Humberside airport VCS PCN overturned on IAS appeal

bazster

Yes, for the benefit of others please post up the adjudication, so that other appellants may include both your appeal and the adjudication in their own appeals. It would also be helpful if other appellants could reference your name and any applicable IAS reference number, but don't post them in the open forum: if you were willing to let me or C-M or Redx or one of the regulars have the details privately then we could share them privately with any appellant who needs them.

Anyone appealing at this airport or at Liverpool should also include chapter-and-verse on the signage shortcomings as recently analysed by the Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html

I'd like to see Skippy the Bush Kangaroo dismiss that detailed analysis!

Coupon-mad

Dying to see the adjudication - that was a good appeal with lots of chances for the IAS barrister to actually agree with you as you stated matters of law.

bodmass

The IAS didn't really give the reasons why the appeal was upheld. The contact I received from them after submitting my appeal was as follows:




Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

We have received the outcome of your appeal and the IAS can inform you that your appeal has been successful. This means that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has cancelled the ticket with the details below:

Parking Charge Number (PCN): VCxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxx
Date Issued: 13/01/2015

As the parking charge has been cancelled you do not need to take any further action and the case has been closed.

Yours sincerely
The Independent Appeals Service

Coupon-mad

A fine example to copy and use, nonetheless - thanks!

ManxRed

Yes, we need an exact replica appeal, to see if they reject it.

bodmass

As you can see they didn't specifically mention POFA in their verdict but I believe it to be a very strong point in the appeal. IMO they tried to bluff by saying they would proceed against the keeper on the assumption that they were also the driver. Even if the appeal was rejected and they tried to bluff further, I can't see how they can use an assumption in a court of law.


Watch out for a sneaky trick on the IAS website when submitting your appeal. There is a tick box on the page asking if you were the driver with 'yes', 'no' and (further down the page) 'I'm not prepared to say' options. Firstly it is pre-selected as 'yes' so make sure you change it before submitting the appeal. Secondly, a message flashes up when you select the 'I'm not pre-prepared to say' option which says something along the lines of 'you must declare who was driving the vehicle to proceed with appeal'. Ignore it and submit the appeal regardless with the 'I'm not prepared to say' option.


I think that little trick along with the assumption rubbish suggests they know that they are on shaky ground to proceed without the identification of the driver. (The reason for this is explained in point 5 in my above appeal).


I believe this also contravenes their own IPC members code of practice in the following area


'Part C, 7, Applying for keeper details where keeper liability is not sought’

7.3 ‘Where you have not complied with the terms of POFA, you must not infer that keeper liability exists’

ManxRed

They could limbo under a snake, they're that low.

bodmass

Looking at the appeal verdict, whatever the reason was for upholding it they seem to want to keep that reason quiet!

Apart from POFA not applying on airport land, I believe the lack of a ‘Genuine pre-estimate of loss’ is also a strong point. As I stated in point 2 this had already been given as a reason for upholding previous POPLA appeals (Bycroft & Oughton) which in my case were in the exact same location (Humberside airport layby area). Yet VCS are still failing to provide a GPEOL on their PCN. I challenged them to explain if my appeal was rejected how my case could be different to those previous successful appeals.

I also think they are on very shaky ground regarding contract law. As stated in appeal point 4, I think their definition of the motorist accepting a contract when driving onto the airport, doesn’t really stand up when scrutinised against various legislation.

bazster

We are perfectly well aware that they are on shaky ground for all sorts of reasons, which doesn't stop Skippy the Bush Kangaroo riding roughshod over the facts and the law in order to regularly refuse appeals on the flimsiest of grounds. This is why your successful appeal is of so much interest (and also why they are being coy about the reasons for your success).

How about letting other appellants have your appeal reference no. as I suggested earlier?

bodmass

Bazster,

PM'd details across to you as requested. If you think anymore details would be helpful please let me know!