Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newcastle Airport PCN UK Parking Patrol
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
xenosarus
Hi all,

I recently received a parking charge notice for dropping off passengers at Newcastle Airport in front of the hotel barriers from UK Parking Patrol Office. The area I stopped in can be seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/LM1Abq8dsQB2. There are no markings on the road in this area that show that stopping is prohibited and there is only a sign on the railings outside of the hotel by the main road (so I would assume this applies to the road).

What's the best course of action for this? Pay? Appeal? Ignore?

Here's the PCN

Thanks
ostell
Would that be in the area signposted "Free Parking" in text larger than the rest of the sign ?

They have admitted that they are relying on Byelaws but then if it was byelaws then it would be a Penalty Charge Notice and not a Parking Charge Notice. Also as it is Byelaws it is not relevant land and therefore they cannot hold he keeper liable.

Search for other Newcastle Airport threads (and take your name off the PCN !)

You could write back and ask them what particular byelaw the driver allegedly contravened and how, as registered keeper, you have any liability in the matter as it is not relevant land for POFA liablity. Start a letter ping pong to go past the 6 months for any byelaw action.

Edit: So you were on land where the landowner/leaseholder was probably the hotel. Ask them if the have permission and a contract to work in the hotel grounds
Lynnzer
Just go for any other advice for this airport that recommends them to P off.

I did enough work on this already and there's never been a court case taken yet.

By the way, you must have gone towards the short term parking in front of the airport pick-drop off point then did a U turn which is also shown as a contravention. Not that there's any such mention of it in the byelaws.
xenosarus
QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 22 Jul 2016 - 14:04) *
Would that be in the area signposted "Free Parking" in text larger than the rest of the sign ?

They have admitted that they are relying on Byelaws but then if it was byelaws then it would be a Penalty Charge Notice and not a Parking Charge Notice. Also as it is Byelaws it is not relevant land and therefore they cannot hold he keeper liable.

Search for other Newcastle Airport threads (and take your name off the PCN !)

You could write back and ask them what particular byelaw you have contravened and how, as registered keeper, you have any liability in the matter as it is not relevant land for POFA liablity. Start a letter ping pong to go past the 6 months for any byelaw action.

Edit: So you were on land where the landowner/leaseholder was probably the hotel. Ask them if the have permission and a contract to work in the hotel grounds

Damn, I knew I would forget to take something out of that picture. I've removed my name from it now.

It says on the back "UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have been authorised to enforce the Newcastle Airport Byelaws 2009 and issue parking charge notices as an alternative to prosecution. Unlike a parking charge notice issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act, under Byelaw 3.3.1 the registered keeper is immediately held liable for the sum due.". This seems to suggest it's not relying on the PoFA.

Ask the hotel if UKPPO have permission or ask UKPPO if they have permission to enforce on the hotel?

QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Fri, 22 Jul 2016 - 14:57) *
Just go for any other advice for this airport that recommends them to P off.

I did enough work on this already and there's never been a court case taken yet.

By the way, you must have gone towards the short term parking in front of the airport pick-drop off point then did a U turn which is also shown as a contravention. Not that there's any such mention of it in the byelaws.


Yes the driver did go towards the short term parking. The driver then realised they had no money with them so drove over the kerb and into the hotel entrance.

EDIT: Picture of the info on the back of the letter
Thanks smile.gif
bama
QUOTE
It says on the back "UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have been authorised to enforce the Newcastle Airport Byelaws 2009 and issue parking charge notices as an alternative to prosecution.

smile.gif

Being fully cognisant of the in-force Byelaws and having no knowledge of any provision within the Byelaws that enables a "parking charge to be issued as an alternate" to a criminal prosecution in Magistrates Court I would be requiring a certified copy of that authority so I could consider the full facts of their claim.

