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

Fruitcake

A few brief comments, then hopefully I will be able to knock out a full court report later this avo.

One important thing to note is that the OP asked not to reveal before the hearing date that he managed to obtain an unredacted copy (minus two pages/sections) of the contract between Bristol Airport Ltd and VCS dated 17/03/2023, not that it did us any good.

I have passed it to a few other victims who have threads running about this airport, and I will happily pass it on to anyone else who needs it since it is now a matter of public record, having been presented to a court of the realm.

I acted as  McKenzie Friend (MF), which was a first for me. I had seen something on the web saying a MF needs to write a brief CV concerning the case, and a declaration that they are not an interested party. When I went to hand it to the usher, she said it wouldn't do, and both the defendant and I had to fill out a MF form. Perhaps this could be included in the guide to court at some point. Doing it in advance would streamline things a little, but it can be done on arrival so it is no big deal.

The OP met me at Swindon Rail station and drove to a car park near the court. Interestingly, the touch screen to get a ticket wasn't working, and the barrier was already in the up position. The OP later told me on departure he had spoken to a parking person who confirmed parking was free because of the fault. I'm not sure if the CP was council or privately run, but I think (hope) it was the former.

On arrival at the County Court, we were told that although it would still be a small claims hearing, it would take place in the magistrate's court across the road. As it happened, the claimant's rep was there and led the way.
Despite his habit of talking whilst facing ahead and walking in front of us to the point that I had to ask him three times to repeat himself, we managed to discern his name, that he was a solicitor's agent for a local firm, and "did this sort of thing all the time."
I won't comment on what the OP and I thought about the morals of a person who deliberately takes on "this sort of thing all the time," but I am sure you can imagine.

Security at the court was as tight as going through an airport, so be prepared for that, including metal detectors, hand scanners, and pat downs. I have to say the security personal were extremely friendly, helpful, and professional.
I have never attended court before so it wasn't what I was expecting, and forgot to tell them about my pacemaker. It's my fault and I should have thought of it, and to be fair to the chaps there, they did tell me mention it in future and they would use an alternative screening method.
Perhaps this could also be added as a side note to the guide to court. Be prepared for airport style security, and tell the staff if you have hearing aids or implanted devices.

We checked in with the usher for the court, and it was that point I was told we needed to fill out a MF form.

We went into a waiting area where the C's rep made and offer, which the D turned down flat. We then chatted about non court related stuff.

After perhaps 10 minutes, we were called in to the hearing room where introductions were made. Present were Judge Hearn, the C's rep, the D, and me.

The judge then got stuck in.

Court report to follow. 

RRTechie

Thanks @Fruitcake...kind of you to provide this and of course again for supporting me in court...In this life everybody needs friends like @Fruitcake!

After the Court report has been posted I will provide my final honest assessment on the whole debacle.

Car1980

"- Won the first 'Drop-Off' CN based on me stopping at red traffic lights

- Lost the second 'Pick Up' CN where I'd stopped to collect at green lights"

Why? Was the contract any different in both cases? 

Imnotpaying

Thanks, @Fruitcake.  That's very helpful.  I can't wait to see your Court Report.

I assume one of the pages/sections missing from the unredacted contract was Schedule 1? In the original contract, this specifies in detail for which contraventions VCS can issue penalty notices, and specifically does not include "Code 104 STOPPING TO PICKUP/DROP OFF IN A RESTRICTED ZONE". Knowing VCS' level of competence, I wonder if this Schedule 1 was pasted into the new contract unchanged and that might be why they have refused to supply me with a copy on the grounds that "we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute".  

Fruitcake

Court report.

I don't know how long was allocated for the hearing, but I think it took about an hour and three-quarters once we got into the courtroom.

J = Judge
C = Claimant's rep
D = Defendant
PUDO = Pick Up/Drop Off
BA Ltd = Bristol Airport Ltd

The judge started by explaining the process, which would be different to the standard order of things, but neither myself nor the D really understood what that meant, although there was an initial concern that the J would hear from the claimant then, as I interpreted it, he would make a decision effectively on papers.

Right or wrong in our assumptions, the D got the J to confirm he would have his chance to speak and explain his side of things.

The J couldn't find a copy of the D's WS, but didn't doubt it had been submitted.
The C's rep emailed the J a copy, the the D "loaned" the J a hard copy.
J swiftly read it and made notes, but it later became obvious that he had a better understanding of the D's position than I thought would be possible from a few minutes scrutiny.

J noted that Jake Burgess who wrote the C's WS would not be present and could not be cross examined, but said it made little difference because even if he were present, he can have no knowledge of the alleged event at the material time.
JB's absence was mentioned a few more times but the J wasn't concerned by this.

J summed up the claimant's case as being 2 PC(N)s for breach of contract. He also mentioned the untrue comments by VCS about bylaws being obsolete, saying something along the lines that it was strange, but he didn't believe it disadvantaged the D and wasn't really relevant.

