Sooty139
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 12:00
My wife and I were dropped off at Liverpool airport in order to catch our flight. I have since received a Parking Charge Notice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd. Obviously, I am not the driver, but I am the registered keeper.
We were dropped on a small slip road, by a roundabout near where you turn left to park. Instead of turning left, we did a 180 around the roundabout, and pulled into the slip road there. I imagine we were stopped for around 30 seconds at most.
I would obviously life to fight the ticket, since I did not even see any notices displaying terms and conditions, never mind read and agree to them.
I have enclosed a copy of the ticket as attachments, and would appreciate any help anyone can offer.
Thanks,
R
Gan
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 12:17
That location is covered by Liverpool Airport Byelaws or the Highways Act
It doesn't matter which
Either way it means that it's not "relevant land" for the Protection of Freedoms Act to apply
This is the only legislation that could enable VCS to pursue the registered keeper for payment if it doesn't know who was driving.
Dear Sir
Ref *****
This is not an appeal
I was not the driver and, according to the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 Para 3(1) the location is not "relevant land".
You have no right to pursue me for payment.
Neither have I any obligation to identify the driver.
My position is final. Contacting me again will serve no purpose.
I will note the content of any correspondence but do not guarantee a reply.
It will under no circumstances result in a payment to your company and any legal action against me cannot possibly succeed.
Yours Faithfully
ostell
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 12:26
Read the many other entries for JLA
This land is subject to byelaws and therefore the provisions of POFA do not apply.
After you look around you write to them, as the registered keeper, stating that you were not driver, the land is subject to byelaws and therefore POFA doesn't apply so that they can not hold the keeper liable. Even if POFA was available then they failed failed to conform to the requirements to hold the keeper liable. As this was not a parking incident but an alleged no waiting/No stopping contravention then why are they using parking legislation and naming their form "Parking Charge Notice".
Sooty139
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 12:30
Thanks for the fast reply.
I notice you suggest I do not send the letter as an appeal. Can I as why? Just so I know and understand.
Another thing, I have read quite a few threads on Liverpool Airport, and I notice it is generally all based around Byelaws. One of the threads suggests that there is a current attempt at updating them. Does anyone know if this is still pending, or if it could have gone through?
Also, on the subject of Byelaws at Liverpool airport, while I was there it was announced that Liverpool Council has taken up a 20% share in the airport. Is this likely to have a bearing at all?
Thanks.
R
ostell
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 12:36
You are not appealing, you are telling them that they have no case for attempting to charge you: Bylaws apply and not parking.
If you read POFA which is the regulations that allow them to hold the registered keeper liable if they do not know the name of the driver it specifically excludes land to which byelaws apply. They could update the byelaws but they would still apply.
An additional exclusion from POFA is council land so if the land is owned by the council then that is an additional point in your favour.
freddy1
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 13:21
the day VCS show up in a CC with a claim at JLA , asda will sell out of popcorn
its a scam , they pay JLA for permission to con JLA customers
cabbyman
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 13:28
Popcorn time!!!
Gan
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 13:43
I notice you suggest I do not send the letter as an appeal. Can I as why? Just so I know and understand
Because you're not asking them; you're telling them
As well as the difference in mindset, the appeal process is fighting on their battleground, not yours :
1 Appeal to VCS that will be rejected
2 Second appeal to the so-called Independent Appeals Service that's really a kangaroo court
Likely to fail on the grounds that you can't prove you weren't driving
A lost appeal poses a problem.
You can ignore the result but it leaves you looking unreasonable in the very unlikely event of court action
Apart from taking up less time, telling VCS in this way is a reasonable response that can do nothing to harm your position
They can't complain that you ignored them and you give away nothing that they can twist and use against you
Sooty139
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 13:56
That all sounds like it makes good sense.
I will post the letter today. No doubt I will be back on here with an update when they reply tell me I am wrong, and then that I now owe them £100.
I don't like popcorn, or Scammers like VCS.
Thank you all.
freddy1
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 13:59
1st class with proof of posting from PO , NOT recorded/signed for ,
Sooty139
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 14:17
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 14:59)
1st class with proof of posting from PO , NOT recorded/signed for ,
Will do, Thanks.
