VCS Ltd at Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at level crossing in no-stopping zone + passenger exit

deficit

I recieved a PCN for this event last year and appealed using information from this forum.  The appeal was denied.  I have since ignored all correspondence and have now been served with a county court claim, which arrived yesterday and is dated 23 Jan 2024.  I've drafted a defence and would be grateful if experienced forum members could review the information for me and advise on my defence?

Queries that spring to mind for me are:

• Should I be including more references to POFA?  They pursued me as the keeper of the vehicle and the identity of the driver has not been divulged.

• Based on this thread, I believe I may have a valid counterclaim for perhaps £250 plus any applicable expenses, based on a breach of the data protection act because following the rules of the road and stopping at a pedestrian crossing is not a legitimate reason for a parking controller to ask for the keeper's details for my car.  How would this work given we're advised not to use MCOL forms for any of this and are there reasons I should not file a counter-claim?  I'm quite keen to shove one up them in court.  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6358384/bristol-airport-vcs-stopping-to-drop-off-charge-notice-pedestrian-crossing/p13

• Should I have references to the signage being forbidding and there therefore being no offer and therefore no possibility of a contract?  As suggested on this page of the same thread? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6358384/bristol-airport-vcs-stopping-to-drop-off-charge-notice-pedestrian-crossing/p9d

• The DLUHC Parking Code Of Practice 2022 is very useful, especially as it specifically references my situation in one of its annexes, but I can see no reference online stating that it is now 'live' after being temporarily withdrawn.  Its status is still shown as 'temporarily withdrawn' on the government website.  Paragraph 11 in my defence comes frm the template defence on MSE Forum and I have left it in, however, what basis do we have for saying it is now 'live'?

• Any other ideas / points / glaring omissions / errors spotted?

• Am I right in believing that the optimum day for me to acknowledge service on MCOL is 29th January (the previous day, day 5, being a Sunday) and that that then allows me 33 days from the issue date to file my defence via email (should I perhaps file it a day or 2 early to be safe?).  Does the claimant get to see my defence early and get any advantage from doing so if I file the defence sooner?  Friday 23rd looks to be the last day I would be comfortable filing it.

I'm not completely clear on what level of detail needs to go in the Defence and what can be left until Witness Statement.  I do appreciate that evidence is not submitted until WS stage.

Here is a dropbox folder containing:

• Redacted PCN
• The text of my appeal
• VCS Ltd's response to my appeal
• Redacted Particulars Of Claim
• Draft defence
• A few supporting bits - Britol airport policies page, a copy of what I believe to be the contract between the parking operator and the airport operator (who I believe is a sub-contractor of the landowner, not the actual landowner), the IPC code of conduct to which I refer in my appeal and a photo of the largest, clearest sign at the airport (the other signs are basically smaller, less detailed versions of this)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/7q0tzi7izipkv4pnfs1o6/h?rlkey=3102neviaguzhx21xazxt2mns&dl=0

Any help gratefully received.

KeithP

deficit said:

I have now been served with a county court claim, which arrived yesterday and is dated 23 Jan 2024.

Am I right in believing that the optimum day for me to acknowledge service on MCOL is 29th January (the previous day, day 5, being a Sunday) and that that then allows me 33 days from the issue date to file my defence via email (should I perhaps file it a day or 2 early to be safe?).  Does the claimant get to see my defence early and get any advantage from doing so if I file the defence sooner?  Friday 23rd looks to be the last day I would be comfortable filing it.
I'm not completely clear on what level of detail needs to go in the Defence and what can be left until Witness Statement. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd January, you have until Monday 12th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence. There is no advantage or disadvantage in filing a Defence earlier.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

kryten3000

The Defence needs to attack their non-compliance with POFA as well as the fact that this is not "relevant land" for POFA in any case, so there is no keeper liability.

Vehicle Control Services v Edward (HOKF6C9C) is the current authority, a persuasive appeal case where it was found that the claimant cannot "assume" the keeper was the driver.

Coupon-mad

I believe I may have a valid counterclaim for perhaps £250 

Yes - if you were not driving, or if a friendly solicitor is prepared to attend the hearing for you!

Fruitcake

That's not a bad effort so far. Whilst you correctly stated in your initial appeal that the site is not relevant land, you did not specifically state that byelaws apply, which they do, nor that the byelaws require motorist to obey signs as if the site was under a traffic authority order.
VCS have twice been caught lying to motorists by saying the byelaws are considered obsolete by the management company, but I managed to get this exposed via my MP, John Penrose. Had you mentioned byelaws were in operation and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable, they might have repeated that lie. 

Never mind, it's not a big deal. It would just be nice if they had repeated that lie.

You should still carry out Plan A.

Complain to the major shareholder at their London and Toronto offices. Don't expect them to reply.
Complain to the sub-contractor that manages the airport. Don't expect them to support you.
Complain to your MP.

In all your complaints point out that VCS know the keeper cannot be held liable because it is not relevant land, and because it is a place where byelaws apply. Point out that the vehicle was stopped at a zebra crossing as mandated by the airport byelaws, and VCS have previously lost in court for pulling this stunt, as well as issuing charges at the airport for stopping in a queue at a car park entrance barrier, outside the area where they are contracted to operate and had no right to issue charges, for stopping at a roundabout Give Way sign, and for stopping at a Stop sign to mention but a few..
Include the lie (repeated at least once) where VCS state they are contracted by the landowner, which they are not. 
Don't mention anything about what happened whilst the vehicle was topped, only that it was stopped to let pedestrians cross.

