Another Humberside Airport PCN

njcatbb

I have recently won a POPLA appeal re stopping for less than a minute at the bus stop at Humberside Airport. Here is the text of my successful appeal with certain details omitted to avoid identification.

On [date] the driver met an arrival after a transatlantic flight via Amsterdam at Humberside Airport. The arrangement made was to pick up the person and baggage at the pick-up area outside the terminal. However, unknown to the driver and person being met, there is no public access to this area, so the driver was forced to turn around at the roundabout (the nearest point) and head out along the exit road. On seeing this, the only obvious option for the passenger with the baggage trolley was to walk along the pavement to the first safe stopping place, which was a bus stop (with no double yellow lines); there were no buses in or approaching the airport at that time. There the driver stopped briefly to pick up the passenger with baggage. The driver and the person being met were unaware of any no stopping signs at the bus stop. (A visit to the site later showed that the signs at the bus stop are parallel to the road and so not visible to an approaching motorist – see Evidence G.)


Grounds for Appeal

1. The basis in law for the charge
It would seem from the VCS letter, and legal advice that has been obtained, that the PCN is essentially an invoice arising from a civil dispute, in this case damages for breach of contract rather than trespass.
The basic question arises therefore whether in this case a contract had been entered into. The PCN refers to terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound being placed at the entrance to “the car park” but in this case the vehicle was on the access roads, not in the car park. Further, the smaller print on the signs indicating the charges is too small to be read by the driver of a vehicle in motion. So we submit in the first instance that no contract with VCS involving any charges was entered into by the driver.

Secondly, the vehicle stopped at a safe place, namely a bus stop when there were no buses whatsoever in the immediate vicinity or in the foreseeable future. A later visit to the site shows that while there are “No Stopping” signs at the bus stop these are parallel to the road and therefore not visible to an approaching motorist – who would have to stop to see them, and stop for some time to read the small print concerning the charges – and presumably in doing so incur a PCN. (See Evidence G.) Moreover, the yellow lines cease at the bus stop.

2. Assuming hypothetically a breach of contract (which is not hereby admitted):
a. The charge of £100 for stopping for less than one minute would be punitive and out of all proportion to the loss incurred by VCS (which we estimate to be £0). Neither the invoice nor the signage (which can only be read by stopping) gives any justification for the amount of such a hypothetical charge as a reasonable estimate of loss for breach of contract.
b. It is a principle of law that “an innocent party cannot recover for loss that he could have avoided by taking reasonable steps. This is sometimes expressed as the duty to mitigate”.
In this case, if the objective is to prevent vehicles from stopping in situations like this, then rather than have an agent in a van photographing every vehicle that stops, the objective would be better achieved (and the purported breach easily avoided) by taking the reasonable step of having an agent advising would-be stoppers that this is not allowed, and how to deal with the situation encountered. This is what happens at major airports, which are much busier than Humberside. (In this case the only option would have been for the driver to exit the airport, return, and go into the car park; and the passenger would have to push the laden trolley to meet the vehicle there. It would have taken a minute or so at the bus stop to arrange this with the passenger being collected.)
It seems however that the purpose of the white van is to maximize the number of drivers caught stopping, rather than minimize the stopping in the interests of safety. This approach conflicts with the spirit of the AOS Code of Conduct, which is to adopt a reasonable approach to enforcement; indeed enforcement of a no-stopping rule would be best defined as preventing vehicles from stopping, rather than catching and the maximum number of “offenders” and seeking to extract £100 each time.
c. A similar incident on a public highway in similar circumstances would in all probability result in either a warning or even a helpful hand from a police officer, assuming there was no traffic safety issue involved.


3. Issues concerning operating within the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (CoP)
a. As appellants, we would wish to see evidence that VCS has clear authorization (as required in para. 7.1 of the CoP) from the owner of Humberside Airport to issue Parking Charge Notices for safely stopping at the bus stop.
 
b. Para. 9.1 of the CoP indicates that operators should “make sure that vehicles engaged in parking enforcement, such as ANPR vehicles, are marked clearly with appropriate livery or your business name, so that members of the public can see that you are the operator.” The white van at Humberside does NOT have any clear indication of who the operator is (see photograph Evidence H) – or even that it is to do with parking enforcement. It just says “Mobile enforcement vehicle” with a picture of a camera.
c. Para 13 of the CoP refers to a grace period – and as above we submit that the same spirit should apply to stopping in a difficult situation as encountered in this case.
d. Para 14 of the CoP refers to misrepresentation of authority. While we do not contend that there was a technical breach of this code, the PCN and other correspondence does (intentionally we submit) mimic the notices issued by the police and local authorities – in particular by using the acronym PCN which in the public arena means Penalty Charge Notice.
In addition, the letter from VCS of 14/12/2013 (para. 4) mentions that if appropriate VCS would be entitled to seek damages for trespass. I am advised however that only a person in possession of the land is able to bring a claim for trespass, and as far as I am aware VCS is not the owner of the access roads to Humberside Airport. If this is the case, then that clause is a misrepresentation of the authority of VCS.
e. Para. 18 of the CoP discusses signage, and our submission above indicates the inadequacy of this as regards (i) creating a contract upon using the access roads (the small print is too small to be readable by the driver of a vehicle in motion) and (ii) warning drivers that the bus stop is also included (See again the photograph Evidence G, showing the bus stop sign to be parallel to the road so not visible on approach.)
f. Para. 19 of the CoP says “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you [the operator] suffer.” The charge of £100 has not been justified as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

4. Procedural irregularities by VCS
a. The original PCN has two photographs with time stamps in faint red that are 37 seconds apart

24/09/2013 09:36:21 and 24/09/2013 09:36:58

However, underneath the photographs there appear the captions

TIME: 24/09/2013 09:37:00 and TIME: 24/09/2013 09:38:00

which is a manipulation of the evidence – and at the head of the PCN it states

CONTRAVENTION TIMES: 09:38

This is all inconsistent and irregular.
b. The PCN speaks of “upon entering the car park” whereas the alleged breach occurred on the access roads.
c. The letter from VCS (Evidence F) of 14/12/2013 mentions waiting on double yellow lines – and there are no double yellow lines at the bus stop.
d. The same letter mentions dropping off a passenger – where as it was in fact picking up a passenger who had come from an overnight transatlantic flight – and therefore very tired.
e. The same letter says that the driver could have caused obstruction to other drivers. That cannot be true since there were no buses in the vicinity of the airport at that time.

**********

The reasons given for the POPLA assessor's determination were given as: "The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were."