PCN for stopping 5 secs in lay-by at Southend Airport

purplepenny

Wrote to my MP and here is the response received from VCS. They say they aren’t relying on POFA. Any advice appreciated. Thank you.

Dear x
Thank you for your letter dated 20 February 2020 on behalf of your constituent Ms X addressed to our managing director, Mr Simon Renshaw-Smith, regarding the above Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued to following a contravention observed at Southend Airport. I have been asked to respond accordingly.

Southend Airport is private land; drivers are permitted to enter the airport land in order to access the facilities within the airport. Southend Airport reserves the right to carry out management and enforcement of traffic on the private access roads in respect of vehicles which park, or stop outside areas specifically set out for parking. Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) are authorised to carry out that traffic management and enforcement. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport approach roads and the dedicated bus access routes, due to growing congestion caused by vehicles stopping and blocking lanes. The subsequent congestion has created safety risks for other motorists and potential costly delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the Airport. This PCN was issued in respect of Mr X's vehicle stopping within one of the public bus stops running alongside the private road of this busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing this bus stop, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic. This area is frequently misused by motorists seeking to avoid charges associated with the dedicated car parks and pick-up/drop-off zones. Vehicle Control Services Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads and bus stops, where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs. The signage at the bus stop clearly states 'Public Buses Only' and '£100 CHARGE IF YOU STOP'. Signage makes it clear that any motorist stopping in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed will be liable for a PCN.

On the date in question Ms X's vehicle with the VRM of x was recorded by our CCTV enforcement officer as having stopped within the public bus stop whilst apparently dropping off a passenger, and as such a charge notice was subsequently issued to her as the keeper of the vehicle. I would note that in her correspondence to you Ms X states that we have chosen to designate this as a bus stop. This is not the case, and this charge was not arbitrarily issued by us. We enforce the terms and conditions of access to Southend Airport solely on the behalf of our client who wish for this bus stop to remain clear of unauthorised vehicles at all times. As Ms X's vehicle is evidently not a bus, this charge was correctly observed and legitimately pursued.

In her prior correspondence Ms X has denied being the driver and states that we have no right to pursue her as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. However, as we have previously explained to Ms X in our correspondence to her, we have not cited PoFA 2012 nor stated that she was liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper. Operators are not required to use the keeper liability provisions within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on land to which it applies. These provisions complement the common-law position which may be used to establish liability for a Charge irrespective of whether the Act applies or not. Where an operator chooses not to rely upon the Act, the stated time limits and notice requirements do not apply. Any notice sent to a motorist clearly states that it is a 'Charge Notice' and has been sent to the Registered

Keeper/Owner of the vehicle and requests them to pass the notice to the driver of the vehicle or to reply, giving the driver's details. Any notice sent to a motorist clearly states that it is a 'Charge Notice' and has been sent to the Registered Keeper/Owner of the vehicle and requests them to pass the notice to the driver of the vehicle or to reply, giving the driver's details. It further states that Vehicle Control Services may pursue the Registered Keeper of the vehicle for any parking charge amount that remains outstanding, on the assumption that they were the driver. As Ms X has declined to name the driver of the vehicle to date, we will continue to pursue her as liable for the charge under this reasonable assumption.

Ms X states we have no legal basis to pursue the charge. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking or stopping within a particular area, by implication a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to enter and remain on this land. If the vehicle is subsequently observed to stop, the motorist is deemed to have accepted liability for a charge and may subsequently be pursued for the outstanding sum. Data on the keeper of the vehicle is provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to enable landowners or their agents to pursue their legal rights and to resolve disputes. In order to help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any parking charge is pursued, the DVLA will only provide vehicle keeper details where a car parking Management Company is a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and adhere to an enforceable code of practice. The Accredited Trade Association, to which Vehicle Control Services Ltd are members, is the International Parking Community (IPC).

