JLA "Stopping" Charge

Fruitcake

DisruptiveLad said:

I imagine the def asked for the proof and the judge followed that up. Apparently, VCS' rep said they would appeal and the judge asked on what point of law exactly would they do that. Not a leg to stand on. I have a question though: which section of the Companies Act 2006 takes precedence on contracts? Sec 43 or Sec 44? Any idea?

I think that would be up to a judge to decide on the individual merits of the case and the individual nature of the documents presented.

Anchovie

The contract names LIverpool Airports Ltd. Not listed at Companies House. There is a Liverpool Airport Ltd but the signatory has never been a Director. 

Router66

Not_A_Hope said:

My understanding was that the judge found that VCS had a contract to manage parking at the airport and found this did not extend to stopping on the roads around the airport perhaps not even owned by the airport.

The contract I have seen provides a list of contraventions for which VCS can raise PCN's. Code 46 contravention is "parking/waiting on a roadway where stopping is prohibited." I would imagine a different judge could easily find in favour of VCS?
However, the contract I have seen is dated July 2013 and has a 24 month duration. It could have been superseded, extended or lapsed, which is why it would be helpful to know the source of the evidence seen by the judge which led to the case being dismissed.  

Router66

Anchovie said:

The contract names LIverpool Airports Ltd. Not listed at Companies House. There is a Liverpool Airport Ltd but the signatory has never been a Director. 

@anchovie...we have probably seen the same contract? The LJLA signatory is authorised on behalf of Liverpool Airports...(is there more than one)? However, the contract (initiated by VCS) refers to Liverpool Airport Ltd. Co. Reg. 02116704 as the contracting party. I guess someone will be able to offer an explanation for the different titles?    

Router66

As an update on this thread, (on behalf of a family member [FM]) I have been doing battle with Liverpool Airport after raising a complaint over the actions of their agent VCS. This also involves the MP of FM who has already contacted VCS and LJLA on our behalf.

My complaint to LJLA was batted back twice suggesting I appeal to VCS, but eventually I managed to escalate the complaint to the LJLA Commercial Director. Her response was identical to the one sent to @Doddle1 – a template Email containing wording such as “Fines” and “Penalty Charge Notices”. None of the content addressed the points made in my complaint.

Now that she has looked into my complaint it seems she is working hand in hand with VCS, to the point where she claims VCS have followed all procedures correctly and she will not respond to any further Emails.

Our MP forwarded her response to the representation he made on our behalf...it was the same template response she initially sent me.

I have argued that I did not receive a valid PCN...VCS raised a Notice to Driver over two years ago but it was not received, neither was the final reminder which normally follows it. The existence of the NtD was only revealed following the SAR response in October 2021. The NtD stated that the driver had been named by the Registered Keeper which is the employer of the FM. There is no mention of this “naming” in the SAR and the RK denies naming the FM.

Does my argument stand up that on the balance of probabilities VCS withheld the NtD in order to deny the potential driver a right to a discounted payment, a right to appeal, and provide the opportunity for VCS to turn a potential £60 charge into a £160 charge? If my argument does stand up does this render the NtD invalid and therefore no PCN is in play?

Umkomaas

Nothing, other than a judge's decision will render a NtD (or NtK) invalid. I think you're barking up the wrong tree as to whether the NtD was served correctly. You need to be winning this on much more fundamental points like signage, byelaws, not relevant land, no keeper liability, no authority to issue charges in their own right. 

@DisruptiveLad has suggested many times that his method of dealing with these LJLA cases are pretty much nailed on. I haven't seen him around of late. Are you in touch with him?

Router66

Thanks for input Umkomaas...Yes, I have been in touch with @DisruptiveLad and shared info on our cases, however I prefer to keep this case on the forum for a wider input which will benefit others with similar cases. @DL can always contribute to this thread if he is still lurking.  It would be much appreciated if you could elaborate a little more as to why a NtD (or NtK) can still be considered a valid PCN if it is withheld, thereby depriving the intended recipient of the right to an appeal and therefore in breach of the ATA Code of Practice? Notwithstanding, the other trees you mention are all being barked up! 

Jenni_D

Using the term "valid" is where you're going wrong ... a PCN is simply an invoice for an alleged contractual amount owing. Whether they sent one or not is essentially irrelevant - certainly use it as an argument, but only on the basis of adding weight to the claimant's incompetence.  

Umkomaas

Thanks for input Umkomaas...Yes, I have been in touch with @DisruptiveLad and shared info on our cases, however I prefer to keep this case on the forum for a wider input which will benefit others with similar cases.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that your case should be taken off forum, and you're quite right about keeping it 'public' for input from regulars and as a source of information for those who will inevitably follow a similar path in the weeks and months to come. 

It would be much appreciated if you could elaborate a little more as to why a NtD (or NtK) can still be considered a valid PCN if it is withheld

@Jenni_D sums it up better than I could (above). 👍

Router66

Thanks Jenni-D...seeing things differently now. So if the PCN/Invoice is not sent and the claimant, in their Particulars of Claim, is seeking recovery of the Parking Charge Notice then they would need to convince a judge that their invoice is a Parking Charge Notice? Yet the IPC CoP defines a PCN as a NtK, NtD or NtH?  and a NtD (which is their invoice) must be issued at the time of the parking event...Since it wasn't, is it still a NtD?