vehicle control services JLA

[arwelmwilliams]

Hi. My daughter in law has received the same notice for stopping for 15 /20 seconds to collect my son who wasaid on the approach road. I visited the area in a week later at the same time ie approx 23.20hrs without stopping. I was unable to read the signs clearly due to the fact they were not illuminated. I thenext a few days later visited again in daylight and although the signs are present without stopping a d travelling at 25 - 30 miles an hour you cannot read the detail. I was later able to obtain a picture and clearly the signs have no means of being illumibated. I instructed my daughter in law to write a letter not admitting to driving and therefore there was no contract and to appeal the pcn as the sign couldn't be read on the dark. This week she as I thought received a response from vcs dismissing the appeal stating that as registered keeper they assumed she was the driver and 2 weeks to pay the pcn. She could appeal to IAS but if she did that and lost she would be liable to £100 penalty. Can you please advise should we appeal or just ignore. Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Appeal.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ignage-at.html

No keeper liability as there are byelaws too.

Can you scan the PCN (blank out name, address)

M1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Hi. How do i attach files etc to this site. Sorry it's a naive question.

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Click on go advanced and find the paperclip.

M1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Please see attached the PCN. I also took a picture which is the same/similar as the one displayed on this site a few days later in daylight but I have just changed phones and the image is on my micro sd card which I need to transfer from.
However I also went down there just after 11pm one evening when it was dark and as the sign is not illuminated its very difficult to see never mind read.

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

When appealing this you must enetr everything at the same time.

I wish to appeal on the following grounds.


1. No contract.

2. No keeper liability.



No contract.

As can be seen from the sign







there is no offer to form a contract. It simply states "no stopping at any time". That is not an offer to enter a contract, it is an instruction. There is also no party to the contract so it is clear that there is no intention to create a contract.


On entry to the John Lennon Liverpool airport there is an additional sign.








As can be seen there is a name and address on it so that party could set up a contract. However when one studies the "contract" it is clear that there isn't actually an offer to be considered and accepted. It is an instruction which says what you cannot do. As there is no contract the appeal must succeed as nothing can be due without a contract.

If the signs were capable of constituting a valid contract, which they are clearly not, then i submit that the signs were of a construction and position that they would not clearly be seen by the average person and cannot form a ontract on this basis.

The department of transport guidance on the situation of signs can be fund https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...2-x-height.pdf

The first observation is that drivers must be able to read signs without moving their head more than 10% from the road. This is for safety reasons. The Independent Parking Committee agree with this in their respective code of practice. ( http://media.wix.com/ugd/bd9e08_b57f...de70e9f4b2.pdf Schedule 1)


The publication gives calculations to show how far away the sign is when the driver must turn their head back to the road. This is known as the 'cut off distance', C


The calculation is C = S x cotangent of 10 degrees = S x 5.7
S is the offset distance, defined as the distance from the centre of the driving lane to the centre of the sign. On dual carriageways this is measured from the centre of the right-hand-most lane.


As the road is a dual carriageway, this is given as (sign width /2) + distance from sign to road + 1.5 x width of one lane. The distances were measured and the calculations are as follows:
S = (.80/2) + 1 + 1.5 x (4) = 7.40m


This gives C = 7.40 x 5.7 = 42.18m.


The sign can therefore only safely be read from over 42m away. As the sign is placed 4.5m from a T-junction, it can never safely be read.


Reading Time


The next consideration to examine is the number of words on the sign. DfT guidelines state that a sign should contain no more than 6 words or directions. This is the number that can be scanned safely in 4 seconds. Any more than that and the driver's eyes are off the road for too long.


Reading time R is given as 2 + N/3 seconds, where N is the number of words or directions on the sign. 2 seconds are given for the eyes to settle on the sign and start reading.


The sign contains 66 words, not including the small print at the bottom. This will take 35 seconds to read.The only possible way to read the sign would be to stop at or just after the T-Junction, but this will be a breach of the alleged contract.


The first six words, and the ones in the biggest font, are 'RESTRICTED ZONE', No stopping at any...'.


To form a contract there must be a meeting of minds. For this to take place, the driver must not only have time to read the sign, but also time to consider and digest the contract and decide whether to accept or not. In a car park, the driver can do this at their leisure; typically the operator will give 5 minutes for the driver to consider any contract and decide whether to accept or not. it is obvious that there can be no meeting of minds if the driver does not have time to read the sign, let alone have time to consider it, especially when their main focus must be on driving safely and not considering the intricacies of contract law.


Font Size


The final consideration is font size. The small print disclosing the £100 charge has capitals 4cm high and lowercase letters 3cm high.