I would note that Ms X has previously appealed to us on the basis she has outlined to you and that we have rejected her appeal for the reasons we have explained. As noted above we are members of the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS). The IPC operate an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) that allows a motorist access to an independent adjudication process on the lawfulness of parking charges issued by their members. An important condition of being an AOS member is that operators must adhere to the IPC's Code of Practice. In our correspondence to Ms X we provided details on how to appeal to the IAS if she believed our decision to be incorrect. The IAS adjudicators consider the lawfulness of the PCN in question and appeals are adjudicated on by independent professionals of law with knowledge of the relevant contract law concerning parking on private land. This service is free to use for motorist, contrary to what Ms X has informed you. Decisions made by the IAS are binding on the parking operator, but are advisory to motorists who are free to further dispute the charge in court if they so wish. To date, Ms X has failed to lodge an IAS appeal and I would note the timeframe within which to do so had subsequently expired. It is now the responsibility of Ms X to make payment of the charge to bring these matters to a close.

If you are not content with the response we have provided you with, you can refer this to the IPC who will investigate and provide you with a response. To make this process as simple as possible the IPC has created a communication portal on their websiteÂ*https://theipc.info/loginÂ*for you to use. They have created a username for all members of Parliament. Your username will be your email address. An email will have been sent with your login details. There is an option for you to reset your password if you are unable to login. If you have any issues, please contact the IPC via email onÂ*mp.enquiries@theipc.info
Yours sincerely
Central Processing Office

Redx

not true at all, you as keeper have no responsibility to pay to bring it to a close unless a judge says so, in civil court (or a magistrate in mags court)

the driver (the motorist) may have a responsibility, if known , BUT NOT A KEEPER

just more waffle , smoke and mirros , by VCS

they are correct in that they are not using POFA, WE ALL KNEW THAT

they are making assumptions that the keeper was also the driver, assumptions that may prove incorrect in court

if they assume they are correct, then how come over twenty defendants won in court at Newcastle Airport in the UKPPO collective cases ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5971217/newcastle-airport-ukppo-bw-legal-collective-defence-group/p1

Umkomaas

Thank you for your letter dated 20 February 2020 on behalf of your constituent Ms X addressed to our managing director, Mr Simon Renshaw-Smith

PCN was issued in respect of Mr X's vehicle stopping within one of the public bus stops running alongside the private road of this busy international airport.

Well, is it 'Ms', or is it 'Mr'. They don't seem to know!

And since when has Southend Airport been a 'busy international airport'?  Primarily carriers EasyJet and RyanAir, hardly a LHR, LGW, BHX or MAN, F-F-S! 😄

purplepenny

I must confess I didn’t understand a lot of this waffle. So if they are not using POFA, I assume they’re saying relying on contract law? Can they hold registered keeper responsible for driver’s actions under contract law? Can anyone force me to name the driver? Thanks.

Redx

purplepenny said:

I must confess I didn’t understand a lot of this waffle.

1) So if they are not using POFA, I assume they’re saying relying on contract law?

2) Can they hold registered keeper responsible for driver’s actions under contract law?

3) Can anyone force me to name the driver?

Thanks.

1) correct

2) that is for a judge to decide , on the balance of probabilities (BOP)

3) NO , but a judge can construe NO COMMENT as being in the claimants favour, same as in criminal courts , so failure to say NO I WAS NOT THE DRIVER means on the BOP that you were the driver

Umkomaas

purplepenny said:

I must confess I didn’t understand a lot of this waffle. So if they are not using POFA, I assume they’re saying relying on contract law? Can they hold registered keeper responsible for driver’s actions under contract law? Can anyone force me to name the driver? Thanks.

No and No.

They can only hold the keeper liable for the driver's actions if they (VCS) meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. As they are not pursuing under PoFA, they are, in reality, stuffed, provided the keeper doesn't directly identify the driver, or indirectly via loose words. But it won't stop them trying to 'break' you via harassing letters, debt collector contact or by the issue of a court claim, quoting garbage like 'Elliot v Loake'. 

Stay strong!

purplepenny

Hypothetically, if the RK wasn’t the driver, at what point would they reveal this information?

Redx

asap and all the way through to the end , it is the primary and most important defence point for a keeper that was not the driver

purplepenny

Would that leave the RK open to having to name someone else?

KeithP

purplepenny said:

Would that leave the RK open to having to name someone else?

No. There is nothing anywhere that states that a RK needs to know who was driving his/her car at any particular time.