Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking on the roadway at John Lennon airport
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Jchally
Hello a driver recently dropped a passenger off at the above airport and I am the registered keeper. Below is the version of events.


I have received a letter from Zzps today saying they are acting on behalf of vehicle control services stating that the driver broke parking restrictions at John Lennon airport on the 29/09/15 at 05:43. It states that the driver stopped on the roadway which they didn't there was a locked gate with a large entrance and that is where they stopped, off the roadway for a maximum of 1min to let the passenger out of the car. It was dark and raining heavily and they saw no signs to indicate they couldn't stop and this was the first time they had been their. As the owner i have received NO other communication from any parking company prior to receiving this letter!. What cause of action would you suggest as the charge is £150.
Aso is a dropped kerb gated entrance classed as part of the roadway?. Obviously I've had no option to appeal as until this letter they were unaware of any contravention. I have read some of the JLA incidents already on here but with receiving no communication from VCS its a bit different than the others. Any advice on action is appreciated. Thank you.
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (Jchally @ Fri, 15 Jan 2016 - 15:54) *
I have read some of the JLA incidents already on here but with receiving no communication from VCS its a bit different than the others.
Not really different enough to warrant any different approach. As you'll have read, ZZPS can do nothing at all, so you ignore or send them a "debt denied" response (which they'll ignore). You'll also have read that all of the airport contracted-out no stopping enforcement schemes are on very shaky legal ground indeed, so none is ever likely to be taken to court lest the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Gan
The area is covered by byelaws.
It is not therefore "relevant land" for the purpose of holding the keeper liable for the driver's action under the Protection of Freedoms Act

You would therefore have no liability even if VCS had sent a parking notice in time

If you inform ZZPS of this fact, they will still refuse to stop contacting you.
You therefore have nothing to gain by responding.

The next stage will be a letter from Wright Hassall (solicitor) threatening legal action.
This is usually ZZPS using WH note-paper.

No point in any response unless the real WH or Gladstones Solicitors sends an actual Letter Before Claim
hexaflexagon
I'd simply respond and say you don't know who VCS are, have never received any communication from them and hence any 'debt' they are claiming is denied. Ask them not to pester you with any further letters.

Your case is essentially no different from many discussed here. Mine is one such case. A 'stopping notice' issued in April 2015 by VCS was rebutted with the familiar arguments about
a) inadequate / unreadable road signage when travelling at the permitted road speed.
b) impossible to understand the contract they purport to offer without stopping to read the signs which would immediately crystallise a contract were the signs adequate in the first place
c) the signage does not have planning permission
d) Since they regard the land as private by virtue of them issuing a 'contract' to stop, then the red route/yellow lines carry no statutory authority.
e) The land is in any case covered by statutory byelaws as evidenced by a letter to me from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for airports Robert Goodwill MP who confirms that byelaws are in force and have been since 1982. Any claimed offence would need to demonstrate a breach of the byelaws and would need to be pursued in a magistrates court by the local authority who 'own' the byelaws, i.e. Liverpool Council.

I received one debt collection letter in July 2015 which I rebutted with a simple debt denied letter and since then have heard nothing.

Just hang in there. They do not want to pursue these stopping offences in court since they calculate they are almost certain to be thrown out, setting a precedent which would scupper their business model of intimidating people into paying up and thus decimating their revenues.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.