IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Liverpool Airport PCN received from Vehicle Control Services

edited 26 February 2015 at 4:53PM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
84 replies 10.6K views
12345679»

Replies

  • Ralph-y wrote: »
    Please can you post the full appeal up so we can read it in full?

    Ralph:cool:

    I don’t mind but is there any issue posting it in full?
  • DoaMDoaM Forumite
    11.9K Posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    None at all - just redact any identifiable info.

    And I think Ralph:cool: means the IAS assessment, not your appeal.
  • Ralph-yRalph-y Forumite
    4.5K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    correct

    Ralph:cool:
  • OK here it is, a few things first though.

    For anyone who comes across this thread in the future looking to research a JLA IAS appeal, as previously pointed out, the text, most of which I obtained from a failed IAS appeal in 2014 needs revision.

    Regarding the invalid reference already pointed out above and also the bylaws section taken from a blog post on parking prankster referencing the 1960 era bylaws at JLA and the maximum £5 fine is incorrect.

    I didn’t find this out until after I submitted the appeal but if you look at this FOI request:

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/byelaws_john_lennon_airport

    This could be used to show that the bylaws are indeed in force, however the revised 1982 versions increase the £5 penalty to £100 which is the amount VCS invoice. Therefore the £5 argument needs removing, although stopping by the road side isn’t specifically mentioned as an offence.

    Secondly thanks to everyones help on here, particularly to those such as Coupon_Mad who recommended attempting the IAS appeal rather than ignoring. In this case I guess it was worth it.

    IAS decision:

    "First I apologise to both parties for the delay in responding to this appeal, which has been in part due to an issue I have not dealt with before, and which I have considered several times.

    I have not responded to all of the grounds of appeal raised, partly because most of the arguments raised are spurious and without merit, but mainly because I am allowing the appeal on a specific point, which means the other points are no longer relevant.

    The Appellant raises the relevant periods within PoFA, and claims the Operator has failed to send a notice to keeper within the required time periods. I do not agree with them. However, having raised deadlines within PoFA, albeit incorrectly, I have considered those deadlines, and consider that the Operator has failed to comply, just not in the specific manner suggested by the Appellant.

    This is a hire vehicle and the position in relation to such vehicles is covered by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule IV of Po FA. The start point is that the Operator should seek information from the hire company. Should the hire company wish to avoid liability for the unpaid parking charges they should provide the following:-

    (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

    (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

    (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

    From the appeal correspondence it appears that none of this has been done. This is important because Parliament clearly had in mind that the hirer of a vehicle should not be held responsible for unpaid parking charges, unless there was an agreement, signed by the hirer, accepting responsibility for those charges during the period of hire.

    Paragraph 14 goes on to explain the conditions to be met before the creditor, in this case the Operator, is ab le to claim unpaid charges from the hirer. The conditions are:-

    (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

    (b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and

    (c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

    The relevant period is 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor. Again I can see no evidence these requirements have been satisfied, quite the contrary. The initial response from [EMPLOYER LEASING COMPANY NAME] is received on [DATE OF “PARKING” + 9 DAYS], and the notice to [EMPLOYER NAME] sent on [DATE OF “PARKING” + 27 DAYS], within the time allowed. The response from [EMPLOYER NAME] is received on [DATE OF “PARKING” + 39 DAYS]. The next day would be the [DATE OF “PARKING” + 40 DAYS], and 21 days from this day would be [DATE OF “PARKING” + 61 DAYS]. The notice to the Appellant was sent on the [DATE OF “PARKING” + 62 DAYS] and there is no evidence regarding method of service.

    It may be that the relationship between the [EMPLOYER NAME] and the Appellant is not one of hire, in which case arguably the last point regarding the above deadlines is not relevant. I do not know as there is no evidence from the [EMPLOYER NAME] to confirm what the relationship is, and what basis therefore the Operator has for pursuing the Appellant rather than the [EMPLOYER NAME], other than a letter from the [EMPLOYER NAME] saying the Appellant was the driver. This has no more value than the letter provided by the Appellant’s colleague confirming they were in a meeting at the relevant time. In any event the appeal would still be allowed based on the above mentioned failures to comply with PoFA.

    Although not specifically raised as an appeal point, the Appellant has raised PoFA deadlines and the failures by the Operator, particul arly the absence of any signed agreement by the hirer/Appellant, are fundamental in my view. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

    "
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

NS&I to change Premium Bond prize rate

It will rise to 1.40% from June

MSE News

Compers of the MSE Forum:

Show us the prizes you've won recently

Join the MSE Forum discussion