Delayed issue of PCN

johnedit

Hi, All.

Many thanks to Umkomaas, Jenni_D and Fruitcake for posting.

Interesting that Jenni_D made mention of the fact that VCS have previously forged ahead with action when they have no authority!

Yes, Fruitcake, this is an airport Jobby. I initially complained about the time taken to serve the PCN/NTK - which they rejected - and I lodged my Defence based on the poor signage when entering the Site but it has only been the arrival of their Witness Statement that made it clear they only had/have a Contract from the Land Occupier and this covers a specific/designated area - which I never entered and their CCTV Images show my vehicle stopped outside this area.

Anyway, for all those kind enough to contribute to progress here is a Dropbox Link to a copy of their Witness Statement.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cvxuaf4yuonh36k/VCS Witness Statement.pdf?dl=0

Redx

We have seen a few similar cases at Bristol airport , possibly a few others because they have several airport contracts including JLA and robin hood etc ( RHA ) , have a look at those where the maps were drawn including enforcement perimeters etc ( also EMA and one on the south coast too )

Umkomaas

Have you complained to the contract signatory - Ian Woodcock, who seems to be a big knob at Harvest Energy? 😊

johnedit

Hi, Friends.

Thanks for your suggestion, Umkomaas, but the alleged incident happened outside the Fuel Station Area contracted to VCS so, I did not see much point in contacting Harvest Energy.

For clarity, the original PCN/NTK stated the Contravention Reason as '46) Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited.' and the Site Name and Location as 'The Fuel Station, EMA, Castle Donninton, DE75 2SA.’ I assumed this was just a generally acceptable description of the location and up until I received their Witness Statement I assumed they had the authority to ‘police’ the entire Airport Site.

However, their Witness Statement only cites their Contract with Harvest Energy covering the Fuel Station Area - whereas my vehicle actually stopped on the Terminal Approach Road. VCS did not submit any documentation indicating that they have any right to 'police' the roads within the Airport - I therefore assumed they did not.

 It seems most other Posts on this Forum involving VCS and the Fuel Station concern vehicles that actually entered the Fuel Station Area this area.

However, I have come across one Post that said these roads are considered as being either as a public highway or byelaws land (not private land) and due to the Airport Byelaws, the small claims track is not the right place to hear the case. Thereby, jurisdiction should be contested.

The Post suggested the OP wrote to VCS pointing out this fact and that should be enough for them to abandon their action.

So, what would be your recommendation - Do I continue and defend their current Small Claim contesting jurisdiction or write to VCS giving them the opportunity to cancel it?

Fruitcake

Contesting jurisdiction is the wrong terminology. It means something else.

Write to VCS and add the points that not only did the event occur outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate, but it was on non-relevant land. I believe this would include the the fuel station anyway, but that doesn't matter if it didn't happen there.

Complain to the landowner, which is probably the airport itself.

Note that VCS recently lost two cases where they issued charges to people at Bristol airport, despite the events occurring outside the area VCS are contracted to "manage". One was stopped in a queue at the entrance to a barrier controlled car park, and the other was at a junction near the airport hotel. 
Another PCN was cancelled where a motorist got a PCN for stopping inside the area that VCS are contracted to manage ... at a Stop sign.

You should mention the two Bristol airport cases. One was by a poster called ginger_bread_man.

Please post the claimant's WS here asap for us to pick over.
Only redact YOUR personal data. I cannot emphasise the words I have highlighted enough.

Upload their WS to a hosting site such as Dropbox, then paste the URL here. Do not use a real name to set up the hosting site account, and make sure there are no personal documents or photos in it. We do not want to see holiday snaps of someone's kids. Believe me, it has happened.

If the WS is too long, then show us the first page with the name of the person who created it, the last page with their name and statement of truth, and all their exhibits, especially the alleged landowner contract. Please tell us if the PPC has redacted anything.

johnedit

Hi, Fruitcake.

Thanks for you fast and detailed response - much appreciated.

I uploaded their WS to Dropbox on the 24th June - the only things I have blanked-out is identity details -  the link is in my Post 3 or 4 above.

The only thing I can see that the PCC redacted is in their Contract with Harvest Energy and this was the amount they paid for the Contract and their cost for signage.

Fruitcake

johnedit said:

Hi, Fruitcake.

Thanks for you fast and detailed response - much appreciated.

I uploaded their WS to Dropbox on the 24th June - the only things I have blanked-out is identity details -  the link is in my Post 3 or 4 above.

The only thing I can see that the PCC redacted is in their Contract with Harvest Energy and this was the amount they paid for the Contract and their cost for signage.

Sorry, I missed that. 

D_P_Dance

The only thing I can see that the PCC redacted is in their Contract with Harvest Energy and this was the amount they paid for the Contract and their cost for signage.

If it was redacted, how do you know what it was?  IMO a redacted document is an invalid document. 

johnedit

Hi, D_P_Dance.

If you look at section 4 of their Contract you will see that it s just the actual cost of these items which the PCC has blanked-out.

Fruitcake

If the event occurred outside the area VCS are contracted to manage, then you should complain to Harvest Energy that their contractor has issued a parking charge and a court claim outwith the terms of the contract.
Harvest Energy are the principal, and are responsible for the actions of their agents. You should ask them who from their legal department will be attending the court hearing to answer questions about the contract and their agent.

Has the claimant produced evidence to show where the car was stopped, and proof that it was within the area they are contracted to manage?
If not, you should include that in your WS. Conversely, if they have produced photo' evidence themselves that the car was stopped outside the area they are contracted to manage, then include that.

I have only skim read the general rubbish in their WS itself, but am I right that the driver stopped briefly because a warning light had come on? IF so, I believe the Jopson vs Homeguard case applies. Around paras 19 and 20 of that case, the judge said stopping to attend a small vicissitude such as attending to a flat tyre is not parking. I would suggest that stopping to reset a warning light, is a small vicissitude. He also said that stopping (in such circumstances) is not parking. Note that the PCN was issued for stopping where stopping is not permitted, yet a Parking Charge Notice was issued, meaning the claim was initiated by use of a parking notice for a non-parking event.
I believe this was an appeal court case so is persuasive on the lower courts.

Also note that stopping in this instance was a safety issue to prevent damage or injury, and must therefore take precedent over some purported minor infringement of parking terms, especially as the car did not stop within the boundary specified in the contract site plan.

I think redacting possible sensitive financial information from the contract is reasonable. The only thing I can see wrong with the contract is reference to 10 X signs, whereas the site plan shows 20 X signs. I am however puzzled by page 20 of the WS which appears to be written on the back of the contract, and page 19 seems to be written on the back of something else as well.

As for the WS as a whole, there are no photos of any of the signs on the site, no images of the car allegedly stopped, and no copies of any other documents the claimant intends to rely on such as the NTK, or witness statement from the parking attendant who allegedly recorded the breach of Ts and Cs.
In other words, there is no evidence at all that the alleged event took place.