Printfriendly

Thursday 2 January 2014

Prankster Operator guide to winning at POPLA. Lie, and don't send the motorist your evidence pack.

The Parking Prankster has seen a worrying new trend emerging from Parking Operators; telling deliberate lies to POPLA, and not sending the motorist their evidence pack.

The latest occurrence is reported here on pepipoo. However the Prankster knows that this is not an isolated incident and will no doubt be reporting on the others when the time is right.

To summarise the incident. Doncaster Airport (Robin Hood) do not want motorists stopping on the airport roads to let passengers in or out of vehicles. They have signs to this effect, but they leave something to be desired.


This is one of the entrance signs (picture taken June 2013), hidden behind flags and another sign. Although signs elsewhere are not obscured, the fonts are too small and there is too much text to be read from a moving vehicle.

The Prankster does not have any panoramic photographs from Robin Hood airport to show the signs in context, but here is one from John Lennon airport, also managed by VCS, and the signs are similar.



Here is a close-up picture of the actual signage at the entrance to Robin Hood Airport. As you can see, the writing is far too small and there is far too much of it to read from a moving vehicle.



The driver, unable to read the signs from a moving vehicle, safely stopped in a closed off exit on a roundabout and got out to read the signs. The driver then discussed what to do with the passengers, decided not to accept any implied contract, and left.

It is therefore extremely ironic that VCS issued an ANPR ticket for stopping briefly, because the only way you can read the signs is to stop.

The registered keeper appealed to VCS who rejected the appeal, and then to POPLA on the single appeal point that the airport roads are covered by bye-laws and are therefore not subject to POFA 2012. As the registered keeper is therefore not liable the charge should be cancelled as only the driver can be pursued.

POFA 2012 is quite clear on this:
3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

Airport land covered by bye-laws (statutory control) falls under 3(c) and is therefore exempt from POFA 2012.

The next document the registered keeper received was a POPLA verdict. Surprisingly his appeal was turned down.
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in that they have failed to show that the
land is relevant land. The appellant states that the airport is subject to byelaws
and is therefore outside of the definition of relevant land. The appellant
additionally puts the operator to proof of their right to invoke the Protection of
Freedoms Act where the bye-laws do not exclude the roads in the airport
which is where the incident occurred.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant does not
dispute that the contravention occurred by states that the land in question is
not relevant land. The threshold for the operator to show that the land is
relevant land is not a high threshold and by stating that there are no byelaws,
I am satisfied that the operator has satisfied this threshold
. The appellant
does not reference the bye-laws that he is referring to and intending to rely
upon and therefore on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the
operator has sufficiently shown that the land in question is relevant land. As a
result of stopping where stopping is prohibited, the appellant was stopped in
breach of the terms and conditions.
Even more surprisingly, the operator, VCS stated there are no byelaws. This is a blatant lie, as the byelaws are freely available here on the airport web site.

The bye-laws make it quite clear that parking controls apply to all private roads on the airport.
5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD
TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road
Traffic Enactments do not apply:
5(3) Obstruction
except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in
excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by
Notice.
5(11) Failure to comply with a direction
when the driver of a Vehicle without reasonable excuse fail to comply with any
direction for the regulation of traffic given by a Constable, Airport Official or
Notice.
5(12) Parking of Vehicles
without reasonable excuse park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for
that purpose.
The registered keeper could of course have pointed out that VCS were lying...if he had received their evidence pack. Evidence packs should be received 7 days before the hearing to give the appellant time to review them for accuracy. The Prankster notes that this is not the only time evidence packs have gone missing. POPLA do not have a robust system for handling evidence packs. They rely on the operator to send them out, causing obvious problems. The Prankster has received many evidence packs where the operator has lied regarding the date when the were sent out.

The keeper is now contacting POPLA to inform them that he has not received any evidence pack from VCS and therefore has not had the chance to contest their evidence. The Prankster notes that in the past where this has happened POPLA have re-opened the appeal, made sure the motorist has got the evidence pack, and then re-heard the appeal.

