Being taken to court for two PCNs from VCS for stopping at Liverpool Airport in 2018

Doddle1

Hi.

I wonder whether I can ask for some advice please relating to two PCNs received for stopping briefly on double red lines at Liverpool airport.

I’ve read the Newbies thread and as many other threads as I can. I think I’m at the stage where I need to ask for some support and guidance from any willing volunteers please.

Here’s a summary of where I’m up to:

PCNs received from VCS for stopping on double red lines for 30 seconds on two days in Oct/Nov 2018 (6 days apart). The PCNs were sent to me as the registered keeper.  I looked at advice on the internet at the time and decided that they weren’t enforceable due to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) introduced the concept of keeper liability; and that POFA only applies on relevant land; and that excludes land where there is statutory control (such as byelaws) as in the case of airports.

I also disputed the poor sineage which led to the driver being unable to find the drop off zone and the passengers deciding to alight for the 30 seconds which the car was parked.  

I’ve had several more demands to pay over the years from VCS including higher and lower amounts.

I had a letter before claim last December and submitted a defence based on the above points.

I was offered mediation through the small claims court service but they only gave one date which I couldn’t attend and refused to offer any alternative. Also I didn’t feel that I have sufficient information to mediate.

This is now proceeding to court so I’m starting to do my homework as I believe the next stage will be to provide a Witness Statement prior to attending court.

After reading the helpful advice on the Newbies page I have today sent VCS a Subject Access Request.

One question which I’m struggling to find an answer to is - if I can prove that I wasn’t the driver on one of the dates do I declare that in my Witness Statement?  I’m getting confused as the company aren’t allowed to pursue the registered keeper on private land and I wondered what would happen to my claim if I wasn’t the driver?

This is all outside my comfort zone but I’m going to do as much as I can to defend myself against the claim. Please be gentle with me.

DisruptiveLad

The red lines are not compliant with statutory regulations. I'm trying to find out who gave permission and when. Do the pics show red lines? LJLA signage? No stopping signage? LJLA parking Ts and Cs state VCS' authority only starts once a car ENTERS a cat park. They quashed my stepdaughter's Notice on my 'no authority' claim and on my contention the pics were inconclusive.

Doddle1

Thanks for your reply. I haven't got any photos of the red lines or signage. I've sent VCS a Subject Access Request today so I hope to receive the photos which they would have taken over three years ago.  

Doddle1

I've been reading similar posts about VCS and Liverpool airport and wondered whether I should send a letter to VCS similar to the one posted by Doomtrooper? 

I sent a Subject Access Request to VCS yesterday as I haven't got any information other than their Claim Form which contains a brief paragraph. 

I'm at the stage of preparing a witness statement as a court hearing is inevitable and think that it would be helpful to have the information below:

Extract from Doomtrooper's letter: 

I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services and will not under any circumstances make the payment that you have demanded in the absence of a court judgment. 

According to the PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR DEBT CLAIMS (PAP) and Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you were required to provide me with specific data. However, you did not comply with that, which will be noted in further legal proceedings and will be drawn to the attention of the Court. Aforementioned data is as follows:

 1) provide me copy of Initial Notice to Keeper 

2) an explanation of the cause of action

3) whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper

4) whether you are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

5) what the details of the claim are; where exactly it is claimed the vehicle was stopped, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

6) Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract (the sign) and contemporaneous (dated) images and/or map showing how many signs were along the roadways on the material date and their position and orientation in relation to the vehicle.  I believe that your purported 'no stopping zone' includes insufficient repeater signs and/or that some or all of them are set back from the kerb and fail to face oncoming traffic, thus the alleged contractual terms cannot possibly be read whilst the car is moving.  Kindly help me to narrow the issues with the evidence you intend to rely upon regarding the signs, in accordance with the PAP.

7) Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which you assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 establishing yourself as the creditor;

8) a plan showing where any signs were displayed

9) details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract 

 Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide.

 Until you have complied with your obligations and provide this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you choose to do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice

Direction and an order that this information is provided.

 

Yours faithfully,

Registered Keeper

 

 

Le_Kirk

Doddle1 said:

One question which I’m struggling to find an answer to is - if I can prove that I wasn’t the driver on one of the dates do I declare that in my Witness Statement?  I’m getting confused as the company aren’t allowed to pursue the registered keeper on private land and I wondered what would happen to my claim if I wasn’t the driver?

Depends what you put in your defence - if you said you were not driving, you can back it up with evidence.  You cannot introduce new defence arguments in a WS.  Just think how you would answer if the judge asked " Mr/Mrs/Ms Doddle1, were you driving on the day in question?"  How would you answer?

Doddle1

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't driving and I can get statements from the passengers to confirm that I wan't even in the car. I didn't use that in my defence though unfortunately as I was relying on the fact that they can't persue the RK on private land.I I'll say that I wan't the driver in my witness statement and that's what I'll tell the judge. 

Doomtrooper

@Doddle1
You have mentioned that you are on WS phase. Can you post your defence which you have submitted after AOS?

Doddle1

Here's my defence which I submitted last December:

The driver had not visited the airport for some years and was unfamiliar with the new (to them) drop off arrangements. They did follow signs for the drop-off area but was then unable to locate an entrance and so stopped briefly (less than a minute) to allow passengers out of the car.  Had signage been available nearer the location the car parking facility would have been used and the terms and conditions applying to the car park adhered to.

