be so, since this identical number has cropped up elsewhere. Surely, if a PPC 'polices' a number of different sites, they would use a different ID tag for each one?

enfield_freddy

van number , camera number chimp operator number?


looks like a reference to vehicle number , as in camera vehicle

esmerobbo

As Freddy says it is probably a vehicle number, at JLA they have one fixed vehicle that sits on the roundabout observing the road. They have one or some times two that drive around JLA the industrial estate next door, and a couple of other car parks they infest on behalf of Peel holdings.

Captain_Leaky

I have seen the same site number used on a NTK issued 100's of miles away - surely this cannot be a camera car, since the NTK was the result of a windscreen ticket.

enfield_freddy

looking back it seems that the IAS are totally confused by which room they are in , they state:


The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The appellant challenges a claim made against him by the operator responsible for parking at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The operator's claim is permitted under the Protection of Freedoms Act and seeks to recover from the appellant a debt incurred by the driver of the appellant's car. The operator's claim is made in contract and alleges that the driver agreed to pay a charge by stopping in a restricted area.


however we all know that the rules are that "Clauses B2, and B2 (a) and (b) in the KADOE agreement detailing the purposes for which RK data can be obtained specifically mention parking only."


more food skippy?


let them try it on in court , its a joke that needs stopping

bazster

When it comes to keeper liability the KADOE contract point is nowhere near as important as that POFA 2012 Schedule 4 expressly concerns parking only. Regardless of the KADOE contract there can be no keeper liability for a roadside stopping incident.

Shell2015

Captain_Leaky wrote: »

I have seen the same site number used on a NTK issued 100's of miles away - surely this cannot be a camera car, since the NTK was the result of a windscreen ticket.

I can also confirm they use this on the other side of the country.