VCS at EMA -Stopping in a NO STOPPING ZONE

SumySani

Hi All,
I went through the various threads and appealed against the VCS PCN issue to the NTK for stopping on BP Station exit area for few secs ( less then 6 secs).
I sent the appeal based on the info I got in the threads but they rejected the appeal and confirmed that I can appeal to the IAS.

This is the reply I got:

 We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 02/10/2023. 10/10/2023.
 Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows: 

 The signs at the entrance to the East Midlands International Airport and the access roads within, clearly state "No Stopping", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.

 In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was when your vehicle was seen to be stopped on the access road. 

 You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 on the Notice issued to you; however we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper.
 It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped to collect a passenger on the access road where restrictions apply.

We note your comment concerning the use of byelaws at the Airport; as already stated the signs at the entrance to the airport clearly identify the roads as private property. Byelaws are not currently in use as the last set of byelaws published relate to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company.

 We note your comments in relation to the amount of the Charge Notice; our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. This was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis ([2015]

There are over 240 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable. The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping). Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that location.

 We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk

would it be wised to appeal to the IAS ?

KeithP

We note your comment concerning the use of byelaws at the Airport; as already stated the signs at the entrance to the airport clearly identify the roads as private property. Byelaws are not currently in use as the last set of byelaws published relate to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company.

The Airport Company simply cannot arbitrarily decide that the byelaws 'are now regarded as obsolete' and indeed have not done so.

East Midlands Airport plc still show the byelaws on the Operational Documents page of their website.

Coupon-mad

Do an IAS appeal attaching VCS v Edward.

I'll attach it.

SumySani

That's what is in the reply from VCS documented which I have copied and pasted.
Do you I write to IAS mentioning this point as well as VCS accessing the DVLA Database on the basis of parking enforcement, yet this was not a parking enforcement.

Coupon-mad

VCS accessing the DVLA Database on the basis of parking enforcement, yet this was not a parking enforcement. 

That's not a winning point. Forget it.

SumySani

One additional point is that the passenger being picked up is the NTK and hence was not the driver. Mentioning that would potentially force me to admit to who is the driver ?

UncleThomasCobley

This is so winnable if VCS ever try to take this to court.

...reasonable assumption that you were the driver...

Appeal court judgment alone would get this thrown out but you must also use all the other arguments, including the fact that they cannot hold you liable as the keeper as it is not "relevant land" and covered by bylaws (which cannot just become "obsolete", which only proves their intellectual malnourishment).

This is the transcript of VCS v Ian Edward appeal judgment:

https://www.scribd.com/document/676990739/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward

Coupon-mad

Nope it's vital to mention that and even prove it with the flight booking.

SumySani

Their own picture shows the RK getting into the passenger side , hence cannot be driving. In addtion I can provide the flight details that the registered keeper was the person travelling

SumySani

Seems like the IAS Appeal is all online now.
I will submit an appeal today, hope to have the PCN cancelled.

Umkomaas

SumySani said:

Seems like the IAS Appeal is all online now.
I will submit an appeal today, hope to have the PCN cancelled.

You've only been here for an hour. Please slow down. Let's see your proposed IAS appeal as it has the potential to paint them into a corner. We'll assist with the wording.