Charge Notice for stopping at red light - Bristol Airport

Coupon-mad

This is what I meant (copied and adapted from the thread by @Milliered whose case was recently won or discontinued):

9. In any event, the Airport byelaws allow for certain conduct including emergency stops and it is clear that bringing vehicles to a brief halt is not in fact prohibited in every circumstance.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that their supposed contract aligns with the byelaws, which clearly take precedence, and to prove the circumstances that caused a 'parking charge' or 'CN' to arise.  For the avoidance of doubt, the byelaws are statutory, not advisory.

10.  In a similar case - but re East Midlands Airport - heard at Leicester County Court on 07/01/2022, Deputy District Judge Wigham held that the byelaws prevail and asked VCS' solicitor if they were aware of the statutory Bylaws in force.  VCS' legal representative's reply was "I am instructed that the byelaws are advisory".  The learned Judge disagreed, pointing out that Airport Byelaws carry statutory weight and remain in force by order of the Secretary of State, reportedly telling VCS' solicitor: "these Byelaws are there to protect the public from firms like you".  She dismissed the case and permission to appeal was refused.

11.  Further and by way of alternative defence: Airport approach roads are subject to road traffic enactments (public highway).  Even if the Claimant is able to overcome the difficulties they face in showing that:

(a) they have locus to sue in their own name regarding this location, and that

(b) they offered a parking space with value, and a licence to park there, and that

(c) the Defendant was afforded the opportunity to accept contractual terms which could somehow override the natural and ordinary meaning of a red traffic light, and that

(d) these terms were prominently displayed, well lit, fair and unambiguous (per the Consumer Right Act 2015) and capable of being offered at a set of red traffic lights which convey a completely different message, and that

(e) this charge can override statutory Byelaws and/or the Road Traffic Act 1988 and/or the Airport Act 1986, and that

(f) This third party (notorious ex-clamper) firm has sufficient contractual, commercial and 'legitimate interest' to save this punitive charge from falling foul of the penalty rule, and that

(g) The temporary traffic light with a camera deliberately trained on it was set up by the Airport for a legitimate reason and not, as it looks to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, set up by VCS as a 'hidden pitfall or trap' (ParkingEye v Beavis phrase from the Suoreme Court) to catch drivers out as a money-making cash cow area.

12.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof that this access road is not part of the public highway. A 'public highway' is defined online as 'any road maintained by public expense where the public would normally have a right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle'. It is averred that the Airport approach road is 'public highway' and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

12.1.  The approach road comes off a roundabout and is not demarcated as 'private land', nor is it a private car park and thus, any parking/traffic contraventions on this roadway would be a matter for the local authority.

12.2. Such roads are subject to the rules of the Road Traffic Act and statutory instrument and any 'PCN' must be a proper penalty charge notice issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. As such, the claimant is put to strict proof that this approach road is a part of the Airport 'where road traffic enactments do not apply' (in which case the roadway then falls under the Airport byelaws, as stated above).

13.  The Defendant avers - and asks the court to determine - that the road is likely subject to road traffic enactments rather than airport byelaws, as per the Airport Act 1986:

''65 Control of road traffic at designated airports - (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.''

Both the Airport Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply. This location is indisputably 'publicly accessible' and therefore the Road Traffic Act applies.

Drivad

Third time lucky! (Really appreciate the help everyone!)

2.    The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver at the material time.

 

3. According to VCS’ own photographs, the vehicle was stopped at pedestrian-controlled traffic Lights at a pedestrian crossing. Stopping at a pedestrian crossing is a mandatory byelaw requirement therefore there was no breach of parking contract.

4. As evidenced by the still images provided on both charge notices, it is unequivocally clear that multiple pedestrians were using the crossing at the material times. Additionally, in two of the claimant’s images, the road traffic light is red, requiring vehicles to stop. 

5.    Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) are not the landowner. The Bristol Airport website details the land ownership and states that the majority landowner shareholder is the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP).

6.    The airport is managed by a sub-contractor to the landowner, Bristol Airport Limited, (BA Ltd), and Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Limited are sub-contractors to this management company, not to the landowner.

7.    It is averred that no contract to manage or enforce parking on this land exists between or flowing from the Landowner. Further, it is averred that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents of a sub-contractor) has no standing to issue court claims in their own name.

 

8.             Bristol Airport is under the statutory control of Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 section 6 “Prohibited Acts on private airport roads and other parts of the airport to which traffic enactments do not apply”. Therefore, the airport is not ‘Relevant Land’ and therefore the vehicle keeper (the defendant) cannot be held liable. The case should be struck out accordingly.

