PCN Robin Hood Airport

DonnyDave

A so-called "Parking Charge Notice" has been received by the Registered Keeper of a vehicle which stopped momentarily on a private road at Robin Hood Airport where they allege that stopping is "prohibited".

Now, having read Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the "Parking Charge Notice" is not in compliance. The main question is: is there another piece of legislation which could be?

The reason stated for contravention of the Terms and Conditions was "Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited" (that is it and it is emboldened on the "Notice"). There are several reasons that I believe it does not comply with the above SI:

1. It refers to the act of "Stopping". There is no mention of "Parking".

2. There is no mention of the period of parking for which the "Notice" applies, as required under the Act.

3. There is a claim which is that the act of "Stopping" is "prohibited". Is it not the case that only the State can enact and enforce a prohibition like this? Thus, the best they can do is request people not to stop.


The other main question is: As the "Notice" does not comply with the Act, does the "Notice" constitute nothing more than an unsolicited communication? In which case, the Information Commissioner's Office needs to be notified as the personal details of the Registered Keeper have been obtained and used for this purpose. And there is strictly speaking no need to appeal (in the legal sense) because in the legal sense it isn't a "notice" as under the Act... (although that's not to say they won't pursue it as if it were)?


The reason for stopping was, in case you're wondering, because a light on the dashboard was indicating that the boot was not shut properly. As I live near the Airport should I be a little concerned that they may force planes to take off when doors are not shut or give them a parking 'ticket'?

The responsibility of safety placed on a driver cannot be pre-empted by private "parking" enforcement.

Some recent news reports of victims at the same venue:

Airport’s not for turning: Robin Hood slaps parking ticket on car doing a U-turn (and it was driven by Ms Turner) – Doncaster Free Press 30/09/15
Driver is fined after getting lost at an airport and stopping ‘for seconds’ to turn around in a dead-end road – Daily Mail 01/10/15
OAP fined for stopping his car to ask directions – Doncaster Free Press 22/10/15

Coupon-mad

Now, having read Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the "Parking Charge Notice" is not in compliance. The main question is: is there another piece of legislation which could be?

Nope, but that does not make the invoice illegal. It's just an invoice. VCS are contracted by the Airport.

The other main question is: As the "Notice" does not comply with the Act, does the "Notice" constitute nothing more than an unsolicited communication?

Yes and No. It is a pile of rubbish but is not something the ICO would be interested in.

In which case, the Information Commissioner's Office needs to be notified as the personal details of the Registered Keeper have been obtained and used for this purpose.

No, don't bother. Not relevant to the ICO. The DVLA sell data to VCS all the time under the 'reasonable cause' excuse. Complaints get nowhere.

And there is strictly speaking no need to appeal (in the legal sense) because in the legal sense it isn't a "notice" as under the Act... (although that's not to say they won't pursue it as if it were)?

PLease read the newbies thread about IPC firms like VCS. 'NEWBIES READ THIS FIRST' near the top of the forum.

And search the forum for 'Robin Hood' and 'VCS Airport' and you will find a hundred times more instances than the few in the press. HOwver, on older threads about it you will find POPLA appeal examples but you will NOT be offered POPLA as VCS are with the kangaroo court, IPC/IAS. Read the Newbies thread post #3 to understand your options about that stage, if you bother to appeal. You will lose.

So what really...everyone loses, nobody pays, plenty ignore!

DonnyDave

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, don't bother. Not relevant to the ICO. The DVLA sell data to VCS all the time under the 'reasonable cause' excuse. Complaints get nowhere.

Thanks, I will read the other threads.

However, in respect of the above and the ICO, I was thinking of a complaint not on the basis that the data was sold to them in the first place, nor whether it was unreasonable to do so – but rather that they have acquired it and are storing it, but have not done anything lawful with and have indeed done something unlawful with it.

Coupon-mad

They have not done anything unlawful.

Stopping is parking, always has been, always is for Council tickets too (nowt to do with the engine running or people being in the car).

IMHO it's such a silly argument on here when people occasionally say stopping in a no-stopping zone is not 'parking' (course it is). By the way I am not defending VCS, far from it, but that IS parking. And VCS are acting under a contract with the Airport.

Just ignore them like everyone else or appeal as per the NEWBIES thread then try the Prankster's approach:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/consumer-ombudsman-can-deal-with.html

Appeal only as keeper, because the Notice is not POFA compliant (which does not make it unlawful, loads of these notices are non-POFA and anyway on Airport land the POFA cannot apply). Only the driver can be held liable so don't say who was driving.

HTH

DonnyDave

Thanks Not Stopping (how apt your username).

This is the conclusion I am coming to (ignore it).

I am now versed on Schedule 4 of the POFA which I see doesn't apply which would appear fortunate as it gives them power to hand any charge to the Keeper whereas because it doesn't apply they can't do anything to the Keeper and must address the driver.

Interestingly, the PDF of the byelaws at Robin Hood Airport is no longer on its website. The URL returns a 404:

http://www.robinhoodairport.com/_assets/downloads/byelaws.pdf

I can't find it anywhere, not on archive.org or archive.is .

DonnyDave

I'd like to express thanks for your thoughts. I have read the first couple of postings of Coupon-mad's stickied "Newbies" thread as well as pages on a few other sites.

As I'm not legally qualified I cannot give advice. I can only say what I would be inclined to do and the reason for doing so.

If I were the victim here I think I would ignore it, but retain all correspondence from them.

I have tried to explain the issue to the victim which has inspired this thread. I do suspect that the "Notice" is being treated as if it were a summons from a magistrates court.

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that people do not have appreciation for:

1. the differences in criminal law and civil law, and that this comes under the latter.

2. the fact that this is a breach of contract which is being alleged and for which the PPC does not know the identity of the person who they wish to allege has breached the contract.

3. the fact that until the driver has been identified the PPC cannot even begin to pursue an allegation of breach of contract. One can only be civilly liable after proceedings have started.

4. the fact that this "Notice" is nothing more than an invitation to pay and that doing so is without legal prejudice.

5. Where the identity is unknown not offering oneself on a plate for civil matters is not an offence (unlike with criminal matters). With civil matters the onus is on the plaintiff to identify the defendant.


With no POSA there can be no RK liability, as is so in this instance.

The fact that the PPC has put it in writing that they do not know the identity of the driver surely means that this "Notice" does not count as far as civil proceedings goes for any alleged breach of contract (even if, coincidently, it has been served on the driver as the RK).

I'm not legally qualified so statements are opinion.

Coupon-mad

Do tell the victim about the debt recovery letters they will receive every month in 2015/16 - covered in the NEWBIES thread post #4 I think.

Barry Beavis v ParkingEye gets a final decision next week from the Supreme Court, which will affect things with most private PCNs so get up to speed with that next week if you are interested in this level of scam:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-v-beavis-judgment-date.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-whats-it-all-about.html

DonnyDave

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do tell the victim about the debt recovery letters they will receive every month in 2015/16 - covered in the NEWBIES thread post #4 I think.

Thanks. I said above that I would probably ignore a parking charge notice, should I ever be unlucky enough to fall victim.

I have thought further and my preferred option would be to write as the RK stating no liability. If POFA applied and the notice was not in compliance I would point this out.


Aside from the occasional story about parking charges, such as the one involving to Baroness Boothroyd a few years ago, there has been practically no media coverage. There are other topics I am aware of which do not get any media time and this is just another.