Sooty139
Sat, 23 Apr 2016 - 14:26
Hi Again,
I replied to the original parking ticket with this letter as suggested, and have received the reply in the attachments. For some reason, they have chosen to take the letter as an appeal despite the fist line stating that it is not an appeal.
Any advice on how to proceed? Ignore or reply?
QUOTE (Gan @ Mon, 28 Mar 2016 - 13:17)
Dear Sir
Ref *****
This is not an appeal
I was not the driver and, according to the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 Para 3(1) the location is not "relevant land".
You have no right to pursue me for payment.
Neither have I any obligation to identify the driver.
My position is final. Contacting me again will serve no purpose.
I will note the content of any correspondence but do not guarantee a reply.
It will under no circumstances result in a payment to your company and any legal action against me cannot possibly succeed.
Yours Faithfully
Thanks again.
Sooty139
hoohoo
Sat, 23 Apr 2016 - 17:09
You can now appeal to the IAS on the grounds that you were not the driver. As you will be able to provide a copy of your plane ticket as evidence, this will put the IAS in the position of either having to uphld your appeal, or proving they are biased, or incompetent
Eg
I am appealing as keeper. I was a passenger in the vehicle, but was not the driver. As the notice to keeper was not compliant with POFA 2012, there is no keeper liability. In addition, the operator confirmed in a letter to myself that they were not using POFA 2012 but were proceeding on the assumption I was the driver.
As evidence I was not the driver, I enclose the following.
1) My plane ticket to show I was catching a plane and therefore could not be the driver
2) The operators own photographic evidence. I can bee seen exiting the vehicle on the passenger side, proving I was not the driver.
3) A signed witness statement by my wife, confirming I was not the driver
Witness statement of xyz
1) I am xyz, of abc address
2) I was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the event captured in parking charge ref abc
3) my husband, def, was also a passenger in the vehicle at the time and was not the driver.
Signed
Dated
Sooty139
Sat, 23 Apr 2016 - 19:10
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
1. I do still have a copy of my plane ticket, which is for a flight at 0710, while the parking ticket is from 0519. Given that I believe I am meant to arrive 2 hours before my flight, that should count for something.
2. It is my wife that can be seen exiting the car, and not me. I was in the back seat, and would have exited after her. However I can be seen at the back of the car getting the cases out with her.
Without a photo of me exiting the car, I'm not sure either 1, or 2 prove that I was not the driver. I suppose they could argue that I could have driven the car there, and another driver could have taken the car away from the airport. That is not what happened by the way.
3. Yes I can get my wife to complete a witness statement.
I also notice that their reply states that "the CCTV footage has confirmed to us that on the 22nd March 2016, you stopped your vehicle". Well that looks like a bit of cutting and pasting that went wrong because it was a different date.
Do you think it is reasonable of them to "proceed on the reasonable assumption that I was the driver"?
Many thanks.
Sooty139
Umkomaas
Sat, 23 Apr 2016 - 19:46
QUOTE
Do you think it is reasonable of them to "proceed on the reasonable assumption that I was the driver
Thing is, they don't 'proceed'. They daren't take a case to court as they'd risk bringing down their house of cards at LJLA.
They do get debt collectors to harass you with threatograms, but they are just idle threats. They can carry this on for up to 6 years. So if you can get it knocked on the head by the IAS, that will be it, done and dusted.
However the IAS uphold very few appeals (fewer than 20%) and appealing to them is not usually recommended unless the motorist has very firm evidence - which you seem to have.
hexaflexagon
Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 00:51
QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Sat, 23 Apr 2016 - 20:46)
They can carry this on for up to 6 years.
For the record is this an absolute limitation?
I was under the impression that whilst contract debts are indeed statute barred after 6 years that only applies if there has been no communication requesting settlement of a debt for 6 years, and that every request for payment starts the clock again.
Can someone who knows about these things comment?
Gan
Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 07:50
It's six years from the time that the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes any payment towards it
That's why, when making a Subject Access Request to a Debt Collection Agency, you must make explicit that the £10 payment is a statutory fee and not an acknowledgement of any debt
hexaflexagon
Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 10:19
QUOTE (Gan @ Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 08:50)
It's six years from the time that the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes any payment towards it
That's why, when making a Subject Access Request to a Debt Collection Agency, you must make explicit that the £10 payment is a statutory fee and not an acknowledgement of any debt
As always, thanks for a clear and concise explanation. I'd completely missed the point that self evidently a debt can only be statute barred if it exists in the first place.