Don't hold your breath as they are very unlikely to provide it - that or they will just provide some made up crapola (unsigned at that).
but requiring it puts a stick in the ground (which later can be pulled from the ground and stuck elsewhere...)

draft your response of the PPC and post it here from comment, do not just 'write and launch' on your own.
when we have that nailed down it is probably a good idea to send a similar letter to the Airport Operator. That letter will also take careful crafting. But there are very good reasons for doing it.
ostell
Approaching the airport short term parking you can turn right into the hotel entrance, or so it seems from GSV, so that's not a U turn. The double red lines stop just prior to the hotel entrance so even if the red lines were enforceable they were not in effect. Was the driver on the yellow hatching area? If not on either than what was the actual "Offence" ? Cars coming in to the hotel have to stop at that barrier so will they be ticketed for stopping ?

So the driver right turned into the hotel, found they could get no further and (naughtily) reversed out into the road to return. Not a U turn in sight.

If the driver was on land owned by the hotel the PPC are probably operating outside their assumed remit. There was actually a sign in front of the driver that stated "free parking".

Those "Airport Byelaw No U turn £50 Penalty" signs are probably there to ensure that people proceed to the short term parking so that more money can be made.
bama
QUOTE
Those "Airport Byelaw No U turn £50 Penalty signs are probably there to ensure that people proceed to the short term parking so that more money can be made.


they have to be, there is no such penalty in the byelaws.
I would be U-turning my ass off in those roads (safely of course)
xenosarus
Yes that is a good point. I guess the driver did not perform a U-turn, they just changed lanes to turn right into the hotel. When the driver stopped the car wasn't on the hatched area and as you say there are no double red lines in the area where stopped.

I'll draft a response and post it here but as I have no real experience of byelaws and such it will probably be a load of rubbish at first.
nosferatu1001
Thats fine

The aim is to KEEP IT SIMPLE

Concise is MUCH better than rambbling on. It gives them too much to wiggle around.

While you want some ping pong to go on, it isnt good to give too much detail right now.
ostell
And don't indicate who was driving, as you have in some of the posts, and I haven't helped but edited.
SatNavSam
@ xenosaurus: Edit your posts (all of them) ASAP so the drivers identity cannot be inferred - the driver did this or did that. As ostell said.
xenosarus
I think I have changed any references to the drivers identity, thanks for letting me know.

I have come up with this message as a start. Anything else obvious to add to it?

QUOTE
Dear UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd,

I am contacting you in regards to parking charge notice xxxx which was issued on xxx that I believe was unlawfully issued. As the registered keeper of this vehicle I will not be paying the parking charge notice for the reasons listed below:

Incorrect Signage/Markings
The area in which the vehicle was alleged to have parked does not have any signage to indicate that parking or stopping is prohibited. The airport roads nearby have double red lines which indicate no stopping, these lines terminate at the entrance to the hotel where the vehicle was shown to be stopped. In addition at this point the driver can see two signs which indicate “free parking”.

The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. In the case of this parking charge the £100 being requested far exceeds any costs that could have occurred for stopping. Therefore I feel the amount that you have asked for is excessive.

The Airports Act 1986 states that byelaws do not apply on airport roads to which the road traffic enactments apply. Since Road Traffic Act 1998 defines a road as any highway or other road to which the public has access this means that byelaws cannot be enforced on the road where the alleged infraction took place as this is publicly accessible.

The byelaws state that a parking charge notice can be offered as an alternative to a prosecution in a magistrates court. I have no knowledge of any such provision being present in the Airports Act 1986 so would require a certified copy of this authority in order to consider this claim.

Regards,
My Name

bama
Suggest an additional paragraph.
"I also require you to cite precisely the law which you believe enables the byelaws to reach out beyond their geographic limits to have effect on the Registered Keeper irrespective of the location of the Registered Keeper."

also number your paragraphs (1 to 5)

PPCs have a habit of 'forgetting' to answer certain points.

wait for others to chip in as well.
xenosarus
Ok, thanks for that. V2 - Added a section on the hotel land as well. Is it not quite likely that the area the hotel is built on is owned by the airport?

QUOTE
Dear UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd,

I am contacting you in regards to the parking charge notice xxxx which was issued on xxx that I believe was unlawfully issued. As the registered keeper of this vehicle, I will not be paying the parking charge notice for the reasons listed below:

1) Incorrect Signage/Markings. The area in which the vehicle was alleged to have parked does not have any signage to indicate that parking or stopping is prohibited. The airport roads nearby have double red lines which indicate no stopping, these lines terminate at the entrance to the hotel where the vehicle was shown to be stopped. In addition at this point the driver can see two signs which indicate “free parking”.

