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

RRTechie

Fruitcake said:

Since the word byelaws in the Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 document is spelt with an e, then that is the spelling that should be used.

4 Ikctsktt (J1\J) (bristolairport.co.uk)

Agreed, that’s the version I changed to. 

Le_Kirk

GDPR Infringement:
The response I received to my appeal  was not from VCS but was from a separate company named Excel Parking Services Ltd. This company is a totally different company in respect to Companies House, is not the same company that you have a contractual agreement with to provide parking enforcement and has a separate incorporation ID and separate accounting. VCS have broken GDPR rules by passing on my personal data to an Excel Parking Services, a separate accounting company. I have complained to my member of parliament and the airport landowners

This sentence does not make sense, maybe you'd like to rewrite it.

RRTechie

Le_Kirk said:

GDPR Infringement:
The response I received to my appeal  was not from VCS but was from a separate company named Excel Parking Services Ltd. This company is a totally different company in respect to Companies House, is not the same company that you have a contractual agreement with to provide parking enforcement and has a separate incorporation ID and separate accounting. VCS have broken GDPR rules by passing on my personal data to an Excel Parking Services, a separate accounting company. I have complained to my member of parliament and the airport landowners

This sentence does not make sense, maybe you'd like to rewrite it.

It is a bit convoluted but makes sense to me. What part does not make sense please?

Fruitcake

"... in respect to Companies House".

You need to explain that the register of companies retained by Companies House clearly shows that VCS and Excel have different company numbers and are therefore completely separate accounting companies. They should have "Chinese walls" between them to ensure personal data provided to one company is not shared with another company.

It will be up to a judge and possibly the ICO to determine whether what I have just stated is correct, but it never hurts to challenge a PPC and their employer.

RRTechie

Fruitcake said:

"... in respect to Companies House".

You need to explain that the register of companies retained by Companies House clearly shows that VCS and Excel have different company numbers and are therefore completely separate accounting companies. They should have "Chinese walls" between them to ensure personal data provided to one company is not shared with another company.

It will be up to a judge and possibly the ICO to determine whether what I have just stated is correct, but it never hurts to challenge a PPC and their employer.

I had to get this email sent yesterday but will keep in mind for court hearing, should it come to that.

RRTechie

Found an 'info' email for VCS and sent another complaint in...

Dear Sirs,

- Reference Charge Notice: ****

- Copy to [MY MP]

I am being aggressively harried by you (Vehicle Control Services) (VCS) as the keeper of a vehicle for the alleged breach of contract of 'Stopping To PickUp/Drop Off In A Restricted Zone’ at Bristol Airport. I dispute the ‘Charge Notice’ and subsequent Demand Letters as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I have made multiple complaints to Bristol Airport, my MP and to Bristol Airport landowner regarding your predatory conduct.

In response to this alleged breach of contract, I appealed to VCS and received an email with an attached PDF dated 03/01/2024 from Excel Parking Services. In reference to the response from Excel Parking Services…

Bristol Airport Byelaws:

In the letter I received from Excel Parking Services dated 03/01/2024 as the registered keeper, in response to me referencing that Byelaws exist at Bristol Airport negating the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, VCS/Excel Parking Services 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 Byelaws are not Obsolete…Byelaws 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 Byelaws do not exist and he received the following response from Bristol Airport that clearly shows VCS/Excel Parking Services are continuing to seek to deceive myself and the general public (I have attached the full letter response from John Penrose MP dated 21/09/2023 to this email)…

“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.”

Please note that the response received from Bristol Airport clearly states that Byelaws ‘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 VCS/Excel Parking Services have recited exactly the same mistruth to myself on 03/01/2024!

GDPR Infringement:

The response I received to my appeal  was not from VCS but was from a separate company named Excel Parking Services Ltd. This company is a totally different company in respect to Companies House; the register of companies retained by Companies House clearly shows that VCS and Excel have different company numbers and are therefore completely separate accounting companies therefore Excel Parking Services is not the same company that Bristol Airport has a contractual agreement with to provide parking enforcement and has a separate incorporation ID and separate accounting. VCS have broken GDPR rules by passing on my personal data to Excel Parking Services, a separate accounting company. I have complained to my member of parliament and the airport landowners.

The current status of the VCS 'Charge Notice’ Ref: *** is ‘Letter Before Claim’. I request that you cancel the Charge Notice/Court Claim forthwith; should you continue with progressing this to a court hearing I look forward to highlighting your blatant lies within your vexatious correspondence to the court including the the fact that you had knowingly stated mistruths to other members of the public during previous alleged claims.

Yours faithfully,

******

Received the usual VCS style of copout:

Dear Sir/Madam

This is an automated acknowledgement to your CORRESPONDENCE. Please note this inbox does not process appeals and no correspondence will be undertaken in relation to an appeal.

If you are contacting us relating to an appeal regarding a document titled 'MyParkingCharge' (MPC) issued to a vehicle or, a Parking Charge Notice/Charge Notice issued through the post where and the Serial No. commences with VCS or EPS, or commences CS and the date of the contravention is on or after 13-Dec-2016, it is important that you follow the appeal procedure set out on the notification you have received. Where the appeal procedure makes reference to www.myparkingcharge.co.uk it is important that you appeal via the website and follow the instructions online. We will not accept any correspondence regarding an appeal relating to the above via this email address.

Please note, you will need the Serial No. that commences with VCS, EPS or CS, as well as the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) to enable you to view the recorded details. Once entered, you will be able to view the information in connection with the recorded contravention.

If you decide to exercise your right to appeal, it must be submitted online at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk and following the instructions given.

Please note you will only receive a response if your correspondence does not relate to an appeal or any such matter relating to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)

Many thanks,

VCS Team..

