We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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).
VCS - Leeds Bradford - Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited
loge
Posts: 3 Newbie
This will be almost identical to the thread (spikeycacti22, Mar-23), there are many similarities - except VCN haven't made a satisfactory offer to settle.
Now, I'm no vigilante, but this has got me sufficiently aggravated that I thought I'd share it on the forum. Maybe, even, get some advice!
I, too, have been issued a court claim from VCS for “Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited” at Leeds Bradford Airport.
On the day in question (late Dec-22), I drove to Leeds Bradford Airport to park in the Short Stay car park, but found, on arrival, that I couldn't get in to the car park - it had a height restriction (1.9m) and I had a roof box on top of an X-5. So, I had to reverse out of the car park access. I moved out of the way of the car park access, to ensure it wasn't obstructed, drew forward and stopped, to identify how and where to exit the "airport loop". The Meet & Greet and the Pick Up & Drop Off all had similar height restrictions. The shuttle bus & taxi lane have a barrier, with no intercom. It's not straightforward!
It was this "stopping" whilst trying to identify the a safe route out of the "airport loop" that I have been issued a FCN.
Now, this all occurred at 0700 on a wet, dark late-December morning.
I knew that it was a "Red Route." The Red Route starts at the Harrogate Road roundabout and there are "double red lines" and "Red Route" signs all the way. It's well marked.
What I didn't know was that I was entering "private land". When? Where?
Does it make a difference? I think so. I had no idea that this wasn't a public road. Could I possibly enter a contract under such circumstances? Consensus Ad Idem, et al.
Picture1: Leeds Bradford, 2023, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop
I now, having been told so by VCS and after some private research, understand that the "airport loop" is private land; the "Whitehouse Lane" from the Harrogate Road to Scotland Road is "adopted highway". It has "split status" (Leeds.gov.uk Street Register, Street Reference Number 23013441).
So, is it a Red Route? Are VCS enforcing on behalf or the Council? Well: "No!"
The Red Route Clearway was approved by Leeds Council in 2019. Whilst this is reported to be "for Whitehouse Lane, the access route, and other roads adjacent to Leeds Bradford Airport"(1), it is in fact for Whitehouse Lane, Victoria Avenue, Warren House Lane and Harrogate Road (only the adopted part of the highway) and not the "airport loop".
Note 1. Source: Wharfedale Observer, News, 18-Feb-2019
Picture2: Red Route Clearway, Diagram, Leeds City Council, Reference: D4740
Note 2. Source: :Lodders, can-local-highway-authorities-manage-non-publicly-maintainable-highways, 19-Mar-2020
It appears that Leeds Bradford Airport have, themselves, introduced "red lines" markings that mimic the "red route" and signs that resemble the highways agency signs on the "airport loop", the private road.
All very confusing!
In fact, the junction is so confusing, that I have submitted a "Report a problem with a road marking" to Leeds City Council. It would seem more appropriate for the "private road" to be demarcated from the "adopted highway" with a series of " - - - - " dashed road markings as is required by Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and set out in the Traffic Signs Manual (the Manual), 2018, Chapter 5, Road Markings.
What is interesting, is that the original road markings (Google Earth, 2003) show the lines as might be expected by the Manual (see: Picture 3).
Picture3: Leeds Bradford, 2003, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop, Google Earth Pro
However, by 2006, the road markings had changed (see: Picture 4).
Picture4: Leeds Bradford, 2006, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop, Google Earth Pro
The result is that there is no indication, by way of road marking, that a road user is entering "private land".
I am hoping to understand why this was changed. It seems strange that the road markings are such, but the council / traffic authority clearly are only taking responsibility for the "adopted highway".
Private Land
It all appears to come down to a matter of "private land" and "private contract".
I have been back to Leeds Bradford, in daylight, and walked the road. There are signs on either side of the junction, as the road proceeds up to the airport on the "airport loop", which look like highways agency road signs.
Picture5: Leeds Bradford, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop, Photo, Jul-23
However, at 0700 in the morning, in the wet and the dark, driving on a "Red Route", I wasn't stopping to read the signs, that seemingly repeated other "Red Route" restrictions. And I certainly didn't get to the point that I understood that the "private property" related to the road, rather than the airport generally, or the parking areas behind the signs.
SO,
Although I had the awareness that I might be prosecuted under the Highway Code, in a Magistrates Court, or issued with a fine for stopping on a "red route". I had no idea that I was, half way down the "split status" road, transitioning to a private road, and now agreeing to pay a penalty to a private company, if I stopped. I certainly had no opportunity to "accept, reject or negotiate terms."
I have had some advice. Mostly, "just pay up". But from one barrister friend, that "if a contract was formed, it would be reasonable to imply a condition that the driver could stop if unable to continue."
The main point is, perhaps, did [VCS] do enough to bring the "offer" of a contract to my attention? No road markings! Indistinguishable signs & road markings to the adopted highway! Was the contract fair? Opportunity to accept, decline or negotiate?
I mean, it's not a roundabout. Is it! I can't exactly stop and go somewhere else!
NOW,
I'm seriously aggravated.
