VCS - Court claim - Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited
spikeycacti22
Forumite 
I’ve been issued a court claim from VCS for “Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited” at Leeds Bradford Airport.
The issue date was the 21st February and I submitted the AoS on Sunday (5th March).
I was late to learn of this forum so unfortunately haven’t followed all the advice for the earlier stages in the process. I’ve submitted a SAR but can’t imagine I’ll receive a reply for that before my defence is due.
I’ve reviewed the template defence and am looking to adapt it. I am looking for some advice for best lines of defence for this type of case.
Background
Me and my partner traveled to Leeds Bradford Airport and were booked into the “Mid Stay 2” car park. The instructions for the booked car park explicitly stated “Follow the signs to the Mid Stay 2 car park from Whitehouse Lane”. There were no signs for the “Mid Stay 2” car park at the airport. There were signs for “Mid Stay” but due to the precise instructions we assumed this was the wrong car park. We tried turning down “Mid Stay” but ended up turning back onto the main road to check for other car parks, since there was no reference to “Mid Stay 2”.
We drove down the next turn which was the short stay / drop offs. Upon realising this I pulled over momentarily to review the parking instructions to try and work out where the car park is in relation to where we were. This is where we were “caught”, in the region of 20-30 seconds.
After checking the instructions, we had to pay to pass through the drop-off, and went back to the car park sign-posted as “Mid Stay”. I’m still not sure that was the parking we paid for.
The lack of and confusing nature of the signs and instructions is the reason this occurred. I’m wondering if that’s enough?
I'm curious if any of the following is worth including?
The airport parking terms and conditions state:
"Types of enforcement action that may be taken. If you breach these terms you agree that:
- we may at our discretion: issue you a parking charge notice (also called a “PCN”);"
However, the NTK was labeled “Charge Notice (CN)” rather than “Parking Charge Notice (PCN) - wondering if that distinction has any value. Just “Charge Notice” isn’t in the T&Cs anywhere.The airport roads are adjoined to the public roads, without a specific entranceway / gate, and so it’s impossible to agree to the terms upon entry. I have no recollection of a sign with T&Cs at the entrance, as they’re claiming in their particulars. It doesn't look like there is one on Google maps either. There are basic "No Stopping" signs, without any T&Cs.
It's impossible to agree to and accept the “No stopping” terms and conditions without stopping to read the signs in the first place. I don’t think there was a sign present where we stopped. However, there were double red lines.
There is no place on the airport roads to safely stop to review any pre-booked parking instructions.
Any help and advice would be appreciated! Thanks
Replies
Interesting that VCS have issued a "Charge Notice" without stating whether it is a "Penalty" or "Parking" one. I suspect deviousness on the part of the VCS scammers.
As a matter of interest, when did this "transgression" occur? @KeithP will be along soon to provide your timeline for submitting your defence.
Have you SAR'd VCS? Have you read, re-read and read again the Newbies thread which explains the whole process?
That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.
Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.
That's nothing to worry about. The information returned will be far more use at Witness Statement time - some months away.
This is very reassuring to know. Thanks for the timeline and other details Keith.
Gatwick (NCP) and Heathrow (APCOA) have known problems with crap signage and incorrect directions to drop off areas, so have a look at those as the signage problems will be similar to yours. In your case the driver didn't actually drop off but still comes under the Jopson v Homeguard case where the judge said attending to a vicissitude of small duration is not parking. Stopping to check directions would count as a vicissitude of small duration.
Note that this was an appeal case so is persuasive on the lower courts.
In addition, the land is covered by airport byelaws, and as far as I am aware, stopping is not a byelaw offence.
Plan A is always a complain to the landowner and airport operator if different, and your MP, and it is never too late to do so.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock, particularly since the Defendant had already paid for parking services at the airport. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name.
Stopping to read a sign constitutes the very contravention for which this charge has arisen – ‘No Stopping’. Therefore, the supposed contract is a contradiction. It’s impossible to accept without breaking. Any such terms would not have been readable from a moving car. Furthermore, it is denied that the signs bearing any terms existed on the roadway, as stated in the particulars.
The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times. The signage would therefore be prohibitive in nature and would not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as stopping or parking, at a price). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.
It is admitted that the Defendant was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.
The Defendant drove to the airport to occupy pre-paid parking in the “Mid Stay 2” car park. The parking instructions specifically stated “Follow the signs to the Mid Stay 2 car park from Whitehouse Lane”. The Defendant was unable to locate any "Mid Stay 2" signs at the airport.
The Defendant drove down Whitehouse Lane, eventually turning back on themselves in an attempt to find the car park. Driving back down Whitehouse Lane, the Defendant unintentionally and unexpectedly followed the road down to the “Short Stay” and “Pick Up Drop Off” access road. After realising the mistake, the Defendant momentarily stopped on the roadway. The momentary pause was not a deliberate choice but an instinctive reaction. The Defendant felt inclined to stop the vehicle momentarily in order to re-orientate and review their printed parking instructions.
