PCN at Newcastle Airport - UKPPO / IAS appeal successful

gbr22114

Hi all,
I've signed up to thank the forum for all their advice which helped me win an appeal against a PCN from UK Parking Patrol Office. I'll explain what I submitted, and hopefully someone else will find it useful against these vultures.

I received a PCN in the post which stated that my car had breached the byelaws at "roads surrounding Newcastle Airport"; that the keeper is liable to pay the charge for any contravention, and that the reason for the PCN was "parking in prohibited area". They attached a screenshot from CCTV of my car with brake lights lit and a passenger getting out (me, I work at the airport and my wife was dropping me off outside the exit from the car park where you get 15 minutes free).
My initial submission to UKPPO was brief; via their "how to appeal" page I sent this message:

Thank you for the "Parking Charge Notice" dated XX/XX/19, which states that the vehicle was parked in a prohibited area. Given that the supplied photograph shows a car with its brake lights lit, I would disagree with your statement that it is parked.

UKPPO's reply, with accompanying CCTV clip (date stamp earlier than PCN):

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage unloading whilst stationary on double red lines/obstructing the lane in an area where there is a large presence of notices stating: “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”. There are signs around the entire airport complex including at the entrance that clearly state the parking restrictions in place. Security at the airport is paramount and any vehicle captured loading/unloading in anywhere other than the official collection/drop off car parks is issued with a notice by the CCTV operator.
Stopping to drop off passengers is strictly prohibited in this area, see attached footage.
Therefore, by unloading in the restricted area, the driver contravened the airport byelaws and the notice was correctly incurred.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure

So I composed a 4 page letter to IAS, appealing on several fronts:

Site signage not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC (International Parking Community) Code Of Practice (COP)
Signage on site is inadequate in that it consistently fails to be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”, as specified in point 4 of “Other signs”. Also in Schedule 1 of the COP, the section “Text size” instructs that “text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”.
The airport site has a single UKPPO sign at the entrance, the position of which makes it easily obscured to an arriving motorist. If it is difficult to see this sign in the below photograph, that is due to the silver car obscuring it, as the centre of it is less than a metre from the ground.
[PHOTO]
Assuming this sign can be seen, there is no place where a vehicle may safely be stopped in order to read it, due to its proximity to both the airport entrance and the exit from a filling station. Every sign referring to UKPPO along the roads around the airport site is positioned such that it cannot be easily read by a driver without the vehicle being stopped for a significant time; most of UKPPO’s signs in fact appear to be positioned facing the centre of the road, instead of facing
approaching vehicles. Furthermore these are positioned such that a even pedestrian cannot read them without standing in the road, causing an obstruction to motorists and a danger to themselves.
[PHOTO]
It appears that the (large) car park adjacent to the alleged breach has only one UKPPO sign in it, located on a fence under trees. While the wording of this sign differs slightly to the others around the site roads, it fails to meet the specifications of Schedule 1 due to poor positioning, lack of illumination, and lack of repeater signs. This in my opinion illustrates the general poor standard of UKPPO signage on site.
[PHOTO]

Byelaws incorrectly applied
The Notice To Keeper states that the reason for its issue is “6.3 - Parking In Prohibited Area”, referring to the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009. The accompanying photograph depicts the vehicle in question with its brake lights illuminated. Upon querying UKPPO regarding this, as parked vehicles do not usually have their brake lights lit, they have changed their mind about the alleged breach of “parking restrictions”, stating this time that the vehicle was “unloading whilst stationary on double red lines”. UKPPO have also provided a CCTV clip (in which the timestamp does not match the incident time on the PCN) which shows the vehicle in question stationary for less than 15 seconds, and not unloading. They have not however stated which other byelaw they believe has been breached other than their original statement regarding parking. The vehicle was not parked in the stated location, as UKPPO’s own evidence shows. If UKPPO have issued a PCN for an invalid reason, then they can not be allowed to claim a different reason when challenged.
Furthermore, Northumbria Police have advised that the road referred to is in fact subject to road traffic enactments rather than airport byelaws, as per the Airport Act 1986:
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.
Both the Airport Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply; this location is publicly accessible and therefore the Road Traffic Act applies. It is noted that the road markings at Newcastle Airport are not accompanied by the signage specified in the Highway Code.

No grace period
Section 15.1 of the IPC COP says that “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”. Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of any alleged “contract”. Although the vehicle was not parked, it was stationary for about 15 seconds, which despite the heavy rain at the quoted time,
would (if the wording on the sign were large enough) allow the driver to read and understand the nearby UKPPO sign, consider its contents, and decide whether they wished to remain in this location. 15 seconds is also an entirely appropriate time for a vehicle to wait at the pedestrian crossing in this location. As the below photo illustrates, the UKPPO signs are impossible to read by the occupant of any vehicle, and most drivers would require significantly longer than 15 seconds to understand their contents.

PCN is incorrect
As referred to above, the PCN states that it has been issued for parking at a specified time on 8th June 2019. The vehicle was not parked in the specified location, and according to UKPPO’s CCTV, had already left the location by the incident time stated in the PCN.

IAS:

Due to further information UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.

Result! :beer:

Umkomaas

Great result, but, yet again, the IAS will not come down on the side of the motorist. Rather, they persuade one of their paymasters to quietly slink away instead of finding against them.

Nonetheless, job done, hassle over. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention.

KeithP

Due to further information UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.

I wonder if a Subject Access Request to the Data Protection Officers of both the IAS and UKPPO would reveal what this 'further information' was?

Ask specifically for all and any communication between the IAS and UKPPO that discusses you, your vehicle and your incident.

Umkomaas

KeithP wrote: »

I wonder if a Subject Access Request to the Data Protection Officers of both the IAS and UKPPO would reveal what this 'further information' was?

Good point Keith. @OP - up for this?

Coupon-mad

That's a very good idea. Send them both a SAR, it's free (see NEWBIES thread).

We must remember to tell all the VCS defendants re Airport scam claims, to say this:

the road referred to is in fact subject to road traffic enactments rather than airport byelaws, as per the Airport Act 1986:
''65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.''
Both the Airport Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply; this location is publicly accessible and therefore the Road Traffic Act applies.

gbr22114

Send them both a SAR, it's free

Might just do that out of curiosity, I'm going away for a week but will look at it when I get back

BrownTrout

You should definitely do it.send proof of ID so a photo of the v5 will do.

BountyHunter

Great result for the other numerous Newcastle Airport claims

The_Deep

Well done. You should now consider sending them an invoice for your time and, if they ignore it, a letter before action.

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rlm?msclkid=de0dff65fa9415eb713da2247fb27182&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BSN%20-%20Letter%20before%20action&utm_term=free%20template%20letter%20before%20action%20uk&utm_content=Exact%20-%20Letter%20before%20action

KeithP

gbr22114, you must have received responses to your Subject Access Requests by now.

What did they reveal?