C went first, basically repeating the claim and JB's WS contents, and that they believed the PCNs and claim were legitimately issued. He mentioned Semark Julienne and he believed the debt recovery costs were legitimate.

J asked D if he was okay with the C asking him questions, to which the D replied, yes.

C then asked questions including (went too fast for me to catch them all clearly)

Why did you stop?
Red traffic light

Did you see signs?
No

Does the vehicle have central locking?
Yes, but disabled by passenger

Were you aware of being in a No PUDO area?
No

Repeatedly asked variations on, why did you stop?
Red traffic light

J then asked the D a number of similar questions and received similar answers.
D also responded with comments that the contract between BA Ltd and VCS did not permit the latter to issue PCNs nor court claims for PUDO events.

J said not relevant. Contract shows an intent to manage the site on behalf of (airport) landowner's agent (BA Ltd). Doesn't need to finely detail everything.

C submitted there were lots of signs, 85 in total of which at least 6 were No PUDO. D must have seen them.
Referred to CPR 44.1 regarding costs recovery including debt collection.

J asked C about De Minimus. One stop of 6s, and one of 36s. What's the harm in that?
C replied, No Stopping and No PUDO are to keep traffic flowing. Doesn't matter if the site is busy or not, the rules apply to everyone all the time.
C referred to VCS v Damien Ward appeal case where motorist stopped for 4s to stop and start car's engine due to an engine warning light. Court found for claimant, persuasive/case law.
J accepted this.

D's turn next

"No PUDO" sign not present at material location. Not visible to driver. Not visible in any photos/evidence of the material location.
No control over the actions of the passenger/pedestrian.
Location of alleged event never defined. Not shown on site maps, nor road name, nor description. No proof event occurred in area where VCS are contacted to operate.
Aerial view contradicts maps in contract.
Contract from 2023 showing reduced patrol area compared with aerial view from 2019.
Photo showing a No PUDO sign not the location where the alleged event occurred *

*The judge later became fixated on this photo'. No matter how many times the D attempted to correct the J, and no matter how the D reworded each attempt to correct, the J refused to believe it was a different location. He said he thought the traffic lights in the photos of the stopped vehicle were temporary, and had had been added at the (incorrect) location at a later date.
D pointed out the road shown in the image in question was straight, whereas the other images taken of the car showed the road was curved.
C claimed this was just because the images were taken from a different angle. This is most definitely not true. It was definitely a different location.

J then began deliberating before summing up the case.

Claim for 2 charges of breaching No PUDO contract, stated sum total of amount claimed. J not bothered by JB's non attendance. Referred to untrue statements by VCS about bylaws being obsolete. Thought this was odd but affected nothing.
Mentioned there were lots of No Stopping and No PUDO signs - believed the out of date aerial view with locations of signs (even though only one such No PUDO sign was shown in evidence, and even though that sign was from 4 years before the events, and was not at the location where the event actually occurred, and absence of signs in all other exhibits).

J mentioned the Beavis case and that operational costs were included in the original charge, reminded everyone that it was the C's duty to prove their case, not the D's duty to disprove it, referred to the signs, and the duty that the contract they display must be adequate and reasonable.

C summarised their case

D summarised his. Had to stop at red light, no control over the actions of the passenger, never intended to stop on either occasion but had to because of red light, absence of No PUDO signs etcetera.

J then summed up giving reasons, but C and D had opportunity to comment
Referred to internet defences, but nothing materially affected the result of the Beavis case with regards to debt collection/operational costs.
C stated that operational costs were only incurred when issuing the PCNs, etcetera. More work after the event meant additional costs were incurred, including debt collection. Referred to no win-no fee contract with DCAs, but said that was only relevant if the debt wasn't collected. When the debt was collected, for example if the claim was upheld, then additional costs had been incurred by the claimant and therefore the £70 additional charge was legitimate.
D was punch drunk by then, and not able to counter that, and in any case could not prove VCS did not pay a debt collector.

Judge asked rhetorical questions

Were signs there?
Were they prominent?
Is it reasonable to believe the D would have seen them?
Was the D's claim that they had to stop legitimate?
Stated the first and second PCN circumstances were materially different.

J believed that in all likelihood, the passenger (D's sons) did open the door without warning when the car stopped. C's evidence showed light was red at that point so D had no option but to stop.

J did not believe the second event was a coincidence, or fluke as the D had put it. It was exactly the same location as the first event. He did not believe it likely that this had not been pre-arranged between father and son, even though it was indeed a complete fluke that the son was at the same crossing.
Damning for the D was that all the images produced by the C showed the light was green at the time of the second stop, even though there are no images showing the car approaching the lights, and no proof the light was not red forcing the car to stop and the C's still images were only (selectively) taken from CCTV video once the light turned green.
The J dismissed the D's insistence that the light was indeed red as the car approached thus forcing the driver to stop, and the D had no intent of stopping to pick up.

C claimed that the son's decision to exit the vehicle whilst it was stopped was irrelevant, but the J disagreed, especially as the C had related a similar event that had happened to him when his own father jumped out of a car once stopped in similar circumstances. The D and I both thought this actually helped in the J's decision about the first event.

J did say that irrespective of whether the sign in the image could or could not have been seen, the D must have passed other signs and must have been aware of them, even though the image in question was taken in daylight, and all the other images were taken in the dark, all showing the signs would have been below passenger or driver level even if they were there.

The J dismissed the claim for the 1st PCN, but allowed the 2nd.

J awarded costs for the second £100 charge plus standard court costs, plus interest (recalculated for a single PCN), and then sadly awarded the £70 debt collection costs.

C requested leave to appeal the first PCN - refused
C requested his court attendance fee (can't remember if this was £130 or £180) on grounds of unreasonable behaviour - refused

J told D if he requested leave to appeal it would also be refused. D said he would not contest the decision.

J then asked D his opinion on what had transpired. D replied, he understood why people paid up rather than go through all this hassle, and why PPCs did what they did because it was so lucrative, and the sooner it was regulated the better.
D also said he would never, ever go back to Bristol airport.
D (sarcastically in my opinion asked), "So you would just abandon your son and leave him to his own devices?"
D just reiterated that he would never enter the airport again.

We got the judge's name from the usher on the way out, DDJ Hearne.

J was pleasant, and efficient. I was impressed by the fact that he only saw the D's WS at the hearing, and managed to understand and assimilate so much of it after one reading, although both the D and I believe he erred in his understanding of the location and that it didn't occur where he thought it did.
In light of his comments that the D must have seen other signs, it may not have made any difference, but a different judge may have given it more thought, as they might concerning the C's failure to define the location where the alleged events occurred.

The C's rep was a young chap, and it was quickly obvious that he did lots of "this sort of thing" because he recited case law, CPR references with precision and accuracy etcetera without hesitation. The D was unlucky to be up against someone who is obviously talented in that area. I can understand that he wants to make a name for himself and gain experience, which he freely admitted. Morally though, I could not do what he does.

And that was that.

The D and I went for a drink at a Costco before parting company.

I then took the opportunity to wander around my home town and reminisce about my childhood and college days there, and walk through a park upon which I based part of my recently published novel, before heading back to Bristol to meet up with my friends and dull my aggrieved mind with pints of 95% water in a 'Spoons.

My Lovely Cousin asked me today if I would do it again, and after careful thought, I said yes. I found the prep' and the hearing itself mentally draining, so I can only imagine what it was like for the OP and others who go through the court process.
Even if a defendant wins, it is physically and mentally draining for the average person who has never had to go through it, and by association, it must have a detrimental affect on their family and friends.

Fruitcake

Imnotpaying said:

Thanks, @Fruitcake.  That's very helpful.  I can't wait to see your Court Report.

I assume one of the pages/sections missing from the unredacted contract was Schedule 1? In the original contract, this specifies in detail for which contraventions VCS can issue penalty notices, and specifically does not include "Code 104 STOPPING TO PICKUP/DROP OFF IN A RESTRICTED ZONE". Knowing VCS' level of competence, I wonder if this Schedule 1 was pasted into the new contract unchanged and that might be why they have refused to supply me with a copy on the grounds that "we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute".  

I would not dispute your theory. Unfortunately, as you will see in the court report, the judge gave little import to the contents/terms of the contract, or its omissions, whereas another judge might have done so.
Put it in your back pocket anyway, and perhaps don't choose Swindon court lest you have the same claimant's rep' or the same judge.

At least the judge's decision in this case is not binding.

Judge bingo, ain't it?

Drivad

Thanks both for the comprehensive write up. Quite disheartening to see that this isn't as cut and dry as we might have thought. 

Coupon-mad

Court is never cut & dried and to disprove the added £70 you have to be completely ready, in case the Judge makes this mistake (as he did). Glad that the red light one was disallowed.

RRTechie

Thank you @Fruitcake and all at the forum for all your support, very much appreciated...especially @Fruitcake.

Okay, so now my final conclusion...

Unfortunately if there is ever a next time, I will just pay up and recommend those without an Absolute cut and dried case to do the same. Yes I know this is not 'fighting the good fight' but it just isn't worth the stress, hassle and grief. I say this coming from a very tough exercise and sports competition background and being a technical consultant by trade...so gawd knows the stress others go through and the toll it takes on their well being.

The process was excessively protracted (CNs dated 12/12/2023 and 17/12/2023), took a crazy amount of my time (And Fruitcake's) and a crazy amount of my head space.

1505grandad

All your justifiable concerns/feelings should be spelled out to your MP   -  ask them to contact the relevant government dept. encouraging them to complete the stalled Private Parking Code of Practice which hopefully will damped down this unregulated scam industry.