What's the position where the debt has been denied? Must a parking company issue proceedings within 6 years, and if they don't does their right of action cease after 6 years?
Lynnzer
Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 10:26
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 11:19)
QUOTE (Gan @ Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 08:50)
It's six years from the time that the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes any payment towards it
That's why, when making a Subject Access Request to a Debt Collection Agency, you must make explicit that the £10 payment is a statutory fee and not an acknowledgement of any debt
What's the position where the debt has been denied? Must a parking company issue proceedings within 6 years, and if they don't does their right of action cease after 6 years?
My own thoughts too. I was thinking exactly that.
Gan
Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 11:00
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 11:19)
QUOTE (Gan @ Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 08:50)
It's six years from the time that the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes any payment towards it
That's why, when making a Subject Access Request to a Debt Collection Agency, you must make explicit that the £10 payment is a statutory fee and not an acknowledgement of any debt
As always, thanks for a clear and concise explanation. I'd completely missed the point that self evidently a debt can only be statute barred if it exists in the first place.
What's the position where the debt has been denied? Must a parking company issue proceedings within 6 years, and if they don't does their right of action cease after 6 years?
Limitations Act 1980
2 Time limit for actions founded on tort.
An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.5 Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.
An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
hoohoo
Sun, 24 Apr 2016 - 11:27
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Sat, 23 Apr 2016 - 20:10)
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
1. I do still have a copy of my plane ticket, which is for a flight at 0710, while the parking ticket is from 0519. Given that I believe I am meant to arrive 2 hours before my flight, that should count for something.
2. It is my wife that can be seen exiting the car, and not me. I was in the back seat, and would have exited after her. However I can be seen at the back of the car getting the cases out with her.
Without a photo of me exiting the car, I'm not sure either 1, or 2 prove that I was not the driver. I suppose they could argue that I could have driven the car there, and another driver could have taken the car away from the airport. That is not what happened by the way.
3. Yes I can get my wife to complete a witness statement.
I also notice that their reply states that "the CCTV footage has confirmed to us that on the 22nd March 2016, you stopped your vehicle". Well that looks like a bit of cutting and pasting that went wrong because it was actually on the 16th March 2016.
Do you think it is reasonable of them to "proceed on the reasonable assumption that I was the driver"?
Many thanks.
Sooty139
1. I enclose a copy of my plane ticket which proves I could not be the driver leaving the airport. I confirm that I was not the driver on arriving - the same driver was in control of the vehicle at all times
2. I confirm I am the gentleman at the rear of the vehicle removing cases in the claimants photograph. The claimants CCTV will show that I exited from the rear of the vehicle as passenger. In the event that the claimant fails to provide the full CCTV, I ask the assessor to draw the obvious conclusion that the only reason they have done it is that it fatally undermines their case.
Sooty139
Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 10:17
HooHoo,
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, that is similar wording to that which I had decided upon. It is interesting that non of the photographs they sent me show me exiting from the passenger sign. It's almost like they chose the photos to prove their point, not the facts.
I will appeal with these points, plus a witness statement from my wife. As suggested earlier in the thread.
Since I assume this is my last chance at appealing, before I revert to ignoring their mailshots for the next 6 years (can't wait), I would quite like to find one more point to add; preferably something along the line of signage, byelaws, or them not being the actual land owners. So I am still ploughing through previous threads on this site, and some others I have since found on other sites, to see if I can find another angle. Having said that, I don't want it to look as though I'm just firing lots of random reasons, it could look a bit desperate.
Sooty139
hexaflexagon
Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 16:13
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 11:17)
HooHoo,
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, that is similar wording to that which I had decided upon. It is interesting that non of the photographs they sent me show me exiting from the passenger sign. It's almost like they chose the photos to prove their point, not the facts.
I will appeal with these points, plus a witness statement from my wife. As suggested earlier in the thread.
Since I assume this is my last chance at appealing, before I revert to ignoring their mailshots for the next 6 years (can't wait), I would quite like to find one more point to add; preferably something along the line of signage, byelaws, or them not being the actual land owners. So I am still ploughing through previous threads on this site, and some others I have since found on other sites, to see if I can find another angle. Having said that, I don't want it to look as though I'm just firing lots of random reasons, it could look a bit desperate.
