Another Bristol Airport VCS notice - picking up while stopped at a red light.

hatePCNlots

Hi all

received a Bristol airport VCS parking charge notice (104: stopping to pick up/drop off in a restricted zone) - Notice to Keeper

Car was stopped at the new temporary red lights (where the zebra crossing is). CCTV footage provided show red traffic light, passengers crossing the road directly in front of the car, and a passenger entering the car at the same time. Photos provided were only covering a couple of seconds while the traffic light was red, and driver drove off as soon as traffic light turned green.

I’ve read the NEWBIE thread and this is my current appeal:

I dispute your 'charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

The land is subject to byelaws (Bristol Airport Byelaws link here) and is therefore not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 link here). As a result, neither the keeper nor hirer/lessee can be held liable for the driver's actions.

The charge notice states, "The period of parking to which this Notice relates is the period immediately preceding the Time of Event stated in this Notice." A parking charge notice has been issued for a non-parking event.

Stopping at a traffic light is not parking. Additionally, stopping at a traffic light is required by UK law and as per Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (link here), "road, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes". The roads on Bristol Airport's land are publicly accessible and therefore UK legislation applies. 

As evidenced by the still images provided on the charge notice, it is unequivocally clear that multiple pedestrians, including children in pushchairs, are using the crossing. Additionally, the pedestrian traffic control light is green, indicating that pedestrians are crossing and the road traffic light is red, requiring vehicles to stop.

The statement in the previous paragraph indicates that in "the period immediately preceding the Time of Event stated in this Notice," pedestrians were still present on the crossing, and the traffic light was red. Furthermore, a large sign (approximately 1.5m x 1m, with a red background and block white text) is placed immediately prior to the traffic light where the car in the image was waiting, stating: “PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WHEN RED LIGHT SHOWS WAIT HERE.”

The duration of the images provided on the notice spans only a few seconds, coinciding with the traffic light being red. Once the light turns green, the vehicle in question resumes its journey within a reasonable and safe reaction time, ensuring no pedestrians are still on the crossing.

It therefore appears that VCS are condoning both breaking the law and placing pedestrians and other road users in grave danger, and are attempting to penalise any driver who refuses to do both of these.

Part B2 of VCS's KADOE contract allows VCS to obtain data only for purposes related to trespassing, abandonment and parking charges, not for "stopping", and especially not for stopping  at a red light. VCS are therefore in breach of contract, and a complaint will be made to the DVLA in due course. An overview of valid reasons for obtaining data using the KADOE service can be found here: (KADOE DVLA Important Info link here).

VCS do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner to operate on the site, only with Bristol Airport Limited, a subcontractor of the landowner.

A passenger allegedly exiting or entering a vehicle is not a byelaw breach. VCS has not stated the prohibited action that has occurred, nor shown images of signs on site that are capable of forming a contract with a passenger of a vehicle who was not the driver, nor keeper nor hirer/lessee, nor how a driver or keeper or hirer/lessee can be held liable for actions of someone who was not the driver, keeper, nor hirer/lessee. Neither the driver, nor keeper, nor hirer/lessee can be held liable for the actions of a vehicle occupant.

Would appreciate any input and suggestions before I submit the appeal. Thanks

Umkomaas

Appeal looks good. But you do know that it will be rejected. It's later in the process that you will see VCS off. Get on with your complaints to the Airport (other recent VCS/BA threads will give you some contact info, especially those where forum regular @Fruitcake has commented) and to the DVLA. 

1505grandad

For further info the doc at https://kadoe.co.uk/dvlaimportantinfo/ states:-

"You are reminded of the conditions of the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) agreement signed between DVLA and your company, and the contract signed between your company and VALCON."

"Cars parking on private property

Releasing vehicle information to landowners or their agents helps to find the keeper of a vehicle that has:

• obstructed access to land or property
• been abandoned on private property
• been parked without payment of the relevant fees
• been parked without the right to do so, eg in a space reserved for disabled motorists"

"Information cannot be released for any other reason
DVLA will monitor your use of KADOE and conduct periodic audits to confirm compliance with the regulations.

DVLA must meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act, and false declarations may be referred to the Data Protection Registrar as a suspected breach.

 WARNING - UNAUTHORISED USE OF DATA CAN RESULT IN PROSECUTION"

Fruitcake

I'm busy at the moment, so I'll come back later with a few suggestions, but everything looks well researched so far.

Fruitcake

Do complain to the landowner, OTPP. They have offices in London and Toronto, but you will need to search or their email addresses. Do not be surprised if they do not respond.

Do complain to Bristol Airport Ltd. Do not be surprised if they side with their agent.

Do complain to the DVLA and the DVLA KADOE team.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk 

and

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

Do forum searches and possibly contact other posters in the same situation as you, for example RRTechie who is now at LoC stage.

