VCS at EMA -Stopping in a NO STOPPING ZONE

SumySani

I got a reply from the IAS Operator as below:

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

1. East Midlands International Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 244 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping'. The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100.

2. Signage makes it clear that any motorist stopping in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We are employed solely to strictly enforce the Terms and Conditions as per our contract with the landowner. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed throughout the site.

3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.

4. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport approach roads and the dedicated bus access routes, due to growing congestion caused by vehicles stopping and blocking lanes. The subsequent congestion has created safety risks for other motorists and potential costly delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the Airport. This PCN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on a private road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing this route, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads, where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.

5. The CCTV footage we possess shows that the vehicle stopped on an airport access road, designated by the landowner where stopping is prohibited at all times. A review of the footage shows the vehicle approaching its stationary position, stopping and remaining stationary for approximately 13 seconds whilst 1 person enters the vehicle.

6. A copy of our authority to enforce the No Stopping terms and conditions in place on this site was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.

7. We are not invoking the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982, we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant, as registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and we support this by the knowledge the appellant has in relation to the circumstances ("events of the day") in relation to this Charge Notice.

8. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver.

9. The appellant has presented no independently corroborative that shows that they were not and could not have been the driver at the time of the contravention. Whilst the appellant has presented a flight booking confirmation, this in no way demonstrates that they were not the driver at the time in question. There is no evidence that the appellant was themselves a passenger on the flight from Malaga, which is dated the day before the contravention or at what time that flight landed.

10. There are 244 signs onsite; we contend the driver had clear notice of the no stopping restrictions in place. We have supplied the East Midlands Signage map to show the stopping place of the appellant's vehicle. It should be noted that to reach the location at which they stopped, the driver must have driven past several signs, clearly displaying the stopping restrictions and therefore the driver had sufficient notice to decide whether or not to adhere to the no-stopping restrictions.

11. The signage on the access roads is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists and the text size is relative to the average approach speed of vehicles, which at this location is 30 mph. Furthermore, all signage at the site uses the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for 'No Stopping' (clearway). It should be noted that the large entrance signs are 2000mm x 1100mm and, to put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door. They are also reflective to ensure they can be seen with headlights.

12. The circumstances on the day cited by the appellant, of which no independently corroborated evidence has been presented, do not warrant the cancellation of this notice. This was not an appropriate place for the appellant to stop to pick up their passengers. The airport has clearly signposted pick up and drop off facilities. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated vehicles must not be stopped; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice. The adjudicator will note that the appellant had the opportunity to leave the site if they could not comply with the terms and conditions.

13. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage at this site, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit and is deemed fit for purpose.

14. Ultimately, when entering this private land it was the sole responsibility of the driver to fully comply with the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions, by their failure to do so the appellant became liable for the PCN, which was lawfully issued.

15. By stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.

SumySani

They have now given me 10 days to appeal to the Operators Response or refer the case to the arbitration.
Again they have given me a response box which can hold a 1000 words. 
do I just put the same text and and submit it as a response to the Operator

Coupon-mad

It's not 'Edwards'.

I couldn't see that you said you weren't driving. That was a fundamental thing to say at the start.

I couldn't see that you said that you actually uploaded the VCS v Edward (no 's') transcript. Tell us you did (surely...?) otherwise this appeal is wasted.

Before you appealed to the IAS I stopped you from rushing it, gave you the PDF and said:

Coupon-mad said: 

Where's the VCS v Edward case and wording about it, copied from a forum search result?  You were provided with the transcript as the ONLY possible way to paint the IAS assessor into a corner, yet you haven't used it.

Keep it short and on point with the words about VCS v Edward and Excel v Smith almost first.  Hit the assessor with two appeal level transcripts (search the forum for the recent wording and the link to the Smith case).

Not much else will work. The rest should be short info to support the case - eg. Flight details and proof to show the keeper wasn't driving.

Please reassure us that you did this?

We didn't suggest you reference the old county court case of Excel v Lamoureux because it's not persuasive. It's not an Appeal case so was not worth adding.

I advised you search for & copy the words about VCS v Edward and about Excel v Smith. It was only written last month and you were encouraged to use that wording and upload and rely on those two appeal cases.

The Assessor doesn't have VCS v Edward (nor Excel v Smith) unless you uploaded it/them. This was clearly advised. Maybe I'm worried about nothing... Hope you did!  

SumySani

I thought the first point was from the VCS v Edwards transcript. I thought I mentioned that I was the passenger in the points below. It was late and I must have missed pasting that line in.
I have submitted the transcript as a pdf on the response now and added the point that I was the passenger being picked up and hence cannot be the driver at the alleged time.
I couldn't find the Excel v Smith transcript 

Le_Kirk

SumySani said:

I thought the first point was from the VCS v Edwards transcript. I thought I mentioned that I was the passenger in the points below. It was late and I must have missed pasting that line in.
I have submitted the transcript as a pdf on the response now and added the point that I was the passenger being picked up and hence cannot be the driver at the alleged time.
I couldn't find the Excel v Smith transcript 

It is not Edwards but Edward  you did state "the vehicle was moving slowly so the RK could have got in" ergo difficult to have been driver at the same time.

SumySani

I've called it out that the passenger being collected is the Registered Keeper in my response and uploaded the transcript of VCS v Edward. They are still pursuing on the assumption that the RK is the driver

Coupon-mad

SumySani said:

I've called it out that the passenger being collected is the Registered Keeper in my response and uploaded the transcript of VCS v Edward. They are still pursuing on the assumption that the RK is the driver

This is better. This is what you were advised to do in the appeal, making it very clear you were not driving and attaching the transcript.  Now let's see.

SumySani

This is the latest response from IAS:

The operator made their response on 10/11/2023 14:40:59.

The adjudicator will note. There is no passenger name on the flight confirmation itself. The appellant has presented no independently corroborative evidence that demonstrates that they were not and could not be the driver. Until and unless such evidence is presented we shall continue to hold the appellant liable for the charge under the reasonable assumption that they as registered keeper of the vehicle were the driver, citing the case of Elliott v Loake.

I clearly called out that I am the RK who is getting into the car as the passenger.  I uploaded my email confirmation for the tickets which I received, however the confirmation did not have the passenger name on the flight details.

I will upload the Ryanair App details which has the RK's name as a Passenger on the flight as additional information as requested.

We'll see what response I get from them.

Coupon-mad

SumySani said:

This is the latest response from IAS:

The operator made their response on 10/11/2023 14:40:59.

The adjudicator will note. There is no passenger name on the flight confirmation itself. The appellant has presented no independently corroborative evidence that demonstrates that they were not and could not be the driver. Until and unless such evidence is presented we shall continue to hold the appellant liable for the charge under the reasonable assumption that they as registered keeper of the vehicle were the driver, citing the case of Elliott v Loake.

I clearly called out that I am the RK who is getting into the car as the passenger.  I uploaded my email confirmation for the tickets which I received, however the confirmation did not have the passenger name on the flight details.

I will upload the Ryanair App details which has the RK's name as a Passenger on the flight as additional information as requested.

We'll see...

Go for it...surely close to them giving up!

Please could you post your NTK here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-2023-parking-firm-ntks/p1

We haven't got a VCS one there yet.

SumySani

Hi
I posted the NTK as requested above.

I also got a reply back from VCS.  They are just being ST*P*D.  I cannot believe they have made the comments below.  Are they seriously going to present these comments to the judge in court.

1. Whilst the appellant's name is shown at the top of the confirmation, no passenger name and details are shown.

2. The contravention took place on 17/09/2023 but the return flight shown on the confirmation is dated 16/09/2023. EMA is a comparatively small airport. Even if the appellant was the passenger there is no evidence to believe that they would not have had time to land, exit the airport and collect their vehicle before the confirmation occurred.

3. The appellant's evidence does not confirm that they were not and could not have been the driver at the time of the contravention.

This is after I sent a picture of the trip itinerary from the Ryanair App.
The picture clearly shows the Flight details - inbound and outbound with price and passenger name - which is the RK name.
So their point 1 does not make any sense.

Point 2 - this is because the return flight was at 23:10, however there was a delay and the flight landed at 23:20, from the flight landing and coming through the airport ( via Passport control and luggage pick up ) and walking down to the BP station took 40 mins.  This is very reasonable.  The date 17/09/2023 is mentioned as the picture taken was after 32 secs after midnight.

They totally ignoring that the RK has confirmed that the picture of the passenger is the RK, who is getting into the passenger side.

Is there any point to respond asking them to go to Specsavers first ( get the 2 for the price of 1 offer ) and then read my points.