Sooty139
I was interested to read the reference to 'text size' in your last letter. This is the first time I've seen this mentioned by VCS and I wonder if it has been prompted by the following.
The signs don't have planning permission for advertising consent. The retrospective appeal has been rejected by Liverpool Council and one of the reasons the Highways department rejected it was because of safety concerns associated with the readability of the signs to a driver on the move. LJLA were asked to go away and employ some professional consultants to redesign the signs. My latest information suggests that we're getting close to a final decision and it seems probable that the signs will need to be replaced in order to meet the concerns of the Highways Department. It's a moot point whether any new signs will be capable of offering a contract to which a driver has time to understand and accept whilst driving past any signs.
Whatever the new signs might be though it must be a good defence should any existing charge notice case ever come to court to be able to demonstrate that the previous signs were deemed not capable of being understood by the Highways department.
hoohoo
Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 09:27
This is useful background
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...e-contract.htmlNo contract existsIn the recent cases of PCM(UK v Mr B, Mr W and ms L (B4GF26K6 , B4GF27K3, B4GF26K2) heard simulataneously in High Wickham on 21 April 2016, it was Professor Furmston's opinion (Co-Author of Law on Contract) that the signage did not create a contract because it was forbidding. Arrale v Costain [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 98. COURT OF APPEAL was cited in support of this. DJ Glen agreed, and dismissed all 3 claims. The signage in this case is similar
No contract existsThe signage cannot form a contract because the motorist has no chance to fully read it. The font is too small to be read safely by motorists. Liverpool Council agree with this view and have refused to allow planning application 15A/0657
http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/Planning...;DAURI=PLANNINGThe airport have been instructed to redesign the signs because the highways department have concerns with their safety.
hoohoo
Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 09:27
deleted as duplicate
Sooty139
Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 11:20
Hi,
Yes the signage is definitely something everyone with a no stopping charge should be looking at, especially if they have no other evidence, since:
1. It looks as if they do not have planning permission.
2. It is the whole basis for the "contract", and so any error in the signage will render the "contract" null and void.
3. It is very difficult to get right.
4. It is even more difficult to change.
5. Once it is proved to be invalid, it is invalid for everyone, unless changed.
The actual page which brings the signs into the spotlight the best, is this one.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.htmlUnfortunately, like everything to do with this subject, it is all historical, and although changing the signs would be a long process, it can still happen overnight. So we would have to be sure it is the same signage, and it has not changed.
This is also an interesting thread, which although at Humberside airport, is very similar to my predicament.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5195073&highlight=ias+appealPost 7 is the successful appeal letter.
Sooty139
As if to prove my point, the singage was changed a month or so later. Here is the updated assessment:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...signage-at.htmlSooty139
Lynnzer
Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 11:22
Personally I wouldn't fanny around too much with appeals.
This is a company which is operating a system outside of the required by-laws or RTA's so appealing only gives them a sense of satisfaction in rejecting it.
I may well be writing a letter saying that it's well known that their signs do not comply with the The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and have no legal standing.
If they feel strongly that they are in the right please, PLEASE take civil action in court within the next 30 days or you will consider that they have lost further opportunity from then onwards.
WE NEED A COURT CASE TO SORT THEM OUT, so give them some rope.
Sooty139
Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 12:19
Lynnzer,
Everything you say is true, however I'm not so sure my wife would be so keen on me being taken to court, or the cash demands which will arrive before then.
The unfortunate truth is they will avoid court like the plague until they find a case they know they will win. Once that case arrives, they will take it to court.
I doubt very much that my case is the one to go to court, but if it is, then I will fight it to the end, but I am not going to bring it upon myself. In the mean time, I will do my best to get them off my back.
Having said all of that, I will also continue to post on the subject of LJA to try to help others affected by these chancers. I have no law background, but I am pretty good at researching anything technical.
Sooty139
hexaflexagon
Sun, 1 May 2016 - 11:04
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 12:20)
...snipped...
