rejected appeal to VCS for stopping at liverpool airport

cavitee

Hello Everyone,

I have been following a thread by ADEP and i too was caught stopping on the road to JLA recently. I was advised to 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

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

How you proceed is really up to you. IAS reject appeals out of hand so it depends how nervous you get by this.

Some people on here think that ignoring eveything except genuine court papers is the way to go with the IAS. VCS are very reluctant to do anything other than send scary letters. The reason for this is they don't want the issue of byelaws brought up in court.

JLA is covered by byelaws. The IAS and VCS belive these are obsolete but are very, very reluctant to have this belief tested in court. The reason being that if it is held the byelaws are still valid the whole thing comes crashind down around their ears.

Other posters advocate appealing to the IAS pointing out byelaws exist. The logic behind this is the IAS give such appaling rejections they would not want a judge to see them.

cavitee

thank you very much waamo.

It would seem that appealing to IAS and pointing out the byelaws would seem a reasonable response to cover myself with a paper trail. i'll read up some more and keep you posted. Please post any material you think may help. Thanks again

waamo

That is the view I take. IAS rejections are, frankly, outrageous to read. Hence the IAS assessor has been nicknamed "Skippy" on here due to the kangaroo nature of the reply.

Such a rejection sometimes scares less robust people in to paying so it isn't a tactic suited to everyone but if you have something about you then you will seee how awful it is. I'm sure they wouldn't want a judge to see it.

Northlakes

JLA is a far too profitable a site to risk an adverse judgement in court.
By appealing to the IPC you are helping them decide which way to go.

IPC is just a sifting operation and leaving them in the dark over the appellants abilities and back-up is probably the better strategy.

The_Deep

This has absolutely nothing to do with Beavis, which is being appealed anyway, tand you could well complain to your local Trading Standards Office, but only in writing, that they are attempting to obtain monies by misrepresentation.

The best way forward is to appeal and, if it is rejected, (80 percent are) you are virtually home and dry. The anonymous IAS appeal processed is so flawed that it is most unlikely that the PPC would want one of the decisions to be seen by a judge.

Guys_Dad

Another chance to appeal to IAS saying that you were NOT the driver but the passenger in the car. As the land is not covered by POFA 2012 and is specifically excluded in that legislation as kit is covered by byelaws, you have no obligation to name the driver on that day.

You enclose a witness statement from someone who is in a position to confirm that you were not driving.

bazster

It's got nothing to do with the byelaws. VCS stopped claiming keeper liability at Liverpool Airport a long time ago, thereby rendering the byelaws irrelevant.

Their biggest issue is the signage, which lamentably fails to create a contract, partly because (i) it's too small and detailed to read from a moving vehicle and (ii) it's on a dual carriageway, so unless you want to stop and reverse up the D.C. you have no choice but to drive past the signs. VCS says that this means you accepted the contract. I say it's entrapment.

Skippy say it's all fine and dandy, pay up.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Another chance to appeal to IAS saying that you were NOT the driver but the passenger in the car. As the land is not covered by POFA 2012 and is specifically excluded in that legislation as kit is covered by byelaws, you have no obligation to name the driver on that day.

You enclose a witness statement from someone who is in a position to confirm that you were not driving.

Someone tried this, Skippy said it was irrelevant.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Someone tried this, Skippy said it was irrelevant.

The bye laws are the secondary point. Admitting to being passenger and having a witness puts real pressure on the "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." point in the VCS rejection.

As I see quite often wives dropping husbands off at the station to commute to London, such an assumption supported by the IAS is just toot and I would love to see a court overturn an IAS appeal slating them for their clearly biased assumptions.

How much longer can the IAS (Gladstones) get away with their crazy distortion?

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with the byelaws. VCS stopped claiming keeper liability at Liverpool Airport a long time ago, thereby rendering the byelaws irrelevant.

Their biggest issue is the signage, which lamentably fails to create a contract, partly because (i) it's too small and detailed to read from a moving vehicle and (ii) it's on a dual carriageway, so unless you want to stop and reverse up the D.C. you have no choice but to drive past the signs. VCS says that this means you accepted the contract. I say it's entrapment.

Skippy say it's all fine and dandy, pay up.

You know that I don't disagree with you, however the IAS and IPC members can argue with opinions and if the PPC is following the IPC AoS/code the IAS is not going to agree with any appeal based on signage unless it is blatantly clear to a blind man that it is deficient.