Parking charge for stopping at Bristol airport

Boudouche1

@Fruitcake I sent you broader explanation by email as you helped to draft the appeal letter

B789

It's IAS. Ignore them. No surprise. They are all in the same club. No independence there. You will win this at Plan D stage.

Fruitcake

Have you received anything from Excel as opposed to VCS? If so you need to point out that this is a completely different accounting company with a completely different company number registered at Companies House, and therefore VCS have breached the DPA 2015 and the GDPR 2018 by sharing your personal data with a company that is not a party to the airport parking contract.

As for their response to your appeal, you rebut their comments and repeat your points. 

VCS do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, which is a foreign investment company.
The vehicle was not stopped on red lines as clearly shown by their own photographic evidence.
Therefore, the vehicle was not stopped in a No-Stopping zone as clearly shown by their own photographic evidence.
There was no No-Stopping sign at the car park exit road where the car was photographed.
There were no parking restrictions, (no signs nor surface markings of any kind or colour) where the vehicle was photographed. 
The VCS contract with the landowner's sub-contractor, Bristol Airport Ltd, clearly shows the vehicle was photographed outside the area where VCS are authorised to operate.
Signs on a different roadway to the one where the vehicle was photographed are irrelevant and cannot possibly form a contract with a motorist outside the area they are authorised to operate by the landowner's agent.
The site is covered by airport byelaws. Stopping is not a breach of byelaws.
The driver's identity has not been given. Since airport byelaws apply, the site is not relevant land and therefore the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable.

As for appealing to VCS's human side, in my opinion they do not have one. All they and their millionaire owner care about is money.

Boudouche1

@Fruitcake , thank you for your comments. I don't know who responsded to me - the section says "Operator Prima Facie Case". I wil repeat the points I made, using the advice you gave. I will also edit the map, demonstrating that VCS is not authorised to operate outside the area regulated by their contract. The current maop shows the whole airport being within the VCS remit, including parking lots, which is not true (otherwise everyone stopping and parking in the car parks will be liable for charges).

Fruitcake

Whilst there may be a boundary map, they are only authorised to operate on certain roads or parts of roads, indicated by the red line along the main road through the site. This red line does not cover nor encroach into the car park entrance/exit roads where the vehicle was photographed. (I hope you realise why my comments repeatedly state, "where the car was photographed," not, "where the car was stopped."

Remind them if you like that they have lost several court cases at Bristol Airport, including one where a vehicle was stopped in a queue of traffic on a car park entrance road leading to a barrier to the car park, and at a roundabout near the hotel at a give way sign. In both cases the judge determined that the vehicle was outside the red line/no-stopping zone.

Keep rebutting over and over again all the points from your original appeal and from my previous post.
Hopefully they will eventually put your appeal on the "too difficult, this person knows what they are doing" pile.

Boudouche1

@Fruitcake, thank you. I will work on my case this weekend and send a rebuttla to the case made by VCS

Boudouche1

Hi @Fruitcake , @Umkomaas , @B789 . I will appreciate your help with the protracted appeal process with the IAS. VCS are arguing that they have authority to enforce the no stopping policy (they only share the supporting document with the IAS). They also argue that I entered into a contract ith VCS either by acting in a way that implies agreement, i.e. by entering the No Stopping area. It means it was my responsiblity to check the terms of the contract and not to stop - or leave the site. The VCS also say I was close to the No Stoppiong site. I would appreciate advice omn how to reply (within the nhext 5 days).

Fruitcake

I should have something for you by midday tomorrow.

I think the fact that the IAS has not out and out rejected your appeal yet is a good sign. They dragged mine out for ages before eventually crumbling because I wouldn't back down.

Remember, this is costing them money so at some point they will either cancel, or they will issue a court claim which will mean you were no worse off than when you started. 

Fruitcake

I have just liberated an old kitchen sink you could throw at VCS.

1) VCS are not the landowner.

2) VCS do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner.

3) The only contract VCS have is with the landowner’s sub-contractor. That contract clearly defines the area within the airport where VCS are authorised to operate. VCS are not authorised to operate on car park slip roads at Bristol Airport as already tested in at least two court cases and one IAS appeal, all of which VCS lost.

The vehicle in question was photographed outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate by the landowner’s sub-contractor.