As if to prove my point, the singage was changed a month or so later. Here is the updated assessment:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...signage-at.htmlSooty139
But for the avoidance of doubt, those changed signs (early 2015 I think) are the very ones that Liverpool Council's Highways department still have a problem with and have not given permission. I understand a decision is quite close having been delayed by key staff in the planning department being off work for a long period.
hoohoo
Sun, 1 May 2016 - 12:02
As I understand it, you dont need your appeal reasons yet anyway. First you register your intent to appeal. They then upload their case. THEN you bung in your reasons.
Its worth doing this because VCS often bung in the most outrageous lies at this point, so you can often catch them out, and there then may be more appeal points.
Also, if you blow up their first picture, I think you can see the drivers head still in the car. This would be good evidence you were not the driver!
freddy1
Sun, 1 May 2016 - 12:06
beware the IPC catching on to this (they have)
the moment that you ask for intent to appeal , the IPC will fire a email back to you giving you a max of 5 days to submit your full appeal.
if they are making the PPC do the same (5 days) then you may have only a max of one day to read and rely to their submission
hoohoo
Sun, 1 May 2016 - 20:42
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Sun, 1 May 2016 - 13:06)
beware the IPC catching on to this (they have)
the moment that you ask for intent to appeal , the IPC will fire a email back to you giving you a max of 5 days to submit your full appeal.
if they are making the PPC do the same (5 days) then you may have only a max of one day to read and rely to their submission
The way it currently works is that once the PPC have submitted their case, you get an email and the clock starts ticking. So you do have a few days to appeal.
Sooty139
Mon, 2 May 2016 - 14:54
Well, I have finished writing my appeal, including statements etc. Just double checking now before submitting. Not too sure how the on-line appeal works, can you upload word documents, jpegs and pdf's? Does anyone know?
I don't want to submit an appeal, and then find I have to change the format of all of my evidence.
I have even said that I may take them to court if they do not drop the charge.
Their camera van is even on Google street view. They would be better with a caravan.
Sooty139
Lynnzer
Mon, 2 May 2016 - 16:36
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Mon, 2 May 2016 - 15:54)
Well, I have finished writing my appeal, including statements etc. Just double checking now before submitting. Not too sure how the on-line appeal works, can you upload word documents, jpegs and pdf's? Does anyone know?
I don't want to submit an appeal, and then find I have to change the format of all of my evidence.
I have even said that I may take them to court if they do not drop the charge.
Their camera van is even on Google street view. They would be better with a caravan.
Sooty139
Attach it as a pdf.
Best to just copy and paste all the text into the post though.
hoohoo
Mon, 2 May 2016 - 20:15
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Mon, 2 May 2016 - 15:54)
Well, I have finished writing my appeal, including statements etc. Just double checking now before submitting. Not too sure how the on-line appeal works, can you upload word documents, jpegs and pdf's? Does anyone know?
I don't want to submit an appeal, and then find I have to change the format of all of my evidence.
I have even said that I may take them to court if they do not drop the charge.
Their camera van is even on Google street view. They would be better with a caravan.
Sooty139
To make life impossible, the IAS do not allow you to cut and paste into the appeal reasons field. Most same people therefore wite 'see attached document' and then attach the actual appeal as a word doc or a pdf
Sooty139
Tue, 3 May 2016 - 15:39
Hi,
I have just submitted my intention to appeal. I was then sent this email, which explains the process.
I intend to post everything I get/see and my appeal (quite long) win or loose. Hopefully it will help somebody else.
Click to view attachmentSooty139
nosferatu1001
Wed, 4 May 2016 - 06:57
Under what gorunds will you sue them? Harassment?
Lynnzer
Wed, 4 May 2016 - 08:36
Best if you send a cheque with a letter stating that you are paying this under duress and that if they encash it you will take civil court action to redress the situation.
You do two things then. 1 you pay them so they cannot follow through with court action themselves if they ever dare, also it gives you a chance to take civil action where they would back off from doing so themselves.
hexaflexagon
Wed, 4 May 2016 - 08:52
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Mon, 2 May 2016 - 15:54)
They would be better with a caravan.
Sooty139
Too static. The van is mobile and can run around to various locations.
Sooty139
Wed, 4 May 2016 - 14:00
Hi,
Yes based upon harassment, them not following guidelines including the laws on contracts, predatory tactics, etc. I doubt very much that I would go to court, unless they take me to court, mainly because I can't be bothered, but I'm sure there are grounds. I mainly want to help them to make the correct decision. I think it should help.
Much of what I have included was taken from a very similar appeal to an "infringement" which was almost identical to mine. That person won their appeal, so I figure I will try the same tactics. I have had to remove a few items from the original, since they don't apply to me, but I have added a few of my own too.
Still waiting, no emails or notifications yet.
Sooty139
nosferatu1001
Wed, 4 May 2016 - 14:04
In which case, dont bother making the threats. They wont care, and youre not going to fololow through. It does nothing.
Sooty139
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 12:48
Hi,
I was wondering if somebody could clarify something for me.
In the POFA 2012, there is a requirement for the Notice to keeper to contain certain details, one of which is the period of parking. Does this mean:-
1. The time of the alleged offence?
or
2. The length of time the vehicle was parked?
To me, period means a duration, not an actual defined time that something occurred.
I ask, because my NTK at the beginning of this thread only contains the time it occurred. Whilst their case against me, (which I now have) does not contain the time, only date, but it does contain the duration.
Obviously if period means duration, then I have a piece of missing, but critical to their case data.
Thanks.
Sooty
Thanks
ostell
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 12:51
The length of time the vehicle was parked. So your NTK didn't comply with POFA but then it was not relevant land so still couldn't hold the keeper liable.
hoohoo
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 12:51
QUOTE (Sooty139 @ Mon, 9 May 2016 - 13:48)
Hi,
I was wondering if somebody could clarify something for me.
In the POFA 2012, there is a requirement for the Notice to keeper to contain certain details, one of which is the period of parking. Does this mean:-
1. The time of the alleged offence?
or
2. The length of time the vehicle was parked?
To me, period means a duration, not an actual defined time that something occurred.
I ask, because my NTK at the beginning of this thread only contains the time it occurred. Whilst their case against me, (which I now have) does not contain the time, only date, but it does contain the duration.
Obviously if period means duration, then I have a piece of missing, but critical to their case data.
Thanks.
Sooty
Thanks
Their NTK misses 9.2.e and 9.2.f of POFA, so these are far more compelling reasons why the NTK is not valid.
edit - oops 9, not 8
Sooty139
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 15:57
Although I still plan to say that it is not relevant land, they are still quoting that it is not covered by by-laws. Having dug really deeply into this, nobody has ever proved that it is, or is not. I certainly can't find any place where it was ever contested. There is Liverpool airport, Liverpool John Lennon Airport, and then there are the roads which surrounds either or both (airports are probably the same) but I can't find it contested. The by-laws are for Liverpool airport, and date back to 1982. Like I say, I think they cover both names for the airport, but not as sure about the private roads which were taken over later.
Because of this, I know it will be rejected if that is my only argument, and so I wanted to find something else. In my view, a lack of the period, or duration of my drivers stopping in the PCN is "Black and White" grounds for it to be overturned. As this definitely contravenes the POFA 2012 if it is supposed to be a duration and not a time stamp.
Sooty139
nosferatu1001
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 16:02
As pointed out, that's just one of the reasons.
Publicly accessible roads are covered by the RTE OR bye laws. Either means not relevant land.
Jlc
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 16:08
Others may well disagree with me but I don't think it's a silver bullet that a Judge would agree failed PoFA requirements and kick the whole claim out. But they have already confirmed they aren't seeking to rely on PoFA........?
ostell
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 16:17
Have a good look at that PCN and compare it with
Paragraph 9 of POFA . 9(f) is not there that I could see so really check that every thing that should be there is there and in the correct format. Every little helps.
But as others have said it is either byelaws or roads covered by RTE. Also POFA concerns itself with parking and therefore cannot be used to enforce any no stopping requirements.
Edit: Just looked at the photos. Was that a lay-by where the car was?
Jlc
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 16:32
VCS's own rejection says, "In your particular case we are not seeking to rely on PoFA 2012. Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary".
dandyman
Mon, 9 May 2016 - 16:36
This is all a complete waste of time. We've seen so many LJLA rejections by Skippy the Kangaroo that we could write it in advance ourselves, they've seen all these appeal grounds before and however valid they are Skippy still tortures the law in order to reject them.
Best just sit back and wait. They're not going to take anyone to court.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.