2) The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. In the case of this parking charge, the £100 being requested far exceeds any costs that could have occurred for stopping. Therefore, I feel the amount that you have asked for is excessive.

3) The Airports Act 1986 states that byelaws do not apply on airport roads to which the road traffic enactments apply. Since The Road Traffic Act 1998 defines a road as any highway or other road to which the public has access, this means that byelaws cannot be enforced on the road where the alleged infraction took place as this is publicly accessible.

4) The byelaws state that a parking charge notice can be offered as an alternative to a prosecution in a magistrates court. I have no knowledge of any such provision being present in the Airports Act 1986 so would require a certified copy of this authority in order to consider this claim.

5) I also require you to cite precisely the law which you believe enables the byelaws to reach out beyond their geographic limits to have effect on the Registered Keeper irrespective of the location of the Registered Keeper.

6) The alleged contravention took place at the entrance to the DoubleTree hotel. Since the byelaws apply to roads in and surrounding Newcastle Airport I would require proof of UK Parking Patrol Ltd being authorised to handle parking charge notices for hotel land.

Regards,
My Name
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE
2) The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. In the case of this parking charge, the £100 being requested far exceeds any costs that could have occurred for stopping. Therefore, I feel the amount that you have asked for is excessive.


Get rid of that one entirely, it is dead in the water after the Beavis case.

TBH it doesn't matter what you send as long as the driver is not admitted.

UKPPO will reject it then bombard you with Debt Recovery Plus letters and similar, then the alternative (prosecution) will be timed out after 6 months, leaving them with no knowledge of who the driver was and no way to pursue the charge at all.
Lynnzer
I wouldn't fanny around with too much to be honest. A short denial of any wrongdoing "according to the airport byelaws" would be sufficient.
You'll have it rejected but then it all ends. You would have no reason to appeal higher (or lower in terms of legitimacy) to the IAS as that would also be rejected.

The forum went through everything, and I mean EVERYTHING about UKPPO a good while ago including the fact that there's two incarnations of UKPPO involved and a defunct Principal to the contract. Just do a search and you'll find all the twists and turns and the inevitable silence following it.

The contract is crap as it isn't between the parties shown on the tickets if I remember right.

They have never taken court action for an airport offence. Can you not see that by offering an alternative to a magistrates court hearing by paying them an amount to prevent it is an act of blackmail or bribery?

It's like a traffic officer, council employed, taking money from you to prevent you getting the matter taken up by the council.

It may also be considered to be an offence under the Theft Act by obtaining, or attempting to obtain, money by false pretences.
Dave65
As Lynnzer says it`s all been done before last year. The contract shows it is UK Parking Patrol Office (not Ltd).
They`ve changed between Penalty notices and Parking notices, changed the signs to now show the Ltd.
Over a year since my experience.
xenosarus
I've just got back from holiday and now have a response from UK parking patrol.

The key points from it are:
- The area at the entrance is clearly signed stating "no stopping/unloading"
- Dropping off outside the barrier and then reversing into the path of oncoming traffic is a "dangerous manoeuvre"
- The road traffic act 1998 is not applicable on the land.
- They hold a signed agreement with the landowner which allows them to issue notices to vehicles contravening the byelaws. This is commercially sensitive so they will not supply it but will supply with the IAS with a copy should I seek independant arbitration of the appeal.
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (xenosarus @ Sun, 7 Aug 2016 - 12:16) *
- Dropping off outside the barrier and then reversing into the path of oncoming traffic is a "dangerous manoeuvre"

Maybe you should ask them what makes them arbiters of dangerous driving, and how that is relevant to the matter in hand.

The likes of Gan advise to keep letters brief and very mush to the point. Maybe he should offer the same advice to the PPCs. Otherwise the punters (us) can use their irrelevant ramblings against them and use them as a distraction from the main point :-)
emanresu
See Airports Act 1986 s65(1) and ask them if they wish this to be brought to the notice of the Civil Aviation Authority.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/31/section/65

It may also be useful if you want to spend £10 to make a Subject Access Request for the information they have in relation to the Keeper and the VRM. It may yield some interesting information for later.
Lynnzer
QUOTE (xenosarus @ Sun, 7 Aug 2016 - 12:16) *
I've just got back from holiday and now have a response from UK parking patrol.

The key points from it are:
- The area at the entrance is clearly signed stating "no stopping/unloading"
- Dropping off outside the barrier and then reversing into the path of oncoming traffic is a "dangerous manoeuvre"
- The road traffic act 1998 is not applicable on the land.
- They hold a signed agreement with the landowner which allows them to issue notices to vehicles contravening the byelaws. This is commercially sensitive so they will not supply it but will supply with the IAS with a copy should I seek independant arbitration of the appeal.

Do you want it? I have it.

There's no mention in it about stopping/unloading/reversing.
Unless things have changed recently the company contracted to Newcastle Aiprot is not the same as UKPPO. It's UKPPO Ltd (or maybe the reverse is true) and the contract isn't with Newcastle Airport either. it's with a company showing as dissolved.

I'm not going into specifics on this post as I did a huge amount of work on another some months ago. Just trawl through the topics to find it.

What I will say (now that's parliamentary speak for you) is that you do nowt. They won't take court action. They daren't.
They'll be blown out of the water and lose a prime income stream. Same applies to all other airport, railway and port operators.
Dave65
UKPPO hold a contract with Park and Fly Ltd (not UKPPO Ltd). Park and Fly are not the landowners.
All the signs at the airport have now been changed to show UKPPO Ltd.
xenosarus
I've recently got a few letters from bwlegal after hearing nothing for over a year after the last debt collections company sent letters. The first one was pretty much the same as the previous letters so I ignored it. What about this one ( https://i.imgur.com/Aa0M94Z.jpg ) should I continue ignoring or is it worth replying to them? Interestingly these letters were sent to my house rather than my parents where the previous letters were sent.

Thanks.
Redivi
Letters Before Claim must always receive a reply

Dear Sir

Ref ***

I have received your letter dated ****
The driver did not contravene any parking restrictions

Even if he had, the parking notice to which you refer is nothing more than an offer not to prosecute me under the Newcastle Airport Byelaws
As the deadline for any prosecution was more than a year ago, such a contract has long ceased to have any purpose
You cannot seriously believe that I had a legal obligation to accept the offer

I suggest that you advise your client regarding the futility of any legal action

Yours Faithfully
xenosarus
Today I received a county court claim form relating to this. What should the next course of action be? If I defend am I likely to have to go to court?
cabbyman
If you wish to prevail, unless they withdraw before the hearing, you will end up in court but it's not as daunting as it sounds. Normally just you, the claimant and the judge in a room.

It may be worthwhile trying to research a bit more in Lynnzer's comment, above, made in 2016. It sounds as though a good strong defence based around whatever information he found could see them withdrawing. Unfortunately, he doesn't post on here anymore so it will be down to your own research of his posts.

Acknowledge online. Leave the defence box totally blank; do NOT contest jurisdiction; you will defend in fill. That gets you an extra couple of weeks to put your defence together.

This, I think is the thread. I don't have time to read it myself, at the moment, but see what you can glean from it. Others will be along to comment as well, no doubt.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102097

A word of caution: One particular poster appears to have an agenda. When weighing the validity of any advice on here, take account of the post count and date of joining the forum, shown on the left of any post. If in doubt, ask other members for an opinion.
chapinahat
Hi

I have read the link and prevalent is the assurance that Newcastle Airport has never gone to court.

You will find on my posts some thoughts on contracts for parking management on land that is part of an area a rail, harbour or airport enforces via byelaws.I have looked at this particular issue without prejudice and have written broad notes as it comes down to particulars of the contract for car park management and interpretation of the relevant bylaws.