Just like spikeycacti22, I have spent a huge amount of time explaining the incident to VCS, the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), VCS's legal agent Elms Legal Ltd, and submitting a Defence on Money Claims Online, to receive an response from VCS that they are prepared to settle if I pay £195.
I have rejected this settlement offer, but indicated a willingness to mediate.
I have told VCS, from the start, that their conduct is "unreasonable." I just get standard letters in response to every piece of correspondence. It's a waste of my time writing, as they don't read the letters. Just more threatening letters, by return. So, I informed them that I would seek to recover 'further' costs (CPR 27.14 (2)(g)), even though it is a Small Claim for their unreasonable conduct. I have advised that I will charge £50/hr for my time, and I have kept a log of my time for this purpose. When I submitted my defence, I raised a counterclaim, for my wasted time.
I understand the need to manage the access to the airport. However, the "red route" is obviously driven by LBA's desire to generate "money" charging for Pick-Up & Drop-Off.
My sense of justification only seems to get stronger by the day, as I begin to understand the deception that is being perpetrated. The pressure applied on the Council to manage "road safety" and "emergency access to the airport", to screw passengers for more money. Not to mention the attempt to misuse the law and the legal system to extort and intimidate.
I fear I am becoming a VIGILANTE!
SO
If anyone has any expertise on road markings, or contract law...(or even Byelaw)
I haven't even started in the byelaws!
Now, I'm no vigilante, but this has got me sufficiently aggravated that I thought I'd share it on the forum. Maybe, even, get some advice!
I, too, have been issued a court claim from VCS for “Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited” at Leeds Bradford Airport.
On the day in question (late Dec-22), I drove to Leeds Bradford Airport to park in the Short Stay car park, but found, on arrival, that I couldn't get in to the car park - it had a height restriction (1.9m) and I had a roof box on top of an X-5. So, I had to reverse out of the car park access. I moved out of the way of the car park access, to ensure it wasn't obstructed, drew forward and stopped, to identify how and where to exit the "airport loop". The Meet & Greet and the Pick Up & Drop Off all had similar height restrictions. The shuttle bus & taxi lane have a barrier, with no intercom. It's not straightforward!
It was this "stopping" whilst trying to identify the a safe route out of the "airport loop" that I have been issued a FCN.
Now, this all occurred at 0700 on a wet, dark late-December morning.
I knew that it was a "Red Route." The Red Route starts at the Harrogate Road roundabout and there are "double red lines" and "Red Route" signs all the way. It's well marked.
What I didn't know was that I was entering "private land". When? Where?
Does it make a difference? I think so. I had no idea that this wasn't a public road. Could I possibly enter a contract under such circumstances? Consensus Ad Idem, et al.
Picture1: Leeds Bradford, 2023, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop
I now, having been told so by VCS and after some private research, understand that the "airport loop" is private land; the "Whitehouse Lane" from the Harrogate Road to Scotland Road is "adopted highway". It has "split status" (Leeds.gov.uk Street Register, Street Reference Number 23013441).
So, is it a Red Route? Are VCS enforcing on behalf or the Council? Well: "No!"
The Red Route Clearway was approved by Leeds Council in 2019. Whilst this is reported to be "for Whitehouse Lane, the access route, and other roads adjacent to Leeds Bradford Airport"(1), it is in fact for Whitehouse Lane, Victoria Avenue, Warren House Lane and Harrogate Road (only the adopted part of the highway) and not the "airport loop".
Note 1. Source: Wharfedale Observer, News, 18-Feb-2019
Picture2: Red Route Clearway, Diagram, Leeds City Council, Reference: D4740
What appears strange, is that, if the 'traffic authority' can impose parking restrictions, with the consequent yellow [red] lines, on any road open to the public — which includes un-adopted highways(2), why did the Council not extend the Red Route to include the "airport loop".
Note 2. Source: :Lodders, can-local-highway-authorities-manage-non-publicly-maintainable-highways, 19-Mar-2020
It appears that Leeds Bradford Airport have, themselves, introduced "red lines" markings that mimic the "red route" and signs that resemble the highways agency signs on the "airport loop", the private road.
All very confusing!
In fact, the junction is so confusing, that I have submitted a "Report a problem with a road marking" to Leeds City Council. It would seem more appropriate for the "private road" to be demarcated from the "adopted highway" with a series of " - - - - " dashed road markings as is required by Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and set out in the Traffic Signs Manual (the Manual), 2018, Chapter 5, Road Markings.
What is interesting, is that the original road markings (Google Earth, 2003) show the lines as might be expected by the Manual (see: Picture 3).
Picture3: Leeds Bradford, 2003, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop, Google Earth Pro
However, by 2006, the road markings had changed (see: Picture 4).
Picture4: Leeds Bradford, 2006, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop, Google Earth Pro
The result is that there is no indication, by way of road marking, that a road user is entering "private land".
I am hoping to understand why this was changed. It seems strange that the road markings are such, but the council / traffic authority clearly are only taking responsibility for the "adopted highway".
Private Land
It all appears to come down to a matter of "private land" and "private contract".