In your defence, you could include the fact that what a passenger may decide to do is outwith the control of the driver who had to stop by law.
Include a point that VCS do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, only a contract with a third party sub-contractor. 

In case it helps, here is a video from the main entrance on the A38 to the drop-off car park. A new pedestiran controlled crossing has since been introduced, but the zebras should still be much the same. Let us know which one is relevant by telling us the time on the video.

Bristol Airport No Stopping Zone - YouTube

Fruitcake

Things to note.

The CCTV camera appears to be new-ish because I can't see it on the video.

The NTK says the images were detected and recorded by Mobile Enforcement Equipment, which does not appear to be true, but instead has been recorded using a pole mounted fixed camera.

The date and timestamps on the images are either unreadable or non-existent, therefore there is no proof that the alleged event occurred at the time claimed by VCS.

The VRM of the vehicle in question cannot be read at the alleged time, therefore it is impossible to determine if the OP's vehicle was the intended target.
The images are so grainy and indistinct that it is impossible to see if anyone got out of one of the vehicles. A vehicle had an open passenger door, but this could simply have been done to release a trapped seatbelt. It cannot possibly have been opened by the driver, and therefore neither the driver nor keeper can be held liable for what happened whilst the vehicle was stopped as required.
(The video may show more, but at the moment you can only go on the initial evidence provided, which is inadequate to prove their case).

The signs at that particular location are at right angles to the direction of traffic, and cannot be read from a moving vehicle.

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

I believe I may have a valid counterclaim for perhaps £250 

Yes - if you were not driving, or if a friendly solicitor is prepared to attend the hearing for you!

In this successful counterclaim the keeper was driving and won their counterclaim, do you think this was an anomoly?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6358384/bristol-airport-vcs-stopping-to-drop-off-charge-notice-pedestrian-crossing/p13

Jenni_D

I think you should focus on the info and questions from @Fruitcake rather than on an opportunity to make money from the claimant. Whilst that's an erstwhile proposition, it's not the main thing you should be focussing on.

Fruitcake

Every case is different, and every case is heard on its own merit. Appeal cases are persuasive on the lower courts, but you could have a million cases in the county court where motorists won on data breaches, yet it would have no bearing on yours.

Other cases are worth mentioning, but there is always the possibility that the PPC will produce other cases where the judge found for the PPC in identical situations.

deficit

Fruitcake said:

That's not a bad effort so far. Whilst you correctly stated in your initial appeal that the site is not relevant land, you did not specifically state that byelaws apply, which they do, nor that the byelaws require motorist to obey signs as if the site was under a traffic authority order.
VCS have twice been caught lying to motorists by saying the byelaws are considered obsolete by the management company, but I managed to get this exposed via my MP, John Penrose. Had you mentioned byelaws were in operation and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable, they might have repeated that lie. 

Thanks.  I do however think I've tied myself in a bit of a knot with the relevant land thing.  In my appeal, I wrote:

"Bristol airport is not relevant land under POFA therefore VCS have no right to pursue the keeper.  It is not relevant land because it does not fulfil any of the criteria in POFA paragraph 3 (1).  The PCN states that it is not a public highway (since it states that it is a privately operated access road), it is not controlled by a traffic authority and no evidence has been submitted that it is under statutory control (byelaws).  Bristol Airport give a list of byelaws that apply at the airport at https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/corporate/about-us/our-policies/ and there is no evidence of statutory control for parking".

So the argument I made to VCS was that there aren't any byelaws specifically relating to parking and that may be true.  However, the argument I should probaby have made is that there are byelaws in force at the airport, full stop. Therefore the airport can't be relevant land.  Do you agree with that and can you perhaps help me articulate it a little better for the purposes of the defence?  I'm struggling a bit to make this argument (currently para 8 of my defence) because there are no byelaws listed on the Bristol Airport website relating to roads or parking so I'm not sure what to cite in order to demonstrate that this aspect of the airport is under statutory control.

https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/corporate/about-us/our-policies/

Fruitcake said:

In case it helps, here is a video from the main entrance on the A38 to the drop-off car park. A new pedestiran controlled crossing has since been introduced, but the zebras should still be much the same. Let us know which one is relevant by telling us the time on the video.

Bristol Airport No Stopping Zone - YouTube

1:12 is the one i stopped at

Fruitcake said:

Things to note.

The CCTV camera appears to be new-ish because I can't see it on the video.

The NTK says the images were detected and recorded by Mobile Enforcement Equipment, which does not appear to be true, but instead has been recorded using a pole mounted fixed camera.

The date and timestamps on the images are either unreadable or non-existent, therefore there is no proof that the alleged event occurred at the time claimed by VCS.

The VRM of the vehicle in question cannot be read at the alleged time, therefore it is impossible to determine if the OP's vehicle was the intended target.
The images are so grainy and indistinct that it is impossible to see if anyone got out of one of the vehicles. A vehicle had an open passenger door, but this could simply have been done to release a trapped seatbelt. It cannot possibly have been opened by the driver, and therefore neither the driver nor keeper can be held liable for what happened whilst the vehicle was stopped as required.
(The video may show more, but at the moment you can only go on the initial evidence provided, which is inadequate to prove their case).

The signs at that particular location are at right angles to the direction of traffic, and cannot be read from a moving vehicle.

Is this stuff to note for the witness statement that comes later in the process, once the evidence is actually entered into the mix?

Jenni_D

Have you admitted at any time (e.g. in your appeal) to the other party that you were driving? If yes then perhaps all the PoFA angles are shut down (but wait for confirmation or otherwise from @Fruitcake or @Coupon-mad first).