Bristol Airport NTK - 104) Stopping to Pick-Up/Drop Off In a Restricted Zone

RRTechie

Hi,
Today I received a letter from DCBLegal ltd Civil and Commercial Litigation Solicitors working on behalf of VCSL stating that the document is a formal letter of claim in accordance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

The letter further states in effect to do one of the following within 30 days...

Pay up or complete Reply Form and Financial Statement.

What's the next course of action here please?

KeithP

RRTechie said:

Hi,
Today I received a letter from DCBLegal ltd Civil and Commercial Litigation Solicitors working on behalf of VCSL stating that the document is a formal letter of claim in accordance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

The letter further states in effect to do one of the following within 30 days...

Pay up or complete Reply Form and Financial Statement.

What's the next course of action here please?

The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread explain exactly how to deal with that.

RRTechie

Hi everyone,

I have a few more queries please...

Having now read Coupn-mad's second post in the Newbies section I note that she states the repose to Letter of Claim is to request additional 30 days to tie them up.

What is the actual response though to LOC please? Is this where I should build my Defence and then send it in to 'ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk' please?

In addition, I note that coupon-mad states to 'search the forum for the solicitor's email'...I have an email on my DCBLegal LoC letter that states: info@dcblegal.co.uk, should I use this or search for another on the forum pls?

Thank you in advance for your help.

KeithP

RRTechie said:

Hi everyone,

I have a few more queries please...

Having now read Coupn-mad's second post in the Newbies section I note that she states the repose to Letter of Claim is to request additional 30 days to tie them up.

What is the actual response though to LOC please? 

As I wrote two weeks ago, on 15 May at 9:35PM...

KeithP said:
The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread explain exactly how to deal with that.

    

RRTechie said:

What is the actual response though to LOC please? Is this where I should build my Defence and then send it in to 'ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk' please?

The CNBC has no involvement or interest until a County Court Claim is raised.

RRTechie said:

In addition, I note that coupon-mad states to 'search the forum for the solicitor's email'...I have an email on my DCBLegal LoC letter that states: info@dcblegal.co.uk, should I use this or search for another on the forum pls?

That email address is good enough. You only need to search for an email address if you don't have one.

RRTechie

KeithP said:

RRTechie said:

Hi everyone,

I have a few more queries please...

Having now read Coupn-mad's second post in the Newbies section I note that she states the repose to Letter of Claim is to request additional 30 days to tie them up.

What is the actual response though to LOC please? 

As I wrote two weeks ago, on 15 May at 9:35PM...

KeithP said:
The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread explain exactly how to deal with that.

    

RRTechie said:

What is the actual response though to LOC please? Is this where I should build my Defence and then send it in to 'ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk' please?

The CNBC has no involvement or interest until a County Court Claim is raised.

RRTechie said:

In addition, I note that coupon-mad states to 'search the forum for the solicitor's email'...I have an email on my DCBLegal LoC letter that states: info@dcblegal.co.uk, should I use this or search for another on the forum pls?

That email address is good enough. You only need to search for an email address if you don't have one.

Thank you Keith...this is as I thought...request additional 30 days and dispute as vehemently as possible as with my previous approaches.

I assume this is best left close to the end of the initial 30 days to extend the period?

Gr1pr

Correct, as advised in this thread below. ( And advised in the newbies sticky thread. )

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6405118/advice-on-email-to-solicitor-after-lbc/p1

Its ONLY if the claimant issues a court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL that you follow the CNBC advice, etc

RRTechie

Hi everyone,

I have now drafted my LoC response and would recommend your viewpoints if I have missed anything please...

Note:

I had two alleged offences...1)for Drop off at BA (stopped at temp. traffic lights which were red, person got out of car)...2) One for Collection at BA a week later (stopped at same temp. traffic lights which were green but people crossing zebra crossing, person got into passenger seat)...

I have received two LoCs in relation to the above.

1 for the Drop off and another for both Drop Off and Collection.

The below is my draft in response to the second LoC which lists both PCNs...

Your Ref. [REFERENCE FROM THE LOC]

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Ltd [SHOULD THIS BE DCBLegal Here Phil?]

I refer to your letter of claim dated 21/05/2024 referencing PCNs: [2 PCN IDS]

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[MY ADDRESS HERE]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Please do not send me your usual boilerplate regarding that.

I have re-asserted that there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I refer to the persuasive appeal case of ‘VCS v Edward’ where the judge made the following ruling against VCS… 

“it is unreasonable for them to state it is reasonable to believe the keeper was the driver”

Specialist Small Claims Law Firm: Disputing Parking Tickets and More (contestorlegal.co.uk)

In addition, in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed.

Since VCS’ CN and Demand for Payment are vague templates, I have requested that they provide an explanation of the allegation and related evidence, including close up photographs of the actual signs that they contend were at the location on the material date as well as the images of the vehicle, however no information has been provided.

In addition I bring to your attention the following points:

• According to VCS’ own photographs, the vehicle was stopped at Traffic Lights/Pedestrian/Zebra Crossing; Stopping (in a queue) at a Pedestrian/Zebra crossing is a mandatory byelaw requirement therefore there is no breach of parking contract. Additionally, stopping at a traffic light is required by UK law and as per Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, "road, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes". The roads on Bristol Airport's land are publicly accessible and therefore UK legislation applies. 
  
  As evidenced by the still images provided on both charge notices, it is unequivocally clear that multiple pedestrians, are using the crossing. Additionally, the pedestrian traffic control light is green, indicating that pedestrians are crossing and the road traffic light is red, requiring vehicles to stop. It therefore appears that VCS are condoning both breaking the law and placing pedestrians and other road users in grave danger, and are attempting to penalise any driver who refuses to do both of these.
  
  In addition, a driver cannot be held liable for the unexpected actions of a passenger whilst the vehicle was stopped at Traffic Lights/Pedestrian/Zebra Crossing as mandated by Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 that state the following…
  6. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PRIVATE AIRPORT ROADS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY On any private Airport roads or other parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply no person shall: 
• 6.7 Road Traffic Enactments
    drive or cause or permit to be driven any vehicle which fails to comply with any braking, steering, lighting, tyre or electrical requirements which apply to that type of vehicle if it were to be operated on a road to which the Road Traffic Enactments apply.
  
  
• In order to pursue the Defendant as Keeper of the vehicle in question, the Claimant (VCS) is relying on Sch 4 of the POFA. However, para. 1 of this schedule states that “This Schedule applies where— (a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Firstly, it is to be noted that this is an event of stopping but not parking. No parking event has, nor is alleged to have occurred in relation to this claim and so sch 4 of the POFA does not apply.
  
  
• It is also important to note that Airport byelaws apply and since this means the location where the alleged event occurred is not relevant land, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply and the keeper cannot be held liable.
  Sch 4 of the POFA Para. 3 goes on to clarify: “In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—… (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority. (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.” However, as the roads outside of the car parks at Bristol Airport are publicly accessible, they are covered by the Road Traffic Enactments and therefore under authority of the police. Additionally, driving and parking at Bristol Airport is under the statutory control of Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 section 6 “Prohibited Acts on private airport roads and other parts of the airport to which traffic enactments do not apply”. Therefore, the airport is not ‘Relevant Land’ and the POFA does not apply.
  
  

  In reference to the email PDF letter I received dated 03/01/2023 from Excel Parking Services in response to my appeal sent to VCS…
  Bristol Airport Bylaws:
  In the letter I received as the registered keeper dated 03/01/2024 VCS stated the following…
  “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.”
  
  This statement is not true, the Bristol Airport Bylaws are not Obsolete…Bylaws apply to land under statutory control and do not just become "obsolete". The airport land is still the airport land and if it's airport land then it is not Relevant Land and the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply.
  
  The Right Honourable John Penrose MP wrote to Bristol Airport detailing that VCS had stated that Bylaws do not exist and he received the following response on 21/09/2023 that clearly shows VCS/Excel Parking Services are seeking to deceive myself and the general public…
  “Firstly, our Byelaws are definitely in place and are not obsolete. We have of course contacted our third-party parking enforcement provider who have identified an issue with the wording used in the response to the constituent, which does not align with their usual communication standards. The operative used incorrect phrasing with regards to Byelaws in this particular response. Excel Parking Services have assured us that this wording anomaly is not consistent  with the response typically used in other communications.”

  
  
• The Particulars of Claim indicate that the Claimant wishes the courts to believe that a contract was agreed by the Driver of the vehicle by the act of entering the land of Bristol Airport. However, it is not possible to read, consider and accept the terms of the signage which the Claimant relies upon from a moving car and indeed stopping to read a sign constitutes the very contravention for which this charge has arisen – ‘No Stopping’. Therefore, this supposed contract is paradoxically impossible to accept without breaking. In addition this is unfair contract terms as defined by Consumer Rights Act 2015 para 71.
  
  
• Part B2 of VCS's KADOE contract allows VCS to obtain data only for purposes related to trespassing, abandonment and parking charges, not for "stopping", and especially not for stopping  at a traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. VCS are therefore in breach of contract, and a complaint will be made to the DVLA in due course. An overview of valid reasons for obtaining data using the KADOE service can be found here: (https://kadoe.co.uk/dvlaimportantinfo/) and a summary is provided below:
  
  "You are reminded of the conditions of the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) agreement signed between DVLA and your company, and the contract signed between your company and VALCON."
  "Cars parking on private property
  Releasing vehicle information to landowners or their agents helps to find the keeper of a vehicle that has:
• obstructed access to land or property
• been abandoned on private property
• been parked without payment of the relevant fees
• been parked without the right to do so, eg in a space reserved for disabled motorists"
  
  "Information cannot be released for any other reason
  DVLA will monitor your use of KADOE and conduct periodic audits to confirm compliance with the regulations.
  DVLA must meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act, and false declarations may be referred to the Data Protection Registrar as a suspected breach.
  
  WARNING - UNAUTHORISED USE OF DATA CAN RESULT IN PROSECUTION"
  
  
• Furthermore, the term “No Stopping”, as written on the signs, is forbidding and therefore not an offer to stop and pay a charge. Therefore, no contract to pay a charge in the event of stopping was agreed to by the Driver and so no charge can be brought about by doing so. Precedence in Case Law can be found in CS036 PCMUK v Bull et al B4GF26K6.

I have two questions, and under the ‘PAP’ I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

LDast

Why bother giving them your whole case. You could write the contents of the Bible for your response to the LoC and they will still issue a claim. Just put what the Newbies/FAQ thread tells you to put in a response to an LoC.

All the detail you have provided is more like a WS which is wayyy down the line. You are going to get a claim whatever you write. Just ask them about the VAT on the debt recovery fees and tell them you'll see them in court.

RRTechie

LDast said:

Why bother giving them your whole case. You could write the contents of the Bible for your response to the LoC and they will still issue a claim. Just put what the Newbies/FAQ thread tells you to put in a response to an LoC.

All the detail you have provided is more like a WS which is wayyy down the line. You are going to get a claim whatever you write. Just ask them about the VAT on the debt recovery fees and tell them you'll see them in court.

I have no doubt they will issue a claim anyway but my thoughts are that if I send through a detailed response I can quote that in court I even tried at LoC stage to mitigate the costs of going to court but DCBLegal/VCS/Excel ignored and progressed.

Coupon-mad

SHOULD THIS BE DCBLegal Here?

Of course not. The Solicitor isn't the Claimant.