We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Got 2 Private PCNs for stopping on a road for 1 min to take an urgent call (VCS ltd)
vitaleducator
Posts: 16 Forumite
Hi Guys,
Firstly, I would like to thank this forum and the support provided to help tackle these issues.
Last month, The driver have received two tickets by VCS Ltd for stopping on side of a round about near East Midlands Airport.
the driver challenged those PCNs stating that I had to take an urgent call with a disabled passenger in the car and he couldn't do that whilst driving as its dangerous and illegal. Biggest mistake the driver made was to declare that he was the driver at the time in my challenge (i know he is an idiot!).
Ofcourse, the appeals were rejected and after doing some research on this forum, I raised the matter with IAS, Independent Appeal, even though some people of this forum suggested otherwise, and stating the case, please see below:
"Dear Sir / Madam
I am the registered keeper and refuse to accept the PCN and will contest it vigorously if taken into court. This PCN is invalid for the following reasons:
1. Vehicle was observed roughly for a period of 1 minute without any grace period provided. The driver refuses to enter into any form of contract where the grace period is not properly allowed or displayed on the signage.
2. The driver also clearly displayed a disabled badge as the car was stopped due to an emergency. The driver was carrying a disable passenger whilst trying to take an urgent phone call. It is enforceable law to not answer phone calls whilst driving hence stopping at that spot was done out of necessity and to not endanger the life of the disabled passenger and the disabled badge was displayed, please see the attached image.
3. The car was stopped on the road that is situated outside of the airport which fits the definition of a road according to the Road Traffic Act of 1998 and is not in the jurisdiction of VCS. The Airports Act 1986 states that byelaws do NOT apply on airport roads to which the road traffic enactments apply. Therefore, only police have the power to act on the breaches of the Road Traffic Act, not private parking companies.
4. The location of the alleged contravention was a road, which is land under statutory control, therefore does not meet the definition of "relevant land" set out in Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012. I have also attached the copy of the legislation for your consideration.
I am well aware of my rights as a road user and will defend them vigorously in court if pursued with this illegitimate PCN
Hope you can accept my appeal
Regards"
Now VHS has responded with the following:
1. East Midlands International Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 244 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping'. The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100.
2. Signage makes it clear that any motorist stopping in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We are employed solely to strictly enforce the Terms and Conditions as per our contract with the landowner. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed throughout the site.
3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.
4. 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 a vehicle stopping on a private road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing this route, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads, where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.
5. In their appeal to the IAS, the appellant declines to name the driver. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982, we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant, as registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and we support this by the knowledge the appellant has in relation to the circumstances ("events of the day") in relation to this Parking Charge Notice. Furthermore, the appellant does not deny being the driver nor is it stated that they do not know who the driver is.
6. The CCTV images supplied show that the vehicle stopped on an airport access road, designated by the landowner as a red route, where stopping is prohibited at all times. A review of the footage we possess has shown that the vehicle was recorded stopped for approximately 1 minute within the restricted area. The motorist does not deny stopping.
7. Our annotated site map and vehicle location diagrams highlight the proximity of the appellant's vehicle to the signage on site. We contend they had clear and unequivocal notice of the Terms and Conditions in place.
8. The circumstances cited by the appellant are not a mitigating factor. This was not an appropriate location to stop in any circumstances. The appellant had no cause to believe this was an appropriate place to stop for any purpose, including getting their bearings or turning their vehicle (we would note the location they stopped was on the approach to a roundabout which would form an appropriate location to turn a vehicle on a No Stopping access road). It was their responsibility to seek out an appropriate location outside of the controlled area within which to do this.
9. There are 244 signs onsite; we contend the driver had clear notice of the no stopping restrictions in place. We have supplied the East Midlands Signage map to show the stopping place of the appellant's vehicle. It should be noted that to reach the location at which they stopped, the driver must have driven past several signs, clearly displaying the stopping restrictions and therefore the driver had sufficient notice to decide whether or not to adhere to the no-stopping restrictions.
10. The signage on the access roads is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and the text size is relative to the average approach speed of vehicles, which at this location is 30 mph. Furthermore, all signage at the site uses the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for 'No Stopping' (clearway). It should be noted that the large entrance signs are 2000mm x 1100mm and, to put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door. They are also reflective to ensure they can be seen with headlights.
11. VCS is not pursuing this matter under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012; therefore the appellant's comments regarding airport byelaws are not relevant to this appeal and do not nullify their liability for the charge.