 

9.             Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 state the following: -
“6. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PRIVATE AIRPORT ROADS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY On any private Airport roads or other parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply no person shall:

-       6.7 Road Traffic Enactments
drive or cause or permit to be driven any vehicle which fails to comply with any braking, steering, lighting, tyre or electrical requirements which apply to that type of vehicle if it were to be operated on a road to which the Road Traffic Enactments apply.”

Failing to stop as required would have caused the driver to commit a prohibited act.

 

10. In any event, the Airport byelaws allow for certain conduct including emergency stops and it is clear that bringing vehicles to a brief halt is not in fact prohibited in every circumstance.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that their supposed contract aligns with the byelaws, which clearly take precedence, and to prove the circumstances that caused a 'parking charge' or 'CN' to arise.  For the avoidance of doubt, the byelaws are statutory, not advisory.

11.  In a similar case - but re East Midlands Airport - heard at Leicester County Court on 07/01/2022, Deputy District Judge Wigham held that the byelaws prevail and asked VCS' solicitor if they were aware of the statutory Byelaws in force.  VCS' legal representative's reply was "I am instructed that the byelaws are advisory".  The learned Judge disagreed, pointing out that Airport Byelaws carry statutory weight and remain in force by order of the Secretary of State, reportedly telling VCS' solicitor: "these Byelaws are there to protect the public from firms like you".  She dismissed the case and permission to appeal was refused.

12.  Further and by way of alternative defence: Airport approach roads are subject to road traffic enactments (public highway).  Even if the Claimant is able to overcome the difficulties they face in showing that:

(a) they have locus to sue in their own name regarding this location, and that

 

(b) they offered a parking space with value, and a licence to park there, and that

 

(c) the Defendant was afforded the opportunity to accept contractual terms which could somehow override the natural and ordinary meaning of a red traffic light, and that

 

(d) these terms were prominently displayed, well lit, fair and unambiguous (per the Consumer Right Act 2015) and capable of being offered at a set of red traffic lights which convey a completely different message, and that

 

(e) this charge can override statutory Byelaws and/or the Road Traffic Act 1988 and/or the Airport Act 1986, and that

(f) This third party (notorious ex-clamper) firm has sufficient contractual, commercial and 'legitimate interest' to save this punitive charge from falling foul of the penalty rule, and that

 

(g) The temporary traffic light with a camera deliberately trained on it was set up by the Airport for a legitimate reason and not, as it looks to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, set up by VCS as a 'hidden pitfall or trap' (ParkingEye v Beavis phrase from the Supreme Court) to catch drivers out as a money-making cash cow area.

13.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof that this access road is not part of the public highway. A 'public highway' is defined online as 'any road maintained by public expense where the public would normally have a right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle'. It is averred that the Airport approach road is 'public highway' and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

13.1.  The approach road comes off a roundabout and is not demarcated as 'private land', nor is it a private car park and thus, any parking/traffic contraventions on this roadway would be a matter for the local authority.

13.2. Such roads are subject to the rules of the Road Traffic Act and statutory instrument and any 'PCN' must be a proper penalty charge notice issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. As such, the claimant is put to strict proof that this approach road is a part of the Airport 'where road traffic enactments do not apply' (in which case the roadway then falls under the Airport byelaws, as stated above).

14.  The Defendant avers - and asks the court to determine - that the road is likely subject to road traffic enactments rather than airport byelaws, as per the Airport Act 1986:

''65 Control of road traffic at designated airports - (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.''

Both the Airport Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply. This location is indisputably 'publicly accessible' and therefore the Road Traffic Act applies.

 

15. The driver cannot be held liable for the unexpected actions of another person whilst the vehicle was stationary.

Coupon-mad

Needs a paragraph number:

"Both the Airport Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that..."

Add the rest of the Template Defence re-numbered.  Job done once signed/dated & emailed as shown in that thread 12 steps.

  

Drivad

Done, thank you! Now we wait....

RedlightVictim

Drivad said:

Done, thank you! Now we wait....

We have found ourself in a similar situation and wanted to send huge thanks for this thread as it helped write our appeal. We have to submit defense documents by Fri 22nd, Court date in January. Their legal team heavily redacted the contract, thank you to your link we have printed off a copy, clearly they're underhand!!!

Drivad

I've just received an interesting, very belated response from Bristol Airport (emphasis my own): 

Bristol Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 81 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping’ or ‘No Drop Off or Pick up’.  The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100 if they contravene these Terms and Conditions.

The Charge Notice was issued solely because a passenger was picked up on this roadway, not because the vehicle was stopped at traffic lights or queueing at traffic lights. At the Bristol Airport site there has previously been a problem of motorists misusing the crossings as a way to circumvent the No Stopping restrictions and pick up/drop-off passengers without using the legitimate car parks or drop off zones on site. As such, additional signage specifically restricting these activities was erected at the crossings. Even if a motorist stops to let pedestrians cross at a crossing or stops in a traffic queue, the signage on site specifically states pick up and drop off activities are prohibited. 