In the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that: “The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration.“
According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than 30 seconds. The Defendant understands this was to cope with a vicissitude, in this case, finding themselves lost and confused on the inadequately signed roadways. No parking occurred and so the stated “parking charge”, as per the particulars, is not applicable.
The Defendant places liability of the situation upon the Claimant, given that, as the operating manager of the roadways, they have a responsibility to ensure the car parks and roads are sufficiently signed. In this case they were not. This is unacceptable, particularly since the majority of the roadways are classified as “restricted areas”. The Defendant believes the parking instructions, signage and roadways are directly misleading in order to entrap individuals into so-called ‘contraventions’. The roadway is specifically designed such that traffic is led down the “Short Stay” and “Pick Up Drop Off” section of the airport, as happened in this case.
In this case there was no loss to the Claimant, financial or otherwise, through the actions of the Defendant. Financial loss was incurred by the Defendant due to having to pass through the “Drop Off Pick Up” due to the unclear roadways. The Defendant has also experienced emotional distress from the response to the event, and subsequent treatment by the Claimant.
Where's the usual stuff seen in VCS Airport defences about the byelaws allowing short stops in an emergency?
Plus you should read more cases, as we usually see an argument that these roadways are not private land but Public Highway under statutory control of byelaws and/or the Traffic Management Act.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name.
It is admitted that the Defendant was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.
The location of the event is entirely accessible to the public; there are no barriers or obstructions to prevent public access. This falls in the definition of a “road” as per section 142 in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road, meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004.
The existence of byelaws in the area also means that the land is not ‘relevant’ as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), paragraph 3 of Section 4. The vague particulars state the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle”, showing that the Claimant has failed to identify a clear Cause of Action. It’s not obvious if the driver is pursuing the Claimant as the registered keeper, or the driver. Since this is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.
The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times. The signage would therefore be prohibitive in nature and would not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as stopping or parking, at a price). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.
The particulars outline the contract’s accepting conduct to be the entering of private land. When approaching the signs in a vehicle, it is not possible to perform the declining conduct without first performing the accepting conduct. In this scenario the Defendant has not had reasonable time to read and digest the terms. The "no stopping" term was forced upon the Defendant, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
“A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”
Judge Moloney QC reiterates this in Ransomes vs. Anderson (“the Ransomes case”), a persuasive County Court judgement on appeal:
“the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.
The Defendant admints droving to the airport to occupy pre-paid parking, but was unable to locate the parking and relevant signs to the parking, as described in the provided parking instructions. After becoming lost on the roadways, the Defendant followed the road down to the “Short Stay” and “Pick Up Drop Off” road. This was unexpected and confusing for the Defendant. The Defendant felt it was safest to stop the vehicle momentarily in order to re-orientate. This is where the Defendant was caught stopping in the restricted zone.
Whether or not the Claimant alleges that they operate under, or rely upon, the Leeds Bradford airport byelaws, these create a level of statutory parking control and must take precedence over the land and cannot be overruled by a claim pleaded in contract or tort. The Defendant’s action was aligned with the exceptions as defined in the airport byelaws.
Byelaw 5.16. “No person shall without reasonable excuse when on foot or whilst using, driving or propelling a Vehicle, neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by: - A sign [...], Any road marking on such a road... ”. The Defendant understands that being lost and disoriented due to the roadways constitutes a reasonable excuse.
Byelaw 5.3. “Except in an emergency, no person shall leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by a Sign.”. The Defendant believes the confusion caused by the unexpected turning down the wrong road, which led the Defendant down a one way route, could be considered an emergency situation. The only action the Defendant felt was safe in that moment was to stop the vehicle.
It appears that the Claimant has not only created a contract to apply to a public highway, but has also bypassed Airport Byelaws in doing so, defining contradictory terms and conditions that allow them to profiteer from the use of the roads. Even if the Claimant has authority to do that, where is the evidence that these specific areas of the roadways fall within their area map of enforcement, and where are the pictures and locations of the signs that constitute such a “contract”.
In the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that: “The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration.“
According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than 30 seconds, and so the claimed charge can be considered a “stopping” event as opposed to “parking”.
There is no reference to “stopping” offences within the POFA, even though the Claimant has applied a similar approach to recovering the costs in this instance. Even if the charge did fall within the POFA, then the “Notice to keeper” (NTK) failed to outline the “specified period of parking” as outlined in requirement 8.2 (c). It can be assumed this is because the Claimant recognises that no parking took place.
It appears that the Claimant has further distinguished this from a parking charge, as the NTK supplied was titled “Charge Notice (CN)”, rather than “Parking Charge Notice (PCN)”. However, if the Claimant is attempting to pursue this as a parking event as would be suggested in the particulars, then there have been clear and obvious breaches of the IPC Code of Conduct which they supposedly follow:
13.1. Breached because motorists are unable to make an informed decision before entering the land. As aforementioned, in order to accept and consider the terms and conditions then the Defendant would be required to break them themselves, i.e. stopping on the private land.
