Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

  • exboyracer
    Hmmm, so the predictable has occurred. Ironically their email was stuck in my spam folder so I've only noticed it today while doing a spot of housekeeping.

    Any comments on the following?

    copy & paste from their email received 5th Feb 2015:

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details.

    Parking Charge Number (PCN): [redacted]
    Vehicle Registration: [redacted]
    Date Issued: 17/12/2014

    Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

    The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

    "The appellant challenges a claim made against him by the operator responsible for parking at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The operator's claim is permitted under the Protection of Freedoms Act and seeks to recover from the appellant a debt incurred by the driver of the appellant's car. The operator's claim is made in contract and alleges that the driver agreed to pay a charge by stopping in a restricted area.

    Although the appellant was not the driver at the time, he is entitled to argue against the basis on which the operator makes its claim. He relies on seven heads of appeal. I will deal with them in turn:

    1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

    There is no doubt that the amount demanded by the operator has a degree of deterrence to it and might be described as a penalty. It is not based on any loss suffered by either the landowner or operator. However, in my view it is neither improper in its purpose nor manifestl y excessive in its amount. It is commercially justifiable. The supply of parking at an airport is a limited and valuable commodity and the charge properly reflects, in my view, the premium placed on the approach road by users of it. This approach to private parking contracts has been approved in the persuasive authority of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis (Cambridge County Court Claim no. 3JD05152).

    2) The alleged contravention did not take place.

    I have viewed the cctv evidence and I am satisfied that the appellant's car was stopped on the red route.

    3) Not relevant Land under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; no registered keeper liability.

    I am satisfied that the approach roads to the airport are relevant land within the meaning of POFA.

    4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers.

    This is not required. The contract was between the driver of the appellant's car and the operator. I am satisfied that there was valid offer and acceptance.

    5) No Contract with driver.

    I have addressed this in 4 above.

    6) Unclear signage.

    I am familiar with the placement and content of the signage at LJL. I have also reminded myself by looking again. The terms could not be clearer in my view.

    7) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park.

    How the operator enforces its contract, whether by parking attendant or cctv camera, is a matter for the operator and does not invalidate its claim.

    Having considered each of the appellant's arguments, I am satisfied that they are without merit. The appeal is therefore dismissed."

    As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

    As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

    The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

    Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

    Yours sincerely
    The Independent Appeals Service
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,096Posts Today

8,735Users online

Martin's Twitter