Bristol Airport VCS - Stopping to Drop Off Charge Notice - Pedestrian Crossing

Fruitcake

The contract between VCS and the airport landowner's sub-contractor can be found in this post by ginger_bread_man.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77480659/#Comment_77480659

Note my highlighted comments above. Bristol Airport Limited are not the landowner, they are a sub-contractor of the landowner who is a foreign investment company. 

In all the cases that have appeared on this forum about Bristol Airport, not one victim has ever received a copy of a contract with or flowing from the landowner. It is highly likely that the landowner is not even aware of the existence of VCS or that they are an unregulated private parking company with a terrible reputation.

If there is a contract with or flowing from the landowner to VCS, it is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities the claimant would show it.
It is reasonable to assume that since they have repeatedly failed to produce such a contract then on the balance of probabilities it does not exist.

1505grandad

Also, make sure that you state the correct name of the claimant  -  and it is NOT:-

Vehicle Control Systems Limited

Im_tired_of_this

Coupon-mad said:

Depends if you were driving.  As explained repeatedly today, to this person:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79758135/#Comment_79758135

They are pursuing you as keeper or driver. 

"there being no possibility of a legal parking charge" is true ONLY where the keeper wasn't driving.

Thank you @Coupon-mad. As per previous conversation on this thread, I followed the advice given on the forum to say in my defence statement that I was the driver. So VCS will know I'm the driver now.  So I will remove that argument from my witness statement. 

B789 said:

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

6. The land entered is not ‘relevant’ land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As the land is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.

Make your mind up about how you are appealing this. In para 6 you seem to be claiming that there is no case to answer as it is not relevant land and you can't be sued as the keeper. However, you have already admitted to being the driver in para 3, in which case para 6 is irrelevant.

Thanks @B789, as per the reply above to @Coupon-mad I will remove that part of the argument. 

So, with regards to breathing life into the counterclaim, how do I do that? Is it perhaps the fact that 'stopping isn't parking' and VCS have a contract with the DVLA that only allows for them requesting keeper details for parking events? To my non-specialist brain, that sounds like a breach. 

Im_tired_of_this

1505grandad said:

Also, make sure that you state the correct name of the claimant  -  and it is NOT:-

Vehicle Control Systems Limited

Thank you @1505grandad, Vehicle Control Services Limited it is.

Grizebeck

1505grandad said:

Also, make sure that you state the correct name of the claimant  -  and it is NOT:-

Vehicle Control Systems Limited

Inded that is a tiny useless firm aka FlashPark

Fruitcake

No contract with or flowing from the landowner, a foreign investment company. If a contract existed it is reasonable to assume the claimant would produce it.
The fact that the claimant has failed to produce a copy of the contract with or flowing from the landowner means it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that either it does not exist, or it does not permit the claimant (who is a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor) to issue court claims in their own right.
The claimant is put to strict proof that they have authority from or flowing from the landowner to issue court claims.

The vehicle was not parked but was stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. The driver cannot be held responsible for the actions of a passenger who, of their own volition, decided to exit the vehicle. By doing so, the driver was prevented from driving off until the passenger door was closed.

Im_tired_of_this

I'm preparing my Witness Statement today and think I might have found something useful in relation to VCS's contract position. I may be barking up a tree, but hear me out:

The claim I'm defending is for breach of contract. I.e. stopping when I agreed, through my conduct of driving past the sign prohibiting it, that I could be charged £100 should I do so.  And following up on @Fruitcake's recommendation to include references to the doubt that VCS has the right to issue court claims, see above.

So I dug into the Bristol Airport contract with VCS, the term of the document I've seen has just ended (6th January) but was active at the time of the event, which refers pretty clearly throughout to proper Parking, as you'd expect if you were running the enforcement of a large commercial car park. No mention is made of the No Stopping prohibition until Schedule One where it is listed as the first point on the policy, however that's not the interesting bit. The interesting bit is clause 3.2 which  says "The Company shall enforce the Parking Policy and Tailgating Policy detailed in Schedule One ... at all times during the Term and shall comply with the terms and conditions and/or byelaws applicable to Bristol Airport." 

In those byelaws, as currently linked to from the Bristol Airport website, section 6 details "PROHIBITED ACTS ON PRIVATE AIRPORT ROADS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY". In this section there are two relevant clauses:
6.3 Parking in prohibited areas: wait leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice.
and

6.9 Observe signs: without reasonable excuse on foot or whilst driving or propelling a vehicle neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by:

6.9.1 a traffic or pedestrian sign erected and displayed by or with the consent of the Company placed on or near such parts of the Airport;

According to the definitions in the Bristol Airport byelaws, "Road Traffic Enactments" has the same meaning as "in section 63(3) of the Airports Act 1986;" which says:

"63 (3) In paragraph (d) of subsection (2) “the road traffic enactments” means the enactments (whether passed before or after this Act) relating to road traffic, including the lighting and parking of vehicles, and any order or other instrument having effect by virtue of any such enactment."

And subsection 2 in turn refers to byelaws:
63 (2) (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws

So VCS has consent to put up signs - that exists in their contract - however surely the road I was on is one of the exceptions. I.e. a road to which the road traffic enactments apply, particularly for restricting parking

And if it wasn't such a road, I'm not guilty of section 6.3's 'wait leave or park' and I have a reasonable excuse for neglecting, failing or refusing to comply with the No Stopping traffic sign displayed. 

It is quite possible my grasp of the legalese in these clauses is insufficient to fully grasp the meaning, so I could do with some help.

Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I'd argue that.  Has legs.

Im_tired_of_this

Thank you @Coupon-mad. 

Separately, I've just spotted that the original PCN refers to the "period of parking to which this notice relates is that immediately preceding the Time of Event”. The time of event is referenced on the PCN in hours and minutes, i.e. 14:56. 

The photos from the CCTV van provided show 14:56:44 as the earliest evidence, before my passenger opened her door. 

So, "immediately before", would have to be 14:55:and some seconds. At which point I was not stationary at the pedestrian crossing but likely to be somewhere on the A38

Wouldn't it be nice if such a simple thing might invalidate the whole charge.

I'm putting it in my witness statement anyway.

Coupon-mad

That is another good point.