john lennon airport jla vehicle control services vcs

enfield_freddy

the £25k paperweight

toddstar

enfield_freddy wrote: »

how nice of them to state that the contract is for PARKING , was the car paked up and locked securely?

this whole thing is just a big joke as we all know. the driver tells me that they were stopped for about 30 seconds, engine running, just long enough for the passenger to open the door, grab a bag from the back seat and leave.

hoohoo

Well, here is my starter for 10: appeal and IAS reply

2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers.
2. This is arguably irrelevant but the Appellant has no evidence to support this claim in any event.

The assessor is obviously just reeling off rote answers without actually bothering to check the evidence, because if they did they would find that although to motorist provided no evidence about contracts, VCS kindly produced a witness statement stating the contract ended July 7 2015 (and the event was in August).

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

Once again although the motorist provides no evidence, the operator provides all the evidence which is needed. The photographs show most of the signs are 90 degrees to the road and so cannot be read, and that the signs which are facing the motorist have too many words, are badly places and have a font which is too small.

Methinks the Barista truly was not only institutionally biased in this case, but also thumpingly incompetent and possessing none of the required legal expertise in the areas surrounding parking. Ideal qualifications, in fact, for joining the IAS's merry band under the auspices of Little John and Will Scarlet.

Oh, and don't forget the lies in the evidence pack where VCS state the signage faces the driver, when 91% of the signs are at 90 degrees, and that the text size is relative to approach speed. The 'NO STOPPING' font is 11cm high. The DfT font size requirement for a 40mph road is 19cm for lower case letters or 38cm for upper case. Thus the font is about 1/4 the size it should be. The other fonts are much smaller and so totally unreadable.

The operator also states the motorist should have phoned the helpline, but the photographs clearly show no phone boxes anywhere on the entire site.

yotmon

toddstar wrote: »

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.[/I]

The appeal is dismissed."

http://www.liverpoolairport.com/car-parking/car-park-layout/

That's fine, but I believe that there IS justification when you take a look at the map on the official JLA parking website. Try and park in the 'free parking' area and see where it leads you. I don't think it should be directing you to drive through 'No Entry' signs - the actual road where you turn off for the 'free parking' is not actually shown on their official map ! Show that to a Judge VCS and you'll be laughed out the door !

enfield_freddy

vcs won,t go to court , they will (as always) back out at the last minute




once a judge rules on this and tells his (judge) mates in the pub , a future judge would jump on them and make them a laughing stock , with a huge award against them


the airports are happy (JLA) getting £25k a year for allowing VCS to operate there , plus a cut of every ticket ,




THE GREAT BRITISH CON

The_Deep

The witness statement is 18 months old.

Zero_Gravitas

And in any case the witness statement only mentions breaches of the terms and conditions - it doesn't say anything about "contractual charges"...


And TBH I'm surprised they have got the Retail Director to sign a witness statement related to parking enforcement - I would have thought it would have fallen under the remit of the Operations Director (or similar).

yotmon

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-airports-new-look-departure-lounge-9158824

According to this article in the Liverpool Echo dated 01/05/15, Lucy O’Shaughnessy is now the airport’s Commercial Director and not the Retail Director as claimed in her statement. Does any change in her circumstances make the statement redundant in law ?

hoohoo

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

And in any case the witness statement only mentions breaches of the terms and conditions - it does say anything about "contractual charges"...


And TBH I'm surprised they have got the Retail Director to sign a witness statement related to parking enforcement - I would have thought it would have fallen under the remit of the Operations Director (or similar).

The 2012 contract states:
The company shall issue Users contravening the parking policy a parking charge notice.


If the 2013 contract states the same (and the witness statement suggests it does) then VCS do not have the right to issue charges where the user agrees to park (contractual charges). They only have the right to issue charges when Users contravene parking policy.

ManxRed

Well spotted.