12. Ultimately, when entering this private land it was the sole responsibility of the driver to fully comply with the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions, by their failure to do so the appellant became liable for the PCN, which was lawfully issued.
13. By stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed."
I have 3 days to respond before IAS makes a decision.
After reading this, I am really conflicted and considering giving into these unlawful requests.
ANY tangible advice would be extremely beneficial.
I have read most of the newbie thread and gone through the process.
Is it worth waiting for the court papers to arrive and contest this or am i fighting a losing battle?
Anxiously waiting for your response!
Regards
Firstly, I would like to thank this forum and the support provided to help tackle these issues.
Last month, The driver have received two tickets by VCS Ltd for stopping on side of a round about near East Midlands Airport.
the driver challenged those PCNs stating that I had to take an urgent call with a disabled passenger in the car and he couldn't do that whilst driving as its dangerous and illegal. Biggest mistake the driver made was to declare that he was the driver at the time in my challenge (i know he is an idiot!).
Ofcourse, the appeals were rejected and after doing some research on this forum, I raised the matter with IAS, Independent Appeal, even though some people of this forum suggested otherwise, and stating the case, please see below:
"Dear Sir / Madam
I am the registered keeper and refuse to accept the PCN and will contest it vigorously if taken into court. This PCN is invalid for the following reasons:
1. Vehicle was observed roughly for a period of 1 minute without any grace period provided. The driver refuses to enter into any form of contract where the grace period is not properly allowed or displayed on the signage.
2. The driver also clearly displayed a disabled badge as the car was stopped due to an emergency. The driver was carrying a disable passenger whilst trying to take an urgent phone call. It is enforceable law to not answer phone calls whilst driving hence stopping at that spot was done out of necessity and to not endanger the life of the disabled passenger and the disabled badge was displayed, please see the attached image.
3. The car was stopped on the road that is situated outside of the airport which fits the definition of a road according to the Road Traffic Act of 1998 and is not in the jurisdiction of VCS. The Airports Act 1986 states that byelaws do NOT apply on airport roads to which the road traffic enactments apply. Therefore, only police have the power to act on the breaches of the Road Traffic Act, not private parking companies.
4. The location of the alleged contravention was a road, which is land under statutory control, therefore does not meet the definition of "relevant land" set out in Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012. I have also attached the copy of the legislation for your consideration.
I am well aware of my rights as a road user and will defend them vigorously in court if pursued with this illegitimate PCN
Hope you can accept my appeal
Regards"
Now VHS has responded with the following:
1. East Midlands International Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 244 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping'. The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100.
2. Signage makes it clear that any motorist stopping in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We are employed solely to strictly enforce the Terms and Conditions as per our contract with the landowner. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed throughout the site.
3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.
4. 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 a vehicle stopping on a private road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing this route, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads, where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.
5. In their appeal to the IAS, the appellant declines to name the driver. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982, we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant, as registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and we support this by the knowledge the appellant has in relation to the circumstances ("events of the day") in relation to this Parking Charge Notice. Furthermore, the appellant does not deny being the driver nor is it stated that they do not know who the driver is.
6. The CCTV images supplied show that the vehicle stopped on an airport access road, designated by the landowner as a red route, where stopping is prohibited at all times. A review of the footage we possess has shown that the vehicle was recorded stopped for approximately 1 minute within the restricted area. The motorist does not deny stopping.
7. Our annotated site map and vehicle location diagrams highlight the proximity of the appellant's vehicle to the signage on site. We contend they had clear and unequivocal notice of the Terms and Conditions in place.
8. The circumstances cited by the appellant are not a mitigating factor. This was not an appropriate location to stop in any circumstances. The appellant had no cause to believe this was an appropriate place to stop for any purpose, including getting their bearings or turning their vehicle (we would note the location they stopped was on the approach to a roundabout which would form an appropriate location to turn a vehicle on a No Stopping access road). It was their responsibility to seek out an appropriate location outside of the controlled area within which to do this.
9. There are 244 signs onsite; we contend the driver had clear notice of the no stopping restrictions in place. We have supplied the East Midlands Signage map to show the stopping place of the appellant's vehicle. It should be noted that to reach the location at which they stopped, the driver must have driven past several signs, clearly displaying the stopping restrictions and therefore the driver had sufficient notice to decide whether or not to adhere to the no-stopping restrictions.
10. The signage on the access roads is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and the text size is relative to the average approach speed of vehicles, which at this location is 30 mph. Furthermore, all signage at the site uses the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for 'No Stopping' (clearway). It should be noted that the large entrance signs are 2000mm x 1100mm and, to put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door. They are also reflective to ensure they can be seen with headlights.