Surprise Surprise....the Only Option using the www.myparkingcharge.co.uk page is 'Pay Now' and that page is referenced as linked to Excel.

RRTechie

Interesting reply from Bristol Airport following my most recent complaint...In effect passing the buck on to VCS providing a snail mail address...

Thank you for your patience whilst your case is reviewed by our Commercial Manager. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any assistance with this matter. 

 

All complaints and appeals must be dealt with via VCS and then progressed to the independent or regulatory bodies to which they are accredited, in this case the IPC or IAS. I would like to assist you in confirming the procedure that can be followed in your case along with addresses and websites to gain further information.
To take this to an official complaint in the first instance this must be done in writing to VCS  to the address below:

Complaints Department
Vehicle Control Services Limited
PO Box 4777
Sheffield
S9 9DJ
Tel: 0114 2617373
 

Kind Regards 

Fruitcake

"Dear Bristol Airport Limited, there are no independent nor regulatory bodies where the unregulated private parking industry is concerned.
The IPC and IAS are both funded for and by unregulated private parking companies themselves.

Since Vehicle Control Services is contracted by your company, BA Ltd, you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your sub-contractors. Consequently, BA Ltd are responsible for the lies being spouted by your sub-contractor. My MP has been informed that VCS Ltd have yet again lied to a motorist, and that BA Ltd are aware of these repeated lies but have chosen to do nothing about it.

If VCS do proceed with the claim against me, then you are warned that BA Ltd may be included in any counterclaim I may make against your agent.

You cannot absolve yourselves by ignoring my complaint about BA Ltd employing a company that has lied, and is preparing to take me to court. Evidence of your agent's lies, and your knowledge of these lies will be put before the judge should their vexatious claim against me proceed to a hearing."

Have you contacted local (to Bristol) and national press yet, as well as radio and TV?

RRTechie

@Fruitcake: Thank you very much, will send that as reply to theirs.

Have not contacted national press....would they be even remotely interested in such issues? Maybe here I am being naive?

BikingBud

Interesting perspective, if they are not prepared to categorically state that Byelaws remain in force how do they suppose they are empowered to carry out security checks and other important passenger and cargo handling activities?

Which lead to me to have a look at the CAA website and wonder if this may be something useful when considering price gouging:

Open letter to airport operators and their relevant business partners following CMA’s airport car parking investigation.

Reporting competition concerns
10. Anyone can report anti-competitive concerns in the airport and air traffic sectors to us and/or the CMA. There is a range of guidance on the CAA’s competition powers’ page10 and the CMA’s website11 to help businesses.

https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/airports/economic-regulation/competition-policy/review-of-market-conditions-for-surface-access-to-airports/

https://www.caa.co.uk/our-work/publications/documents/content/cap1473/ covers drop off fees @p147/8/9:

Airport operator drop-off and pick-up services
6.54 Figure 6 below shows that a paid option to quickly drop-off and pick-up near the terminal building was introduced at most airports. We note that there are still free drop-off near the terminal at three of the four largest airports in the country (Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester but not at Stansted). Operators of smaller airports noted the need for this type of surface access demand to make a contribution to the airport operators’ revenues. Some airport operators justified the decision to introduce a fee to prevent severe congestion in free drop-off facility.

There might also be some mileage in this but would need to review the bits around it more to understand the discussion and the CAA's position:

CAP 1364 - Consultation on issues affecting passengers’ access to UK airports: a review of surface access

Para 3 - In addition, the CAA has had concurrent competition powers over airport operation services since 2013. We are therefore taking the opportunity in this review to draw attention to the existence of several previous private action competition cases.(4) In a number of these, airport operators were found to have abused their dominant position5 in an upstream facilities market by adversely affecting competition in downstream markets. Some were found to have, for example, protected their own road access (6)

Notes: 

4- The cases are summarised in a separate discussion paper issued with this document: "A discussion of national and European Competition Case Law relevant to the Aviation Sector", available at www.caa.co.uk/cap1370

6 - Road access includes all products and services provided to passengers to get to and from the airports by road such as parking, drop-off, taxis, buses, etc, but not by rail modes.

And specifically in response from LJLA the following comments were retrieved:

d) How airport operators consult with users on general charging principles and structures of airport services (access to facilities at or near the forecourt) required by surface access operators and how they provide relevant information on the costs of providing such services.
The Airport meets regularly with bus operators to discuss operational issues and promotional activity. The Airport Transport Forum discusses a variety of surface access issues with a wide cross section of public transport stakeholders who have contributed to the production of an updated Airport Surface Access Strategy.
Proactive public relations have also been undertaken when changes to the front of the terminal, drop off/pick up car parks and restrictions to vehicles stopping on airport roads have been introduced.
In addition there are numerous signs advising of relevant charges for the different car park options along with information on the airport website regarding Airport Company on site car parks, their various tariffs and mechanisms to make bookings in advance.

g) Details of surface access options that are available at no charge to consumers that allow for the drop-off and pick-up of passengers.
Drivers of vehicles dropping off or picking up passengers at the Airport have a choice of parking areas which includes ‘Drop off 2’ - an area located a short walk from the terminal building where vehicles can park for up to 20 minutes at no charge.
Those drivers who are Blue Badge holders are allowed to park in the closer Express Drop off/pick up area for up to 30 minutes at no charge.
In addition, passengers using any of the service buses at the Airport do not incur any additional charges for access closest to the terminal front and all coaches and hence their passengers are not charged to drop off.

Some of these are dated 2015/2016 but might still be extant, but perhaps more importantly is the current development and how that might be divergent with the aim and findings of this work.  

I will have a look and see where it might go even if only another channel for discussion eg to CAA as the consumer perspective seems to have been missed.