john lennon airport jla vehicle control services vcs

toddstar

I believe the next stage is debt collector/fake solicitor letters, which reminds me, I need to get that broken shredder replaced.

here it is folks, my ias appeal rejection for our entertainment...

"The Appellant relies on a number of popular arguments and I have considered and responded to each. It should be clear from the outset that in this appeal the onus is on the Appellant to prove their claims are more likely than not.

1. The Appellant claims they have evidence they were not the driver but they have failed to provide the same. The case of Elliot v Loake is clear that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper is assumed to be the driver.

2. This is arguably irrelevant but the Appellant has no evidence to support this claim in any event.

3. The Appellant has again failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. The Operator has provided evidence of the large signs at the location. In the absence of any evidence to undermine this I am satisfied the signs can be read from the road.

4. The Appellant has not provided evidence that there are bye-laws in force.

5. The Appellant offers no explanation as to why the charge contravenes the regulations referred to.

6. The name given to the charge does not affect the lawfulness of it.

7. The Appellant refers to the charge as a penalty in point 6 and to pre-estimate of loss in point 7. In my view it is not a penalty charge as the signs make it clear that a charge will be issued if the Appellant stops. Therefore, having had notice of this the Appellant has agreed to the charge by stopping. Even if the charge is for breach the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Bevis v Parking Eye made it clear that loss has little relevance and the question is whether the charge is commercially justified. The Appellant refers to this but assumes the free car parking is the only consideration. There are numerous issues why the Operator may wish this area to be clear, safety being one. Given there is 15 minutes free parking there is no justification for stopping where it is restricted. Given the charge is similar to that allowed by the Court of Appeal in Beavis and it is designed to discourage drivers from stopping, I am happy it is commercially justified.

The appeal is dismissed."

toddstar

just realised, I haven't posted my ias appeal, might as well post that too. I didn't put too much thought into it, just copied stuff quickly from around the forum as I knew I was going to "lose".

my ias appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing against this private parking charge on the following grounds:

1. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the alleged contravention. I have proof which I may use as evidence in a court of law.

2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers.

3. No contract with the driver. Signs cannot be read safely without stopping to read them which VCS claim is prohibited.

4. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Liverpool John Lennon Airport is subject to airport byelaws.

5. VCS are trying to enforce an unfair contract as per 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' & OFT 'Unfair Contract Terms Guidance'.

6. VCS have issued a 'Parking Charge Notice' however they have stated that the PCN is for 'stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited'. The PCN issued by VCS contradicts itself, it cannot be a 'parking charge' if it is for an alleged stopping offence. The area where the alleged offence took place is not in the airport car park so therefore no parking charge applies. Exactly what is the purpose of the charge? I believe that the charge amounts to an attempt to charge a penalty which is illegal as VCS have no authority under law to issue a fixed penalty notice. The IPC Code of Practice does not cover 'No Stopping Zones' and therefore VCS are in breach of the KADOE contract by obtaining the registered keepers details from the DVLA.

7. The amount demanded doesn’t represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term nor does it reflect any material damage to Liverpool John Lennon airport or VCS. The fact that the charge is none-itemised and given as a round figure to the maximum amount allowed (also with the minimum amount of discount offered for payment within 14 days) under the AOS Code of Practice (Schedule 5) means that this charge can only be interpreted as quite literally no-more than a disguised penalty. Which has been issued in the form of a misleading un-solicited invoice with the aim of maximising revenue for VCS.

If the charge is an attempt at gaining compensation for a loss to the businesses then it is not commercially justified and has no basis in law to be claimed. The first 15 minutes in the Liverpool John Lennon Airport pick up / drop off car park are free; the alleged contravention lasted seconds which is significantly less than 15 minutes and Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) are demanding payment of £60 for what would have been a period of free parking. Therefore there has been no loss to the business.

Coupon-mad

IAS decisions including yours are blogged here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/corruption-scandal-continues-at.html

It's high time this was properly investigated. It's utterly shocking that one of the 'services' offered by Hurley & Davies has been accepted for ADR status. There's a two tier 'service' dreamed up by the IPC. The ADR status version is one they make people pay £15 for with no indication as to whether the decisions will be any better than this utter drivel from the IAS. And the £15 'service' will be 'binding'...so who will dare try that gamble with the IPC in charge of it?

Herzlos

I'm curious as to how they can enforce the 'binding' part of the appeal. Presumably by the same court action you'd face if it wasn't binding? Some sort of contractual charge?

toddstar

skippy says "In my view it is not a penalty charge as the signs make it clear that a charge will be issued if the Appellant stops. Therefore, having had notice of this the Appellant has agreed to the charge by stopping."

the appellant says "stops what skippy? working? and no I wasn't given notice of this." (the appellant was working more than 20 miles away at the time).

sorry everybody, just amusing myself while on my afternoon brew break.

toddstar

don't think i'm allowed to post vcs evidence here to the forum but I will say that they have provided still images of the signs, not video. video would be needed to try and replicate the experience of the driver. still images are pointless evidence because the driver does not have still signs available to study. instead the driver must try to read, understand and then agree to them while driving.

ManxRed

All VCS evidence will be perfectly valid as it came in an envelope from VCS. The motorist's evidence will be utter rubbish as it came in an envelope from the motorist.

That's basically how it works.

toddstar

ManxRed wrote: »

All VCS evidence will be perfectly valid as it came in an envelope from VCS. The motorist's evidence will be utter rubbish as it came in an envelope from the motorist.

That's basically how it works.

not sure if I worded my previous post correctly, i'll edit it. I meant post vcs evidence here on the forum. I logged into the ias website after they gave their verdict and took copies of all the vcs evidence.

Redx

you cannot post any attachments on this forum

use tinypic or photobucket to host any pics, then add the links

hoohoo

toddstar wrote: »

don't think i'm allowed to post vcs evidence here to the forum but I will say that they have provided still images of the signs, not video. video would be needed to try and replicate the experience of the driver. still images are pointless evidence because the driver does not have still signs available to study. instead the driver must try to read, understand and then agree to them while driving.

Here is a youtube video showing one of the entrances to the airport. Can you read the signs as you whizz past (19 seconds in)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLHoi9Au6pY