13.2. - 13.3. Breached because a grace period of 10 minutes was not offered, nor was it made clear in any of the relevant signage that a grace period does not apply.
According to the current Contract between DVLA and parking companies, in order to obtain “Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event” (KADOE) information from the DVLA, Clause A6.1 states that “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct”. Given the above breaches, it is clear the Claimant has obtained Keeper details under false pretences.
The existence of byelaws in the area also means that the land is not ‘relevant’ as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), paragraph 3 of Section 4. The vague particulars state the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle”, showing that the Claimant has failed to identify a clear Cause of Action. It’s not obvious if the driver is pursuing the Claimant as the registered keeper, or the driver. Since this is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.
The Defendant admints droving to the airport to occupy pre-paid parking, but was unable to locate the parking and relevant signs to the parking, as described in the provided parking instructions. After becoming lost on the roadways, the Defendant followed the road down to the “Short Stay” and “Pick Up Drop Off” road. This was unexpected and confusing for the Defendant. The Defendant felt it was safest to stop the vehicle momentarily in order to re-orientate. This is where the Defendant was caught stopping in the restricted zone.
In the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that: “The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration.“
According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than 30 seconds, and so the claimed charge can be considered a “stopping” event as opposed to “parking”.
There is no reference to “stopping” offences within the POFA, even though the Claimant has applied a similar approach to recovering the costs in this instance. Even if the charge did fall within the POFA, then the “Notice to keeper” (NTK) failed to outline the “specified period of parking” as outlined in requirement 8.2 (c). It can be assumed this is because the Claimant recognises that no parking took place.
It appears that the Claimant has further distinguished this from a parking charge, as the NTK supplied was titled “Charge Notice (CN)”, rather than “Parking Charge Notice (PCN)”. However, if the Claimant is attempting to pursue this as a parking event as would be suggested in the particulars, then there have been clear and obvious breaches of the IPC Code of Conduct which they supposedly follow:
13.1. Breached because motorists are unable to make an informed decision before entering the land. As aforementioned, in order to accept and consider the terms and conditions then the Defendant would be required to break them themselves, i.e. stopping on the private land.
13.2. - 13.3. Breached because a grace period of 10 minutes was not offered, nor was it made clear in any of the relevant signage that a grace period does not apply.
According to the current Contract between DVLA and parking companies, in order to obtain “Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event” (KADOE) information from the DVLA, Clause A6.1 states that “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct”. Given the above breaches, it is clear the Claimant has obtained Keeper details under false pretences.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.
3. The location of the event is entirely accessible to the public; there are no barriers or obstructions to prevent public access. This falls in the definition of a “road” as per section 142 in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road, meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004.
4. The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times. The signage would therefore be prohibitive in nature and would not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as stopping or parking, at a price). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.
5. The particulars outline the contract’s accepting conduct to be the entering of private land. When approaching the signs in a vehicle, it is not possible to perform the declining conduct without first performing the accepting conduct. In this scenario the Defendant has not had reasonable time to read and digest the terms. The "no stopping" term was forced upon the Defendant, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
i. “A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”
6. Judge Moloney QC reiterates this in Ransomes vs. Anderson (“the Ransomes case”), a persuasive County Court judgement on appeal:
i. “the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.
7. Whether or not the Claimant alleges that they operate under, or rely upon, the Leeds Bradford airport byelaws, these create a level of statutory parking control and must take precedence over the land and cannot be overruled by a claim pleaded in contract or tort. The Defendant’s action was aligned with the exceptions as defined in the airport byelaws.
i. Byelaw 5.16. “No person shall without reasonable excuse when on foot or whilst using, driving or propelling a Vehicle, neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by: - A sign [...], Any road marking on such a road... ”. The Defendant understands that being lost and disoriented due to the roadways constitutes a reasonable excuse.
ii. Byelaw 5.3. “Except in an emergency, no person shall leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by a Sign.”. The Defendant believes the confusion caused by the unexpected turning down the wrong road, which led the Defendant down a one way route, could be considered an emergency situation. The only action the Defendant felt was safe in that moment was to stop the vehicle.
8. It appears that the Claimant has not only created a contract to apply to a public highway, but has also bypassed Airport Byelaws in doing so, defining contradictory terms and conditions that allow them to profiteer from the use of the roads. Even if the Claimant has authority to do that, where is the evidence that these specific areas of the roadways fall within their area map of enforcement, and where are the pictures and locations of the signs that constitute such a “contract”.
I'm just wondering a couple more things:
Is it okay to leave the detail regarding how the "stopping" occured to the witness statement? There's some reference to it in the Byelaw quotes but currently without any additional context in the defence.
Is this going to be an acceptable length when also including most other points from the template defence?
Would it still be acceptable to raise some of the additional points and references to cases or acts, e.g. the Jopson vs Homeguard, in the witness statement?
Sorry if some of the above is stated elsewhere, this is all very new to me and I'm feeling quite out of my depth regarding the process.
Many thanks!