Permission to enter Airport land is implicit in the operation of an airport to allow airline passengers access to the airport to take flights.

It is not accepted that there is a breach of contract as no terms and conditions are displayed at the entrance to airport land nor on access roads; only signs forbidding stopping.  Private parking schemes fall into two categories: 1) you may park here subject to our conditions, and 2) you may not park here. In the latter case, it is incompatible with contractual law. In contractual law there are three elements: a) an offer, b) acceptance, and c) consideration. If one of these is not present, then logically there is no contract. In the case where the signage is written in such a way that it forbids you from parking, then logically there is no contract.

Signage asserts that the airport roads are “Red Routes”. First introduced in London in 1991, Red Routes are urban clearways that form a network of major roads which carry a significant amount of traffic, especially during rush hours. Red routes are commonly roads with heavy traffic and often incorporate public transport routes.  More recently Red Routes are being used with the aim of reducing accident rates. The red routes within the airport private land are not official Red Routes nor do the forbidding signs adhere to the specified format for Red Routes.  The landowner has, instead, mimicked red routes for their own purpose. The road in question is separate from the main roads within the airport and no other vehicles used the road at the time.

The claimant has raised a Parking Charge Notice, however the vehicle was “stopped” and not “parked”. Private parking firms have access to the DVLA database for the purpose of parking enforcement. The claimant is not enforcing parking in this case, so arguably they are using data in ways they should not be in making a claim against me as the registered keeper. I understand that the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) introduced the concept of keeper liability; and that POFA only applies on relevant land; and that excludes land where there is statutory control (such as byelaws) as in the case of airports.

Use of the official car park for the stopped period would be free so there is no loss incurred by the company.  Instead they are seeking to impose a fine for stopping which, I believe, they are not entitled to do.

Coupon-mad

Doddle1 said:

Here's my defence which I submitted last December:

The driver had not visited the airport for some years and was unfamiliar with the new (to them) drop off arrangements. They did follow signs for the drop-off area but was then unable to locate an entrance and so stopped briefly (less than a minute) to allow passengers out of the car.  Had signage been available nearer the location the car parking facility would have been used and the terms and conditions applying to the car park adhered to.

Permission to enter Airport land is implicit in the operation of an airport to allow airline passengers access to the airport to take flights.

It is not accepted that there is a breach of contract as no terms and conditions are displayed at the entrance to airport land nor on access roads; only signs forbidding stopping.  Private parking schemes fall into two categories: 1) you may park here subject to our conditions, and 2) you may not park here. In the latter case, it is incompatible with contractual law. In contractual law there are three elements: a) an offer, b) acceptance, and c) consideration. If one of these is not present, then logically there is no contract. In the case where the signage is written in such a way that it forbids you from parking, then logically there is no contract.

Signage asserts that the airport roads are “Red Routes”. First introduced in London in 1991, Red Routes are urban clearways that form a network of major roads which carry a significant amount of traffic, especially during rush hours. Red routes are commonly roads with heavy traffic and often incorporate public transport routes.  More recently Red Routes are being used with the aim of reducing accident rates. The red routes within the airport private land are not official Red Routes nor do the forbidding signs adhere to the specified format for Red Routes.  The landowner has, instead, mimicked red routes for their own purpose. The road in question is separate from the main roads within the airport and no other vehicles used the road at the time.

The claimant has raised a Parking Charge Notice, however the vehicle was “stopped” and not “parked”. Private parking firms have access to the DVLA database for the purpose of parking enforcement. The claimant is not enforcing parking in this case, so arguably they are using data in ways they should not be in making a claim against me as the registered keeper. I understand that the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) introduced the concept of keeper liability; and that POFA only applies on relevant land; and that excludes land where there is statutory control (such as byelaws) as in the case of airports.

Use of the official car park for the stopped period would be free so there is no loss incurred by the company.  Instead they are seeking to impose a fine for stopping which, I believe, they are not entitled to do.

I think your post got overlooked as we were busy or otherwise engaged.

What's your WS deadline?

 How the whole bundle should look is as shown in the 2021 threads by @Nosy or @jrhys albeit they didn't have the benefit of the new Code to add.

You do!  Loads of threads this past week are now including the brand new wording about the new statutory Code of Practice replacing the failed ones;  especially noting the fact that the Government has declared the added 'damages/costs' to be 'designed to extort money from motorists'.

Doddle1

Thanks for replying. I haven't got a court date yet but I had offers of mediation from the Small Claims Court which I had to decline so I know the next stage will be court. I've been following all of the threads about VCS and Liverpool Airport and the new code of practice so I've been preparing my WS by copying the relevant paragraphs from other peoples good work. I want to be ready with my two WS's as soon as I get a date. I'll post it here when I have a date and would love someone to look over it for me - you are all so knowledgeble and help people to navigate a scary process. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, we'll help.

I've created a new paragraph 4 onwards to replace the template defence; some of this can be adapted to be included in a WS, to cover the fact that debt recovery 'costs' are banned (described by the Minister as 'extortion'):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79031299/#Comment_79031299

There are also sections there about unclear signs and questioning the scope of the landowner authority snd the PPC's right to sue.