The Prankster suggests that the motorist also contacts VCS and informs them that he is contesting the POPLA verdict because he has not received their evidence pack yet. This will stop the clock on any action on their part until the appeal is re-heard.

The Prankster also notes that POPLA have been very slow in acting in situations like this in the past. The registered keeper and VCS could be in for a long wait as some of these cases have taken over 5 months for POPLA to finally make the decision to re-open the case. The Prankster wonders if the phone number of Richard Reeve (0207 520 7202), tribunal manager at POPLA, will soon become etched into the speed dial of the registered keeper's phone as he tries to hurry POPLA along.

POPLA are currently shut until 6th January.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


15 comments:

  1. I have an appeal listed for mid November which hasn't been heard yet nor has an evidence pack arrived (different site and operator). I have decided to do nothing in the hope that this case has got lost in the system and will die of old age. If it comes to life after 2 years I will suggest that Article 6, a right to a fair trial, Human Rights Act has been breached due to the passage of time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am passing Robin Hood Airport over the weekend I will take some snaps and measure the signage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I presume you will be doing this from a moving vehicle to avoid charges :-)

      Delete
    2. Will walk onto site and take plenty snaps and slowly measure the signs, hope I get spotted

      Delete
  3. If they truly don't want cars stopping on the approach roads (rather than the prohibition on stopping being a money spinner for VCS) then using the bylaws to prosecute motorists is the correct course. It's ludicrous to try & pretend that the motorist enters into any form of contract with VCS (or their principal). The airport operator gives implicit permission for vehicles to drive along the approach road as how else are passengers to reach the terminal?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since when does Parking Operator logic follow the logic of contract law? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The whole premise of these charges are nonsense. I read an interview with a spokesperson for Humberside airport who tried to justify these restrictions for security reasons following on from the Glasgow incident.
    If it is not safe for traffic to use these roads due to their proximity to the terminal, then they must be closed and safer alternatives put in place. somehow I don't think that will happen!
    Likewise a similar offer of support. I live nearby and can take any pics needed

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is the same stupid argument put forward by the people at Luton Airport for towing away vehicles when they have stopped for a couple of minutes. When challenged the tow-truck operator said the car might be a "security risk". So, instead of calling the bomb squad, these untrained guys tow a potential car-bomb along the busy airport roads, thus endangering many people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One wonders if the correct response to that would be to dial 999 and say that you have been informed that there is a suspect bomb according to the tow truck operator. Given that people have been taken to court simply for joking about such a thing, you should argue that as it was clearly not intended as a joke that you took appropriate action based on the fact that these people were suggesting it was the case and you could see that they were not taking the appropriate action.

      Delete
  7. I have an appeal with POPLA listed for the middle of last December. I still haven't received an evidence pack from the operator and neither has POPLA. What worries me is that POPLA don't seem concerned about this. I'm aware that they have a backlog to deal with but this shouldn't equate to dropping the requirement for the operator to work to the same timescales I was given.

    ReplyDelete
  8. gatwick meet and greet is your best solution to hassle free parking and trouble free traveling. All you have to do is avail your chance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. enjoy the wonderful parking deals with gatwick valet parking and set out to enjoy your vacation the way you planned it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. HI I AM UNABLE TO GET THE BYE LAWS, AS WE DONT KNOW THE DRIVER OF OUR VEHICLE SO IF BYELAWS THEN THEY SHOULD NOT BE ISSUING A CHARGE TO US THEY HAVE SAID NO BYE LAWS IN PLACE, CAN ANYBODY CLARIFY THIS FOR ME I HAVE EMAILED AIRPORT, CAROLINE FLINT MP. BUT NO RESPONSE AND ITS BEEN TAKEN FROM ROBIN HOOD WEBSITE. SURELY THERE MUST BE BYELAWS FOR AN AIRPORT RE SECURITY. RESPONSE.

    ReplyDelete
  11. email me at prankster@parking-prankster.com and I'll send a copy

    ReplyDelete
  12. just sent you an email and a copy of my last letter from vcs.

    ReplyDelete