I have been back to Leeds Bradford, in daylight, and walked the road. There are signs on either side of the junction, as the road proceeds up to the airport on the "airport loop", which look like highways agency road signs.
Picture5: Leeds Bradford, Whitehouse Lane & Airport Loop, Photo, Jul-23
However, at 0700 in the morning, in the wet and the dark, driving on a "Red Route", I wasn't stopping to read the signs, that seemingly repeated other "Red Route" restrictions. And I certainly didn't get to the point that I understood that the "private property" related to the road, rather than the airport generally, or the parking areas behind the signs.
SO,
Although I had the awareness that I might be prosecuted under the Highway Code, in a Magistrates Court, or issued with a fine for stopping on a "red route". I had no idea that I was, half way down the "split status" road, transitioning to a private road, and now agreeing to pay a penalty to a private company, if I stopped. I certainly had no opportunity to "accept, reject or negotiate terms."
I have had some advice. Mostly, "just pay up". But from one barrister friend, that "if a contract was formed, it would be reasonable to imply a condition that the driver could stop if unable to continue."
The main point is, perhaps, did [VCS] do enough to bring the "offer" of a contract to my attention? No road markings! Indistinguishable signs & road markings to the adopted highway! Was the contract fair? Opportunity to accept, decline or negotiate?
I mean, it's not a roundabout. Is it! I can't exactly stop and go somewhere else!
NOW,
I'm seriously aggravated.
Just like spikeycacti22, I have spent a huge amount of time explaining the incident to VCS, the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), VCS's legal agent Elms Legal Ltd, and submitting a Defence on Money Claims Online, to receive an response from VCS that they are prepared to settle if I pay £195.
I have rejected this settlement offer, but indicated a willingness to mediate.
I have told VCS, from the start, that their conduct is "unreasonable." I just get standard letters in response to every piece of correspondence. It's a waste of my time writing, as they don't read the letters. Just more threatening letters, by return. So, I informed them that I would seek to recover 'further' costs (CPR 27.14 (2)(g)), even though it is a Small Claim for their unreasonable conduct. I have advised that I will charge £50/hr for my time, and I have kept a log of my time for this purpose. When I submitted my defence, I raised a counterclaim, for my wasted time.
I understand the need to manage the access to the airport. However, the "red route" is obviously driven by LBA's desire to generate "money" charging for Pick-Up & Drop-Off.
My sense of justification only seems to get stronger by the day, as I begin to understand the deception that is being perpetrated. The pressure applied on the Council to manage "road safety" and "emergency access to the airport", to screw passengers for more money. Not to mention the attempt to misuse the law and the legal system to extort and intimidate.
I fear I am becoming a VIGILANTE!
SO
If anyone has any expertise on road markings, or contract law...(or even Byelaw)
I haven't even started in the byelaws!
0
Comments
-
Hello and welcome.loge said:I have spent a huge amount of time explaining the incident to VCS, the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), VCS's legal agent Elms Legal Ltd, and submitting a Defence on Money Claims Online, to receive an response from VCS that they are prepared to settle if I pay £195.
I have rejected this settlement offer, but indicated a willingness to mediate.
Having now received that response from VCS, you can expect a Notice of Discontinuance to drop through your letter-box any day now.1 -
This copy of the LBA bylaws, which include a boundary map of where they apply, may be useful:
https://lba-production.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/leeds-bradford-airport-byelaws-2022.pdf
1 -
Bylaw 3.37 in particular applies in this case and contradicts the scam tried on by VCS. You are bound to obey the bylaws and you did. Following the imaginary rules dreamt up by an intellectually malnourished employee of VCS would have caused you to breach the bylaws. Contra legem.2
-
Also, 5.10.1 "reasonable excuse" applies.0
-
And 5.16-"observe signs".2
-
And to use the above, if you complain make sure to refer to it as an un regulated parking company, and throw in the term intellectually malnourished as wellFrom the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"2 -
@loge why did you counterclaim? You don't have to counterclaim for your costs.
What stage are you at? Hearing date yet? Done your WS and evidence bundle?
Read recent ones such as the one by @vincentvega27 ?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 THREAD2 -
Thank you @coupon-mad.
The answer is probably my frustration with their unreasonable conduct.
If I hadn't issues a counterclaim they would have been able to discontinue, having put me through all the hassle of dealing with their "intellectually malnourished" and "unregulated" business.
Whilst the "counterclaim" is not likely to be a valid counterclaim, it will oblige them to come to attend court and present their case, which is essentially not very good. I will then request the court to award further costs for on account of their unreasonable behaviour.
I run a risk that the court may not find in my favour. Hence, trying to get as much input, from as wide a group of experienced people, as possible!
I don't have a court date yet. I haven't completely finished my Defence. I had planned to combine Defence and Witness Statement into one document.
Thoughts?
Thanks you
0 -
In your opening post you told us you filed "a Defence on Money Claims Online".loge said:I haven't completely finished my Defence. I had planned to combine Defence and Witness Statement into one document.
Thoughts?
Can you now please show us what you have already filed as a defence?
You cannot have a second go at writing a Defence - well you can, but only on payment of a £108 fee and with the court's permission.3
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards