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

Imnotpaying

Coupon-mad said:

And none of us would read their rubbish!

I would, because I want to find out if there's a reference to a CURRENT contract between VCS and BAL and, if so, when it came into force.  Can you enlarge on that point, @RRTechie?

RRTechie

FYI: We (Fruitcake and I) have had a bit of a task obfuscating the VCS WS but thanks to Fruitcake we have a version that I'll stitch together with image files that I'll post here soon.

On another note, I made a SAR request to VCS and they have responded today.

RRTechie

FYI, here is the redacted edition of the WS from DCBLegal (VCSL):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wRSskkB6uS7bgsAP6NpzkischC34Knzh/view?usp=sharing

Many thanks to @Fruitcake for helping to put this together into a redacted format.

RRTechie

Imnotpaying said:

Coupon-mad said:

And none of us would read their rubbish!

I would, because I want to find out if there's a reference to a CURRENT contract between VCS and BAL and, if so, when it came into force.  Can you enlarge on that point, @RRTechie?

VCS WS provided in previous post includes their BA contract.

Spottydog65

RRTechie said:

FYI, here is the redacted edition of the WS from DCBLegal (VCSL):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wRSskkB6uS7bgsAP6NpzkischC34Knzh/view?usp=sharing

Many thanks to @Fruitcake for helping to put this together into a redacted format.

Intersting that their WS states you were 'parking' (point13)!!
and point 31 is laughable given they seem to issue these daily to generate recenue or BA. 

Fruitcake

I have been helping the OP off forum. Due to home and work commitments, they have been struggling to find the time to generate a WS.

This is what they have so far, but please note that due to time constraints, the OP has not included some rebuttal points to the VCS WS, but will instead generate "crib notes" in the next fortnight to rebut the relevant points at the hearing as opposed to specifically including these same points in their WS.
For example, their WS shows a random image unrelated to where the alleged event occurred, and shows a stock image of a sign. These points will be rebutted at the hearing, but have not been included in the OP's WS.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited

 

(Claimant) 

 

- and -

 

RRTechie

(Defendant)

_________________

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

Index of Exhibits

RRT01 etcetera

 

1.     I am the Defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. My account has been prepared upon my own knowledge.

 

2.     In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page, reference numbers and excerpts where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Sequence of events:

3.     I confirm that the vehicle was used to transfer a relative to Bristol Airport (BA) on 12/12/2023 and to collect the same relative from BA on 17/12/2023. In both events the vehicle was stopped at the same road traffic signals setup to protect a pedestrian crossing, Not Parked, and as is clearly evident from the Vehicle Control Services’ (VCS) own images, pedestrians were crossing the aforementioned pedestrian crossing during the periods of stopping at the lights. In addition, some of the claimant's own images show the vehicle was stopped at a red traffic light at the material time.

4.     I appealed the case directly to VCS and subsequently made multiple complaints to VCS, BA, The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and the International parking Community, all in an attempt to narrow the issue but all to no avail.

5.     The airport is covered by airport bylaws. Stopping to obey road traffic signs and (traffic) lights is not a bylaw breach reference BA Bylaws 2012 section 6-6.7. The airport is not permitted for aircraft operations without bylaws or equivalent in place. Third party unregulated sub-contractor terms for consumers should not be more onerous than statutory law or mandatory regulations.

(i)       Exhibit 1 - Bristol Airport Bylaws 2012.

6.     In reference to an email letter the Defendant received dated 03/01/2024 from Excel Parking Services (Excel), a sister company to VCS, in response to the defendant’s appeal to VCS, the claimant responded that,

“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. Bristol Airport Bylaws are not Obsolete.

(i)       Exhibit 2 – Excel Parking Services Email dated 03/01/2024

 

7.     The Right Honourable John Penrose MP wrote to Bristol Airport Limited detailing that Excel had stated on behalf of VCS that Bylaws were obsolete and Mister Penrose received the following response on 21/09/2023 from BA Ltd.
“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.”

(i)       Exhibit 3 – RH John Penrose MP Letter

8.     The response received from BA Ltd clearly states that Bylaws “are definitely in place and are not obsolete’ and that Excel Parking Services had assured Bristol Airport that ‘this wording anomaly is not consistent with the response typically used in other communications’ however, clearly this is not the case because Excel recited the same statement to myself. Since the alleged event occurred only a few weeks after Mister Penrose contacted BA Ltd, it is my opinion that the untrue statement made to me appears to have been a deliberate attempt to deceive.

9.     Even if the alleged debt were genuinely due, which is denied, VCS have no right to add costs of debt recovery or legal claims. POFA paragraph 4 (5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK, in this case £100.

(i)       Exhibit 4 - Protection of Freedom Act

 

10.  In both Charge Notices issued for Dropping off on 12/12/2023 and for Collection on 17/12/2023, the "period of parking" is stated in the Charge Notices to be "the period immediately preceding the Time of Event" but this appears to be completely false as the vehicle is not parked, it is lawfully stopped at a pedestrian crossing. The Charge Notices therefore do not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) paragraph 9 (2) (a) since, without parking, there can be no period of parking. This also constitutes a breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code Of Practice (CoP) v8 Schedule 3 and therefore also paragraph 16.1.

(i)       Exhibit 5 - IPC Code of Practice

11.  Picking Up and Dropping Off (PUDO) is not parking as determined in the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard, yet VCS issued parking charge notices for these alleged non-parking events.. They actually specifically state that the charge was not issued for stopping in a no stopping area.

(i)       Exhibit 6 = Jopson v Homeguard transcript.

(ii)      Correspondence from VCS that the charge was not being pursued for stopping, but for picking up dropping off.

12.  On 04/02/2025 a Subject Access Request (SAR) was made to VCS for all information that they held in relation to myself. VCS did not provide any video footage and the images that they provided did not provide coverage of the vehicle approaching the traffic lights therefore in the case of the alleged Collection offence on 17/12/2023, it cannot be assumed that traffic lights were green on approach.

(i)       Exhibit 6 – SAR request dated 04/02/2025 

(ii)      Exhibit - Excel response

13.  Because the doors were nor locked as advised for safety reasons by the Fire Brigade, the passenger/pedestrian took the decision to exit/enter the vehicle without warning. Once the door was open, I could not drive off when the light turned green. I cannot be held liable for the unexpected actions of a passenger or pedestrian.

14.  VCS are not contracted by the principal, BA ltd, to issue Parking Charge Notices for PUDO. 

The VCS - BA Ltd Concession Service Agreement (Parking Enforcement) contract provided by the claimant in their WS is missing at least two pages; pages 5 and 6. 

*Parts of this paragraph have been redacted at my suggestion*

Re' the missing pages etcetera, the judge in the persuasive appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 – 
Stated that: 

“The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole...Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision.”

(i)       Exhibit 7 - Transcript of the Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited appeal case.

Signage:

15.  PUDO terms on the signs are more onerous (and indeed not mentioned) in the contract between VCS and BA Ltd. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 applies. 
From the Act, 

(4)This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract.

Since issuing PCNs for alleged PUDO events does not form a relevant term of the contract (Service Agreement between VCS and BA Ltd), more onerous terms cannot be enforced by the principal’s sub-contractor, VCS.

Exhibit 8 – Rights of Third Parties Contract Act 1999

Location of alleged event

16.  VCS have not defined the specific location where the alleged event occurred, only a vague reference to the fact that it allegedly occurred at Bristol Airport. The airport has many roads, both named and unnamed and their own Witness Statement (WS) shows some of these roads are outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate. 

*Redacted at my suggestion*

VCS have failed to show that the alleged PUDO events occurred within the area where they were contracted to operate at the material time, casting doubt on their right to issue parking charge notices and court claims at the material location. 

The claimant is put to strict proof that the alleged event occurred within the area where they are contracted to operate.

Additional costs

17.  The claimant has added costs for debt collection to the principal amount. This is against the findings in the Supreme Court case of Beavis v ParkingEye case reference paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198.
Parking companies routinely use a Debt Collection Agency (DRA) that offer on a no win-no fee basis. VCS are put to strict proof that they did not use a DRA, and that they incurred genuine additional costs of debt collection.
Whilst VAT is included in the principal amount (£100), VCS have failed to show whether the additional alleged debt collection costs are subject to VaT. If they are, why is the defendant being asked to pay VCS’s VAT?

(i)       Exhibit 9 - Beavis v ParkingEye case

(ii)     Exhibit 10 - Debt Recovery Plus screenshot of typical no win-no fee offer.

 

 Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

I've suggested the OP adds in Fairlie v Fenton, using the principle that VCS are acting as a broker to BA Ltd, who in turn are acting as a broker to OTPP (the majority landowner).

I would like to include Fisher v Marsh (mentioned in F v F), but I have yet to find a transcript.

The OP's submission deadline is Tuesday, but for obvious reasons prefer to submit today.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

1505grandad

Typo  -  "(i)       Exhibit 4 - Protection of Freedom Act  -  etc"

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Fruitcake

The version I have found of Fairlie v Fenton won't let me copy the text, so I can't paste it into the OP's WS. Does anyone have a link to F v F that will allow text copying, and does anyone have a link to Fisher v Marsh please?

RRTechie

1505grandad said:

Typo  -  "(i)       Exhibit 4 - Protection of Freedom Act  -  etc"

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Thanks, have updated.

Bazarius

perhaps add the fact that the Airport Bylaws creates a right of way or right to pass along the airport roads . No contractual licence is needed by some third party operators . 

Below is some wording provided by a colleague which I use for cases at the DSA “Robin Hood Airport”   

Amend to suit to the facts of the case and what’s  conveyed in the Bristol Airport Byelaws.   

If I remember correctly - it has a defence in it - something alone the lines of “reasonable excuse”   The motorist had reasonable excuse to stop at the traffic lights - otherwise it may be criminal offence for the driver not to stop at the red light .   

  

1. All roads within DSA  have either RTE or bylaws on them and, as such come under statutory control. Any such road under statutory, where there is public access, is a de facto right of way subject to either RTE or bylaws. Members of the public have a right to use these roads provided they adhere to the conditions of use. If they breach these conditions, they can be subject to prosecution either under RTE or bylaws. 
2. The Claimant, on their witness statement alleges that they offer a “contractual license to pass” on these roads. But they cannot do that as a right to pass already exists under bylaws or RTE and no license is needed. 
3. Provided the motorist adheres to the conditions in the bylaws, all is well.  If  the motorist breaches the conditions, Bylaw 2 gives the remedy that the Claimant can use to enforce these, but they have chosen not to do so. 
4. Instead, the Claimant appear to be offering an opportunity to commit a criminal offence in return for a payment of £100 and they will turn a blind eye to prosecution. The Defendant questions the legality of such an offer.
5. The Claimant has also referenced two Appeal judgements, Vehicle Control Services v Crutchley and Vehicle Control Services vs Ward. Both of these cases are distinguished here as they took place on private industrial estates where no bylaws or RTE were in place as such there would be no statutory controls in place.
6. The Defendant submits that the roads at DSA are under statutory control, either through bylaws or RTE and, as such, a right of way exist on such roads where public access is permitted, subject to RTE or bylaws. The Claimant’s assertion that they can override this right of way by cobbling together a convoluted civil “contractual agreement” that restricts access to these roads and breaches this existing right to pass is misconceived.