Where you mention byelaws, quote the prohibited acts that includes failing to comply with braking requirements and obeying signs and lights, para 6 onwards I think.

Stopping at traffic lights is a mandatory requirement as stated in said byelaws. A motorist cannot agree to do something that is prohibited, therefore signs stating No Stopping are prohibitive with regards to stopping at traffic lights/pedestrian crossing.

Look up the latest version of The Interpretation Act where it states something like, The Act shall apply to the interpretation of Byelaws as it applies to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, then quote the Road Traffic Act points you have mentioned above, stating that the this means that airport roads where the RTA doesn't apply must be treated as if they do, and stopping at lights/crossings is a mandatory RTA requirement.

hatePCNlots

Thanks for your help. Appeal rejected and they made no mention of the fact the traffic lights were read.

”We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 30/05/2024.

14/06/2024

Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

The signs at the crossing, clearly state "No Pick Up or Drop Off", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle picked up/dropped off in a zone where both are prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.

In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was when your vehicle was seen to be stopped on the access road.

You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 on the Notice issued to you; however we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper.

It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped to collect a passenger on the access road where restrictions apply.

There are over 80 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable. The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping). Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that location.

As members of the International Parking Community's (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme, it is necessary for us to evidence to the IPC that we have relevant authority to undertake parking management at the site concerned and that our signs at that location are compliant in setting out the relevant terms and conditions of use. We will only answer pertinent points at this stage.

We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk.“

what should my next steps be?
anything extra to include in an IAS appeal? I know it’s a joke court but I have the time.

hatePCNlots

Also I would appreciate if you could tell me what to expect if VCS take me to court. What costs will I incur initially? And is it possible to get someone to represent me (eg a family member).

Coupon-mad

hatePCNlots said:

Also I would appreciate if you could tell me what to expect if VCS take me to court. What costs will I incur initially? 

Please just read the second post of the NEWBIES thread which already answers all of the above basics. There's no risk, or we wouldn't tell people to defend cases.

LDast

hatePCNlots said:

It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

You should respond to this bit in their appeal rejection letter with something along the lines of the following:

Dear Sirs,

I note that in your letter rejecting my appeal as the keeper of the vehicle that you intend to pursue me under the "reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle". Not only is that statement irrefutable evidence of intellectual malnutrition in the person who authored it but it is embarrassing (in the legal sense) that of all companies that should try to pursue this line of argument, VCS seem to have forgotten about their failed appeal in the county court, barely a year ago, specifically in VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023].

Just to assist in nourishing the evident intellectual deficiency shown by the above mentioned sentence in your appeal rejection letter, I will remind you or whoever manages you of the following conclusion from the appeal judgment: "It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because someone is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell."

The judgement concludes that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion. So, as I have explained this as simply as possible in order that you or your managers are able to comprehend the fact that VCS are not allowed to assume or infer that the keeper was also the driver. Unless VCS can prove that the keeper was also the driver, there is no mileage in VCS trying to pursue this all the way to court.

Should VCS continue to pursue me as the keeper when there is no liability, I will not hesitate to issue a Part 20 counterclaim for harassment and abuse of process, now that VCS have been made aware of the reasons why they are not allowed to assume or infer that the keeper was also the driver. If all this is too difficult to comprehend, please pass this on to your legal advisors so that they may take the necessary decision on whether VCS have a leg to stand on.

Yours faithfully,
  

fisherjim

It is quite clear to me that VCS are saying; the driver should have either run the red light and kill the pedestrians, or keep a baseball bat under the seat to attack anyone that dares to try to get in the car when legitimately stopped at a traffic light! 

Scamming dimlows!

RRTechie

hatePCNlots said:

Thanks for your help. Appeal rejected and they made no mention of the fact the traffic lights were read.

”We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 30/05/2024.

14/06/2024

Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

The signs at the crossing, clearly state "No Pick Up or Drop Off", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle picked up/dropped off in a zone where both are prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.

In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was when your vehicle was seen to be stopped on the access road.

You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 on the Notice issued to you; however we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper.

It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped to collect a passenger on the access road where restrictions apply.

There are over 80 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable. The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping). Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that location.

As members of the International Parking Community's (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme, it is necessary for us to evidence to the IPC that we have relevant authority to undertake parking management at the site concerned and that our signs at that location are compliant in setting out the relevant terms and conditions of use. We will only answer pertinent points at this stage.

We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk.“

what should my next steps be?
anything extra to include in an IAS appeal? I know it’s a joke court but I have the time.

Recommend that you review my case thread, it is pretty much identical for my Drop Off PCN...you would likely just need to follow my assertions that I have posted in detail on my thread.