Received two Parking charge notices from VCS at john lennon airport

adep_2

this was signed for on 25/2/14 by the retail director lucy o'shaughnessy

bazster

adep wrote: »

this was signed for on 25/2/14 by the retail director lucy o'shaughnessy

So all it might prove is that authority was in place on 25/2/2014. Presumably your "incidents" were some time after that!

That it refers to an agreement running until 7/7/2015 proves nothing, that agreement most likely contains early-termination clauses which could've been exercised.

Zero_Gravitas

Also from the witness statement:


"The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above".


So apart from anything else, VCS are not actually authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs for any sort of contractual arrangement they think might exist, but only for breaches of the terms and conditions... Doesn't that rather scupper their business model at the airport and make VCS immediately in contravention of the IPC code of practice?

bod1467

And apart from anything else, they're only entitled to pursue parking breaches ... nothing there covers No Stopping breaches.

cavitee

Hello Everyone,

I have been following this case and i too was caught stopping on the road to JLA recently. I have received my 1st denied appeal reply from VCS following a letter i sent using TMS's template on pepipoo (i can post this below as i cannot put web links as a new user....sorry!)

I had argued on the basis of:
1. no contract
2. unfair/unreasonable charge

VCS sent me this

We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received on the 8th June 2015 in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary.

Whilst we understand your concern at receiving a Notice, it is entirely the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the Terms and Conditions of use for the airports private access roads.

The roadway in question is part of a high security zone and as such motorists are clearly advised not to park, stop or wait on double yellow lines, red routes zones or roadways at any time. Such actions may also pose an obstruction or danger to other road users. There are numerous warning signs in place along the private access roads.

In response to your comments, after review of our CCTV we can confirm that on the 8th June 2015, you stopped your vehicle in a prohibited area. Please be advised that our signage located throughout the area clearly state "No Stopping at Any Time". It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that he/she is fully aware and compliant with the Terms and Conditions of this area.
Furthermore, Signage on the approach roads is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and is compliant with the IPC code of Practice. Text size is relative to the average approach speed of an approaching vehicle on those roads.

Please be advised that from the 29th September 2014 the Accredited Trade Association to which Vehicle Control Services Limited belongs became the Independent Parking Committee (IPC). As such Vehicle Control Services Limited is no longer required to adhere to the British Parking Association code of practice and as such no longer deals with the Parking On Private Land Appeals Service (POPLA). We can confirm that Vehicle Control Services Limited complies with the IPC code of practise and offers the motorist further appeals to the Independent Appeals Service. We hope this clarifies our position.

In response to your comments in relation to the amount of our PCN charges, we must advise that our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would also refer you to the recent judgment passed down by the Court of Appeals in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis ([2015] EWCA Civ 402).

You have raised a number of points in your appeal which are not appropriate for us to deal with at this stage. Please note that, as members of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) it is necessary for us to evidence to the IPC that we have relevant authority to undertake enforcement activity at the site concerned and that our signs in situ are compliant in setting out the relevant terms and conditions of use. We will defend the points you have raised as appropriate should the matter proceed to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and/or Court. We have therefore dealt with the pertinent points in your appeal below."

We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and your appeal (representations) is therefore rejected. We will not accept any further appeals.
What you should do next - Either:
1. Pay the Parking Charge. In order to settle the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate,
the payment of £60.00 is to be received within our office by the 22nd Juiy 2015, after which the amount
payable will revert to £100.00. Payments can be made online at vehiclecontrol.co.uk/payments by
following the links for "PCN Payment", or over the phone by using a valid credit or debit card.
Alternatively, you can pay by cheque or postal order through the post made payable to Vehicle Control
Services Ltd. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that payment is received within our offices by the
date specified above.
OR:
2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Services
(IAS). In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is contained in the subject
header of this letter).

Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter.
Please visit for full details on how to submit an appeal online.
It is important you note that if you wish to appeal to the IAS, the discount offer will no longer apply and the full amount of the Parking Charge will be pursued should your appeal be rejected by the IAS.
Please note that further costs may be incurred should it be necessary for us to subsequently recover any outstanding charge using debt recovery and/or court action.
Yours sincerely

For and on behalf of the Senior Manager
Central Payments Office


Now, i am unsure about what to write to the IAS. They will definitely reject it anyway but I really don't know what else to write to them. Any advice welcome

cavitee

the template i used previously was from user TMS of pepipoo's thread on "VCS parking charge notice at liverpool airport".

I appreciate your time and help

waamo

You would be much better off starting your own thread. Answering 2 people in one thread can get confusing.

cavitee

thanks waamo!

ive posted it on a new thread
"rejected appeal to VCS for stopping at liverpool airport"

adep_2

This was the adjudicators decision


1. The Appellant provides no authority in support of the suggestion that PCN's cannot be issued in no stopping zones. I am satisfied that this is perfectly acceptable. The Parking Charge is not a Fixed Penalty Notice as that would be issued by a Local Authority.

2. The Operator does not claim damages for breach of contract, the Parking Charge is a fixed price term of the contract agreed to when stopping at the location. Loss is therefore irrelevant to this appeal.

3. The Operator confirms that they do have authority to manage parking at the location. Even if that agreement was invalid, it has previously been held that would not invalid that contractual agreement between the Appellant and the Operator (VCS v HRMC 2013).

4. The signage at the location is clear with many signs along the route. The Driver would have had to have passed numerous signs before reaching the location where they choose to stop.

The contractual offer is that driver's are not permitted to stop, but if they choose to then they agree to pay the Parking Charge.

The contract is offered in the signage, by stopping the Driver accepted those terms and the consideration is the binding promise to pay the Parking Charge.

Under Section 5 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 “distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded. In my view this does not cover a parking scenario such as we are dealing with here and is aimed at sales via telephone, internet and such-like agreements. The alternative types of contract covered by the Regulations are either an “off-premises contract” or an “on-premises contract”. These are also defined under Section 5. The definition of off-premises contract plainly does not fit with the current scenario. This leaves the possibility of it being an on-premises contract, in any event Section 9(2) states that the trader (in this case the Operator) does not need to provide the information detailed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations when dealing with a contract which involves a day-to-day transaction and is performed immediately at the time when the contract is entered into. Therefore if this was determined to be an on-premises contract, no additional conditions would be inserted into the contract under Section 9 of the Regulations. Therefore there are no conditions which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal.

5. The onus in this appeal is for the Appellant to prove that the Parking Charge is unlawful. They provide no evidence in terms of the by-laws referred to. I am therefore unable to properly consider this point.

6. In the recent judgment in Beavis –v- Parking Eye, the Court of Appeal considered arguments in respect of UTCCR 1999 but such arguments did not find favour with the court. Therefore I am bound to follow the decision of the court in that case.

7. The Operator maintains that the vehicle was stopped. The CCTV images provided show that at some stage the vehicle's boot is being accessed, therefore the vehicle was quite clearly stopped.

8. As per above, the question of loss is not relevant to this PCN,

The red route zone is very clear and unmistakable.

The camera van, can be no clearer. It is positioned in plain view.

There is nothing to establish any predatory tactics.

A grace period may be relevant for a location where parking is permitted. He we are dealing with a no stopping zone.

Liability under POFA 2012 is something which has been implemented by the Government through primary legislation, there is no issue with this method of enforcement being pursued.

There is nothing raised in this appeal which establishes that the Parking Charge is unlawful.

Northlakes

Template reply, I thought only posters on here did that!

JLA is far too lucrative a spot to get an adverse judgement in a real court.

The last case they tried was pulled on the court steps.

See what others think.