It seems that similar to the Padstow Harbour post that the PPC there is inferring right to cintract on private land by that not being explicitly prohibited by the authorities on the land. Is there a counter argument? You will need one that is either unlawful or on the facts unproven (civil standard of proof)

It could be a further push by the PPC and no claim will be started as the more experienced posters insist is the outcome with Airport Parking. I hope that is the case but, if not, I hope the information I have posted is useful.


ATB
Dave65
What evidence have they provided as to the position of the vehicle?

xenosarus
The wording in the claim is exactly the same as in this post from today. The only "evidence" I've seen is the original photo in the first PCN.

If I have to attend court would that be at the court location on the claim (Northampton)? That would be inconvenient...
ostell
You pick the court nearest to you. The selection comes later in the process
chapinahat
Hi

Added points to other Newcastle Airport thread

ATB
cabbyman
???????? huh.gif huh.gif huh.gif

Here we go again!

Xenosaurus, be very careful of posters with low post counts who have only joined the forum recently. If in doubt about any advice given, or if you need clarification, ask for other opinions from respected and experienced forum members.

Concentrate on formulating your defence based on the solid foundations that have already been established, highlighting the existence of byelaws on land that is non-relevant under PoFA. This will be heard at your local county court on, probably, the small claims track. Please do not be diverted into counter claims or higher courts unless there is a general consensus across the forum.
nosferatu1001
Get that acknowlegdment done TODAY.
Tell us the date of issue

If this is a byelaws site then this is not relevant land, and therefore no chance of keeper liability. That will be part of the defence.

You HAVE to get out of your thread and read up on court process. The MSE Forum -> NEWBIES thread is a good start - post 2.
Dave65
As in the other post OP is in same situation.

They claim that terms and conditions are posted for driver to see, they are not.

There are no signs stating anything about terms and conditions ie: extra cost like £60.
Caoimhe
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 18:01) *
Concentrate on formulating your defence based on the solid foundations that have already been established, highlighting the existence of byelaws on land that is non-relevant under PoFA.


The byelaws explicitly state that the registered keeper is liable. How does PoFA relate to this?

3.3.1.1 A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued in respect of the vehicle. The PCN will
specify:
3.3.1.1.1 the sum the registered keeper is required to pay;
3.3.1.1.2 the time within which the payment must be made; and
3.3.1.1.3 the address to which the payment must be sent.
3.3.1.2 The PCN will also explain that unless payment is made in accordance with its terms,
court action may be commenced to recover sum due from the registered keeper
under
ostell
On other sites it has been pointed out that the issue of a PCN is permitted onlly for certain byelaw contraventions. It has also been pointed out that the roadways to which the public have access are subject to RTA enforcement and not byelaws. Byelaws are for no public and airside.
chapinahat
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 22:53) *
On other sites it has been pointed out that the issue of a PCN is permitted onlly for certain byelaw contraventions. It has also been pointed out that the roadways to which the public have access are subject to RTA enforcement and not byelaws. Byelaws are for no public and airside.



Hi
Byelaws are enforcement and prosecution powers over an entire area. They can be repealed or replaced by other prosecution powers eg Road Traffic Act and the Police. They may also be exhausted if the land is no longer under the control of the authority example is a NCP car park that is noonger under airport or LA ownership. In this latter example the byelaws oersist but the public authority has no rights to be on land to prove or enforce.

I believe at Newcastle the byelaws apply over all the land including roads and carparks within their boundary.

I have put a brief summary in the Flame Pit

ATB
ostell
I came across this link to MSE The thread seems to have some interesting information in it.
nosferatu1001
1) The roadways are subject to the RTE as they are accessible to the public
2) The byelaws may state the RK is liable, however
a) the PCN cannot be a civil debt, as it is derived from a byelaw
b) it can onoly be an offer to avoid prosecution
c) noone is obliged to take up such an offer, and refusing does not create a "debt"
d) the byelaws apply to a specific geogrpahical area, and only to people on that land.
e) Claiming the RK is liable is ultra vires; they canot prove that
f) the proper route for enforcement of any alleged offence is the mag court, within 6 months.
Cb9jde
Was there any further updates to this?

I have recently posted a similar problem http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1512551
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.