Humberside airport VCS PCN overturned on IAS appeal

Umkomaas

My post and the OPs 'crossed in the post'!!

@OP - as Redx intimates, you need to be oh so accurate about any of this stuff. Type it out, any fashion, and hope for the best is more than likely to bite your posterior!

A thought perhaps not for serious contemplation. :cool:

ampersand

Please let us see your draft before you send it.

Omicron_iota

What was the outcome Anton? Any joy??

ManxRed

My memory's not great, but wasn't the IAS Humberside appeal based on the fact that the RK submitted actual evidence (or threatened to use it) that he was elsewhere at the time, and therefore, as PoFA couldn't apply then that was the end of that?

I think it might have been the 'evidence of being elsewhere' that won the appeal.

Or am I confusing this with something else?

antonuk2005

Appeal rejected by IAS, my appeal was word for word identical to the OP's with the exception of VCS not sending it in the correct timescale as that wasn't the case for me.

The 'independent' hasn't really addressed the points properly and seems to insinuate that I've agreed to a permit to park? And that I've failed to prove I wasn't the driver.

I'll post their full response soon.

Umkomaas

Could be timely to refer this to the DVLA. More advice soon on this.

As soon as you've given us the fuller detail, maybe The Prankster will be interested. We'll take care of that.

antonuk2005

I intend on making a formal complaint to the DVLA and my MP. Is a complaint to Liverpool Council worth it for their failings to enforce the bye-laws?

I can't edit their response properly on my tablet to remove the PCN number etc. so I'll need to do it on the PC.

antonuk2005

As an initial point I will make it clear that the Appellant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle in accordance with the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) in which the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be its driver. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the driver as claimed.

Specifically the Appellant raises 7 grounds of appeal in the correspondence, each of which I will deal with in turn.

1. The Operator has provided various images and site locations to show the movements of the Appellant’s vehicle at all relevant times and the significant amount of signage that exists on the site. From the evidence provided I am content that the Appellant was indeed on private property, as demonstrated by site plan and the CCTV image showing both the stationary Appellant’s vehicle and the ‘No Stopping’ signage immediately to the front and rear of the vehicle. This image also demonstrates that the Appellant, in all the circumstances was made reasonably aware of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and therefore the only conclu sion I can draw is that the Parking Charge was properly issued. The point raised regarding ‘Stopping’ rather than ‘Parking’ is irrelevant – the Operator is justified in issuing a PCN in these circumstances.

2. The Operator does not pursue the Parking Charge following a breach of contract. The Parking Charge has been issued pursuant to a specific contractual term and therefore the question of loss is not a relevant consideration for this appeal.

For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

3. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process.

The Operator has provided me a copy of the contract which exists between themselves and the landowner. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that that the Operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices o n this site. It is worth noting on this point, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v. HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para, 22 per Lewison LJ. In this case the contract between VCS and the landowner gave VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge there is no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

4. As stated above, in the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is establ ished, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be its driver. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the driver as claimed. The Operator pursues the Appellant as the driver of the vehicle and therefore the ‘no keeper liability’ argument fails.

5. Please see reply to 1. The access roads at the site are private land and have been designated as a car park by the landowner and no bye-laws cover this particular circumstance.

6. In my view the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 are not breached for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. The Appellant chose not to park in accordance with the terms and therefore agreed to pay a charge.

antonuk2005

Elliot vs Loake (1982) if I understand correctly was a gentleman who crashed his car and then lied to the Police. What basis has this got with a PCC?

Why is stopping not parking irrelevant?

If VCS have the right to sue for trespass then why haven't they in other cases? Another thread on this forum suggests offering £1 without liability, what are the thoughts on this?

The old bylaws don't exist argument crops up again.

Any suggestions on what action to take from those more knowledgable welcome either on here or PM.

Thanks

esmerobbo

Elliot V Locke is totally irrelevant to this issue, but is likely the only thing their independent barista could find from the COA that comes anywhere near a denial of being the driver at a relevant time.

Stopping V Parking depends on what you are doing. If you drop someone off or pick someone up, in a reasonable time I would say that was stopping. If you stop and wait for someone to come along I would say that was parking. For instance you can drop off or pick up somebody on an official double/single yellow lines as long as it is done in a reasonable time. The only place you cant is on an official red route, hence why VCS have painted the red lines.

They claim the byelaws are obsolete or they don't apply to the "new" airport. Well if the old ones are obsolete then they should have been replaced with new ones and the old ones repealed. Their claim that they are for the old airport is also claptrap as the new terminal is built on what was always the airport.

Apart from complaining to the DVLA and the airport operator who wont care, all you can do is sit back and wait on their next move.