4) As registered keeper, I was issued with a parking charge notice, not a “no-stopping notice.” It is trite law that stopping is not parking as determined by judge Harris in Laura Jopson v Homeguard Services, case number B9GF0A9E who said that coping with some vicissitude of short duration is not parking.

The driver was lost and disoriented by the poor signage at the site pertaining to the drop-off car park, and was merely attempting to determine where they needed to go. This would indeed constitute coping with some vicissitude of short duration, and therefore does not meet the definition of parking in the aforementioned appeal case.

In addition, this action by the driver is permitted in accordance with paragraph 6.9 of Bristol Airport Byelaws. (The driver had a reasonable excuse not to observe signs).

5) The IPC Code of Practice, in its list of definitions states, ““Parking Event” means a single period of a Vehicle being stationary otherwise than in the normal course of driving.””

It is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that the “Man on the Clapham omnibus” would consider determining directions when lost in order for a driver to reach their destination constitutes “the normal course of driving.”

6) VCS have used signage identical to that used in the Highway Code. These signs are identical to the meaning contained within the Highway Code.

Were a no-stopping zone exists, its boundaries are defined by single or double red lines, as shown here in this extract from the Highway Code.

 

There were no red lines, (neither single nor double) where the vehicle was photographed. It is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that the absence of red lines means that the precise location where the vehicle was photographed was not part of the no stopping zone.

Indeed, the double red lines had end bars that fell outside the precise location where the vehicle was photographed, and was therefore outside any purported “no-stopping” zone. If it had been photographed within the “no-stopping” zone then double red lines as defined by the Highway Code would have been present adjacent to the vehicle.

7) There was a complete absence of “no-stopping” signs facing into the long-stay car park slip road where the vehicle was photographed, which in any case was outside the area where VCS are authorised to operate by the landowner’s sub-contractor.

Whilst VCS have supplied amended images from the date of the alleged event purportedly showing signs, ringed in red, none of these signs are legible nor are they capable of forming a contract with the driver.

8) A subsequent site visit to the airport shows that the purported sign to the left of the vehicle in the images supplied breaches paragraphs c, d, and e of the IPC Code of Practice with regards to Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions because it does not: -

a) identify VCS as ‘the Creditor’

b) identify the amount of any charge and explain when it becomes payable;

c) advise Motorists that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made for the Keeper’s details from DVLA, or, that they may be requested immediately such that a notice may be served on the keeper by post;

9) Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that: -

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Terms and conditions contained within signs on the opposite side of North Side Road to where the vehicle was photographed on the long-stay car park exit road differ from the terms and conditions on the sign adjacent to the long-stay car park exit road indicated in the operator’s own Images. It is averred therefore that in accordance with Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the meaning of the closest sign, that does no impose a charge on a motorist for stopping, is the one that favours the motorist, and therefore it is the one that must prevail.

This must be the case since there are no single or double red lines where the vehicle was photographed to indicate the vehicle was in a no-stopping area.

VCS cannot mix and match the meaning of terms or implied terms on a whim to suit themselves, nor imply that signs on a different road can form a contract with the driver. A no stopping zone as defined by the Highway Code must have single or double red line surface markings.

10) There were no parking restrictions, (no signs nor surface markings of any kind or colour) where the vehicle was photographed that stated or even implied that a motorist was liable to pay a charge.

11) Signs on a different roadway to the one where the vehicle was photographed are irrelevant and cannot possibly form a contract with a motorist outside the area where the operator is authorised to operate by the landowner's agent.

12) The airport and service roads are not relevant land and are covered by airport byelaws. Whilst the landowner could instigate court proceedings for an alleged breach of byelaws, the case can only be brought in the Magistrates’ Court, only within six months of the alleged breach of byelaws, and any monies paid by the defendant should they lose would go to the Crown treasury.

It should be noted that stopping is not a Bristol Airport Byelaws offence.

13) The VCS camera van used at Bristol airport to capture my VRM, which is classed as personal data, was erroneously marked as a Road Safety Unit. This is not the purpose for which it was being used, nor was the covert purpose for which CCTV images captured by the van brought to the attention of motorists. These are breaches of the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice 2013 as amended in 2021.

 

I suggest the operator either cancels the charge now to save themselves money, or risks losing yet another court case as they have previously done for issuing charges to a vehicle that was not parked, outside the area where they are contracted by a sub-contractor to operate.

Umkomaas

Super job @Fruitcake.👏