11. VCS is not pursuing this matter under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012; therefore the appellant's comments regarding airport byelaws are not relevant to this appeal and do not nullify their liability for the charge.
12. Ultimately, when entering this private land it was the sole responsibility of the driver to fully comply with the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions, by their failure to do so the appellant became liable for the PCN, which was lawfully issued.
13. By stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed."
I have 3 days to respond before IAS makes a decision.
After reading this, I am really conflicted and considering giving into these unlawful requests.
ANY tangible advice would be extremely beneficial.
I have read most of the newbie thread and gone through the process.
Is it worth waiting for the court papers to arrive and contest this or am i fighting a losing battle?
Anxiously waiting for your response!
Regards
0
Comments
-
Your appeal was doomed to fail - they all are. Any IAS appeal will fail similarly. This will need a court hearing to resolve. Most are found in favour of the motorist - there have been a couple VCS - airport stopping cases won in the past couple of days, from memory, one at Southend Airport, the other at Doncaster Airport. Check them out as you will inevitably have to follow a similar path. There is no quick fix (other than a cheque). Prepare for the long haul, probably through to next summer.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street6 -
Appeals to the PPC and to IAS do not consider mitigating circumstances. The new CoP (when it comes into force) may take mitigating circumstances into account. Although the new CoP will not be in retrospect it may have influence.
I took part in the Public Consultation and commented regarding whether mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the adjudicators. I am of an opinion that they should be taken into account and that the adjudicators have the same level of decision making as a judge. PPC's are totally against mitigating circumstances being taken into account.
So watch out for details when the new CoP comes into force as it may have some influence on your case.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.4 -
playing devils advocate here ......are you aware of the rules using mobile phones?they do not say that you can stop to use a phone hand held or otherwise for an urgent call.Follow the advice given to beat VCSRalph
6 -
So watch out for details when the new CoP comes into force.
I think VCS need to watch out when the new CoP comes into force because some of the more rogue PPCs are going to fall by the wayside.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD4 -
Agreed ... if the vehicle engine was on and/or the keys were in the ignition then an offence may have been committed. But as said, usual advice (e.g. grace period) should see this off.Ralph-y said:playing devils advocate here ......are you aware of the rules using mobile phones?they do not say that you can stop to use a phone hand held or otherwise for an urgent call.Follow the advice given to beat VCSRalph5 -
Excellent. I am ready for it but I just wanted to make sure whether there is a strong case for me to beat them because I don't wanna be stuck with additional costs, such as admin fee etcUmkomaas said:Your appeal was doomed to fail - they all are. Any IAS appeal will fail similarly. This will need a court hearing to resolve. Most are found in favour of the motorist - there have been a couple VCS - airport stopping cases won in the past couple of days, from memory, one at Southend Airport, the other at Doncaster Airport. Check them out as you will inevitably have to follow a similar path. There is no quick fix (other than a cheque). Prepare for the long haul, probably through to next summer.
0 -
Thank you for the information! I will definitely keep an eye-out for thatSnakes_Belly said:Appeals to the PPC and to IAS do not consider mitigating circumstances. The new CoP (when it comes into force) may take mitigating circumstances into account. Although the new CoP will not be in retrospect it may have influence.
I took part in the Public Consultation and commented regarding whether mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the adjudicators. I am of an opinion that they should be taken into account and that the adjudicators have the same level of decision making as a judge. PPC's are totally against mitigating circumstances being taken into account.
So watch out for details when the new CoP comes into force as it may have some influence on your case.
1 -
I completely agree, the driver made a mistake and will not happen again. But the PCN charged in unlawful.Ralph-y said:playing devils advocate here ......are you aware of the rules using mobile phones?they do not say that you can stop to use a phone hand held or otherwise for an urgent call.Follow the advice given to beat VCSRalph
I am just trying to understand whether the Judge will see that and rule it in the driver's favour.0 -
Are you sure that the PCN is unlawful ? If it was it would have broken a law
I wouldn't go that far , there will be a word for it , such as misguided , invalid , fails to comply with mandatory or voluntary laws such as POFA or the CRA , could be a Penalty and not Parking ?
POFA does not apply at all on airport land3 -
But the PCN charged in unlawful.
I am just trying to understand whether the Judge will see that and rule it in the driver's favour.I'd be rather more circumspect in making bold statements about what is or is not lawful when speaking with a Judge! Leave that to the Judge.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards