VCS Leeds Bradford airport parking charge notice

LDast

datsun240z said:

I only recently found out about the letters as they're not addressed to myself as VCS believe my father was the driver, my family didn't inform me about these letters and I only found them by luck.

You still don't appear to have understood the situation. VCS can believe in unicorns and fairies for all anyone could care. VCS are suing your father as the known keeper of the vehicle. VCS have no idea who the unknown driver is unless the known keeper reveals their identity, inadvertently or otherwise.

As this is a PCN for an alleged breach of (no) contract at an airport which is land that is under statutory control, VCS cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper. VCS can believe what they like but the burden of proof is on them to prove their "belief". If the known keeper has not revealed the unknown drivers identity, how do you suppose VCS can prove that? They can't.

Consider this too... The PoC state that the claim is for a breach of "contract" for breaching terms and conditions.... For a contract to exist, contracts are made up of three basic parts – an offer, an acceptance and a consideration. The offer is a proposal by VCS to enter into an agreement to provide goods or service on certain terms. Acceptance is the unknown drivers agreement to the proposal to receive goods or services on the terms of the offer. The consideration is the exchange of something of value (goods or services).

How can a prohibition on stopping ever be a contractual term? Nothing is offered. The claim is mendacious.

The claim is based on an alleged breach of contract for stopping in a prohibited area. One of the key defence points revolves around challenging the existence of a contract, given the lack of an offer and consideration. If no contract can be established, the claim lacks any grounds under contract law.

VCS’s claim against the registered keeper for an alleged breach of contract on land under statutory control faces almost impossible legal hurdles. Emphasis that the burden of proof lies with VCS to demonstrate that the known keeper was also the unknown driver. If VCS cannot provide evidence identifying the keeper as the driver, their claim must fail. They can't.

Additionally, there was no valid offer made to form a contract. Prohibitive signs do not constitute an offer but rather a restriction. Without a valid offer, there could not have been any acceptance. Stopping in a prohibited area cannot be construed as accepting terms that would form a contract. For any alleged contract to be valid, there must be consideration (something of value exchanged between the parties). There was no exchange of value.

Watch them get a spanking in court if they are actually stupid enough to "go all the way".

Coupon-mad

They don't believe he was the driver.

He is pursued as keeper. And he is the named Defendant in a court claim so it's his case to defend.

LDast

No one is denying that fact. The point is that the Defendant is not liable, only the driver is. Neither the Defendant nor the driver have entered into any contract with VCS.

datsun240z

I've just received this letter today. I'll fill out the N180 form and send it off immediately.

KeithP

datsun240z said:

I've just received this letter today. I'll fill out the N180 form and send it off immediately.

Remembering of course, to send a copy to the Claimant.

Coupon-mad

Email it as per the Template Defence thread but if that's the new version making mediation compulsory, use the OLD VERSION if the records show they first 'sent' it in May.

I think we've already said this clearly earlier in this thread.