The eyesight standards for driving are here https://www.gov.uk/driving-eyesight-rules . They require a driver to read a 8cm number plate at a distance of 20m. This translates into being able to read 4cm letters at 10m, and 3cm letters at 7.5m.


The road has a 40mph speed limit. At 40mph a vehicle travels 18 meters a second. At this speed, the sign is readable for 4/10s of a second. Two seconds are needed for 'settle time' before any words can be read, so the small print is not readable,


However, the sign is just past the junction, so generously assuming the speed is only 10mph this gives 1.6 seconds to read the sign. Sadly even this is not enough to read a single word.


There also remains the impossible conundrum that the driver must stop reading the sign at a distance of 42m, but can only read the signs once they get 7.5m away.


Guidelines


We can go back to the DfT guidelines and find out what they would recommend. The distance travelled while reading the sign R is given as:
R = reading time x speed (meters per second)


For the maximum 6 words at 40mph, we get R = 4 x 18 = 72m.
The driver therefore starts reading the sign at 72+42m (114m) and stops reading at 42m.


To read the signage at 114m, the DfT calculation for lowercase letters (known as X-height) is (100/60) x 114 = 19cm


Each lowercase letter should therefore be 19cm high.


The actual size of the biggest lowercase letter is 6cm. Therefore the font is less than 1/3 of the required size.

The signs are not capable of forming a contract and if you have to stop to read a sign telling you that you cannot stop then any valid contract, which i dispute this is anyway, would be frustrated.




Keeper liability.

As the registered keeper was not the driver the appeal either fails or fails because the only legislation that allows private parking companies to pursue the registered keeper is the Protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 and the legislative requirements have not been met.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

1(1)This Schedule applies where—


(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and


(b)those charges have not been paid in full.


“relevant land” has the meaning given by paragraph 3


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.




John Lennon Liverpool Airport is controlled by a byelaw and therefore PoFA 2012 schedule 4 does not apply. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...%20Airport.pdf 5 (iii) specifically deals with regulation of motor vehicles.















Make sure the bit in red is true or alter it to suit. Pretty sure para 9 of pofa will also not have been complied with but i can't say for sure unless i see it. Remember you cannot amend or add to an appeal once lodged including all the regulations etc so get it right and submit everything at the same time.

M1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Hi

Apologies for not getting back sooner and thanks for your reply. The PCN was issued on 25.3.15 and on 4.4.15 I took a picture which I have only been able to view today as I didn't have an adapter for my micro sd card. I was aware that on a previous thread someone had taken a picture of the signage and It would appear that sometime between then and 4.4.15 VCS have changed/adapted their signage. It was still the current signage 2 days ago as I checked again. Please see attachment with picture of new sign. Does this alter our response?

[DirtySmurf]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

I wonder what happens in the event of an accident and everyone following has to stop as the road is blocked.... tickets for everyone?

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

@mystery1

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Happy with what we have.

M1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

M1 - thanks for your help and guidance will let you know how things develop. [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

M1 - thanks for your help and guidance will let you know how things develop. @mystery1

@mystery1

UPDATE

Having appealed using your template on 18th May 2015 to IAS nothing was heared until today a letter from VCS arrived The letter was headed 'Notice of Intended Court Proceedings' in red then in the body of the letter stating that her appeal at IAS had failed even though nothing has been heard from them.

Now demanding £100 before 2nd July or may commence debt recovery action or legal proceedings without further notice. Also threatening CCJ.

Where do we go from here please?

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

You need to establish if they are at it or your rejection has been lost in the post. The only way to do that is contact IAS.

Make sure you never ever let them know who the driver was as they are in trouble without that info.

M1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Hi thanks for getting back to soon.

When IAS acknowledged the appeal this is part of their email: The 42 days is by my reckoning Monday 29th June
We will email IAS then.

What happens now?

Your appeal has been sent to the parking operator so that they can provide their account.

Once they have submitted their response the appeal will be considered by an Independent Adjudicator. You will automatically be emailed the Adjudicator's decision as soon as the appeal is dealt with. The IPC/IAS is unable to answer queries regarding the progress of appeals unless 42 days has elapsed since its submission. If, after 42 days, you have not received email confirmation regarding the outcome of your appeal then please contact us by email. Please quote PCN number and registration number in any correspondence.



- - - Updated - - -

@mystery1
Please see above post

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

If the operator is stating a result they should respond to a query saying you haven't been notified but then the IAS are pretty rank. (it might be irrelevant if the rejection arrives tomorrow).

I doubt any case will see the inside of court on a "relevant land" argument because they are absolutely shit scared their cash cow goes pop.

M1