Bristol Airport does have Byelaws for various areas of Airport operation, however we understand that your Charge Notice was issued under Contract Law.

LoneStarState

That spiel has likely been dictated by VCS themselves.  Statutory byelaws that have provisions that allow for stopping in certain circumstances absolutely supercede any poxy contract, regardless of the number of signs.

Fruitcake

Drivad said:

I've just received an interesting, very belated response from Bristol Airport (emphasis my own): 

Bristol Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 81 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping’ or ‘No Drop Off or Pick up’.  The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100 if they contravene these Terms and Conditions.

The Charge Notice was issued solely because a passenger was picked up on this roadway, not because the vehicle was stopped at traffic lights or queueing at traffic lights. At the Bristol Airport site there has previously been a problem of motorists misusing the crossings as a way to circumvent the No Stopping restrictions and pick up/drop-off passengers without using the legitimate car parks or drop off zones on site. As such, additional signage specifically restricting these activities was erected at the crossings. Even if a motorist stops to let pedestrians cross at a crossing or stops in a traffic queue, the signage on site specifically states pick up and drop off activities are prohibited. 

Bristol Airport does have Byelaws for various areas of Airport operation, however we understand that your Charge Notice was issued under Contract Law.

Dear BA Ltd,

The fact that your agent, Vehicle Control Services has decided to issue a parking charge notice for a non-parking event under contract law does not negate the fact that the law (The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and Bristol Airport Byelaws) apply.

Neither Bristol Airport Limited nor their agent can ignore the law. If you do not understand how the law works, I suggest you seek legal advice rather than collude with an unregulated private parking company in order that they may make profit from your ignorance of the law.

For the avoidance of doubt, your statement that, "The Charge Notice was issued solely because a passenger was picked up on this roadway, not because the vehicle was stopped at traffic lights or queueing at traffic lights," is not true.

The driver did not stop to pick up/drop off a passenger, but stopped at a pedestrian controlled traffic light as required by law/airport bylaws, and therefore no breach of parking terms/contract occurred. Any actions carried out by a pedestrian or passenger after that was outside the control of the driver, for which neither the driver nor keeper nor owner can be held liable.

As for your comment that there has "previously been a problem of motorists misusing the crossings as a way to circumvent the No Stopping restrictions and pick up/drop-off passengers without using the legitimate car parks or drop off zones on site", this was entirely due to the airport eliminating the 20 minute free drop-off/pick of system, reducing the drop-off time to ten minutes, and implementing an extortionate charge for this service. In other words, Bristol Airport Limited has caused and is entirely responsible for any increase in problems with unauthorised pick-up/drop-off events.

Finally, you say that additional signs have been installed at the site due to the increase in alleged no-stopping events that your company caused. Please will you confirm that Advertising Consent has been approved by the local planning authority for each and every sign, both original and new, since not having such consent is a criminal offence for which Bristol Airport Limited would be jointly and severally liable.

OP, if you are up for it, I suggest you contact the local council planning department and ask if Advertising Consent (which is not the same as Planning Permission) has been approved for all signs. If not, then complain to the council and your MP and BA Ltd and VCS and the IPC and OTPP about this potential criminal activity.

Imnotpaying

Drivad said:

I've just received an interesting, very belated response from Bristol Airport (emphasis my own): 

Bristol Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 81 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping’ or ‘No Drop Off or Pick up’.  The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100 if they contravene these Terms and Conditions.

The Charge Notice was issued solely because a passenger was picked up on this roadway, not because the vehicle was stopped at traffic lights or queueing at traffic lights. At the Bristol Airport site there has previously been a problem of motorists misusing the crossings as a way to circumvent the No Stopping restrictions and pick up/drop-off passengers without using the legitimate car parks or drop off zones on site. As such, additional signage specifically restricting these activities was erected at the crossings. Even if a motorist stops to let pedestrians cross at a crossing or stops in a traffic queue, the signage on site specifically states pick up and drop off activities are prohibited. 

Bristol Airport does have Byelaws for various areas of Airport operation, however we understand that your Charge Notice was issued under Contract Law.

Certainly dictated by VCS.  I had exactly, word for word, the same response from BAL some time ago, except, interestingly enough, the last paragraph was not present. I'm saving my response to BAL for later.  Still waiting for my MP to get his response from BAL....

Imnotpaying

I've just re-read my latest correspondence from BAL.  My last paragraph stated, "Had the vehicle simply been stopped at a red traffic light or to allow pedestrians to cross the road, a Charge would not have been issued".  The significance of this did not occur to me at the time, but I can see why they left it out of your letter, @Drivad.