Request for peer review - Bristol Airport VCS appeal

Harry96339

Apologies, I am a new user and cannot post links or images.

The driver stopped in the dead-end roundabout exit (What3Words tile ///flying.known.plot) for a minute before realising they were not allowed to stop, then drove off the premises. The keeper then received an NTK from VCS Ltd. Their reason is "Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited".

Is there anything more I should add to this appeal?

"To VCS,

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 Charge Notice 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.

Airport byelaws apply and since this means the location where the alleged event occurred is not relevant land, the PoFA 2012 does not apply and the keeper cannot be held liable. Also, stopping at a roundabout is a mandatory requirement as defined by the airport byelaws.

Sincerely,

"

Thank you for reading,

Harry

Coupon-mad

Stopping at a roundabout isn't 'defined', mentioned or mandated in the Airport byelaws so that last bit isn't quite right. Not that it matters! You are in this for the longer game.

  

Harry96339

@Coupon-mad I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this complaint to OTPP, Bristol Airtport Ltd, etc:

Dear OTPP,

I am writing to express my disgust and to lodge a formal complaint regarding the £100 fine I received for briefly stopping my vehicle at Bristol Airport on Wednesday 5th June 2024. This fine is unreasonable, excessive, and predatory in nature, and I would like to request that it be revoked.

Upon entering the airport premises that night, I did not encounter any clear or prominent signage informing drivers of the rule prohibiting stopping and the associated £100 fine. Without proper notification, it is unreasonable to expect drivers to be aware of and comply with such a policy.

My stop was brief and necessary due to being at a roundabout. This temporary stop did not obstruct traffic (unlike the enforcement van itself) or cause any harm, and it should be considered a reasonable excuse exempt from the fine.

A fine of £100 for a brief stop on the premises is disproportionate and excessive. This high penalty appears to be more focused on generating revenue than on genuine traffic regulation or safety concerns.

Upon seeing the sign at a later date, I am disappointed by the amount of text on it that motorists are expected to read. This is not acceptable when fines are being imposed solely through this implicit contractual agreement mechanism.

I respectfully request that you instruct VCS Ltd to revoke this ‘charge’. Such predatory practices tarnish the airport's reputation and erode public trust. I would appreciate a prompt response addressing this matter.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

Your complaint reveals the driver's identity and blows your "not relevant land = no-keeper liability" point out of the water.

It looks like you may have already found a few other threads about this PCN trap, but I suggest you have a good look at those by @RRTechie, @hatePCNlots and @ginger_bread_man. The latter has a link to the contract between VCS and the landowner's sub-contractor which in turn includes a map of the area they are contracted to monitor. It is not unheard of for VCS to issue charges to motorists when their vehicle is outside the area where they are contracted to operate.

Harry96339

@Fruitcake thank you. I fixed both points:

Dear OTPP,

I am writing to express my disgust and to lodge a formal complaint regarding the £100 charge that the driver of my vehicle received for briefly stopping the vehicle at Bristol Airport on Wednesday 5th June 2024. This request is unreasonable, excessive, and predatory in nature, and I request you to revoke it.

Upon entering the airport premises that night,the driver did not encounter any clear or prominent signage informing drivers of the rule prohibiting stopping and the associated £100 charge. Without proper notification, it is unreasonable to expect drivers to be aware of and comply with such a policy.

The stop was brief and necessary due to being at a roundabout. This temporary stop did not obstruct traffic (unlike the enforcement van itself) or cause any harm, and it should be considered a reasonable excuse exempt from the charge.

A charge of £100 for a brief stop on the premises is disproportionate and excessive. This high penalty appears to be more focused on generating revenue than on genuine traffic regulation or safety concerns.

I have seen the sign since the driver incurred the charge and I am disappointed by the amount of text on it that motorists are expected to read. This is not acceptable when charges are being imposed solely through this implicit contractual agreement mechanism.

I respectfully request that you instruct VCS Ltd to revoke this charge. Such predatory practices tarnish the airport's reputation and erode public trust. I would appreciate a prompt response addressing this matter.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Fruitcake

I see no mention of byelaws, non-relevant land, no-keeper liability.
A parking charge notice was issued, but the vehicle was not parked.

It's not an enforcement vehicle; it's a cash generator hidden camera vehicle masquerading as a road safely vehicle that breaches the CCTV code of practice because if fails to state for what purpose the candid images will be used.

Harry96339

Shall I just merge the compaint and appeal into one statement?

Harry96339

@Fruitcake sadly the driver stopped at the green dot

Fruitcake

Harry96339 said:

Shall I just merge the compaint and appeal into one statement?

No. The complaints go to OTPP (don't expect them to respond), and to their sub-contractor, Bristol Airport Ltd., (don't expect them to be on your side).

The appeal goes to VCS Ltd.

They should all be brief but as comprehensive as possible.

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
No contract with or flowing from the landowner
Not relevant land
Byelaws apply
No keeper liability
Driver will not be identified
Stopping is not parking

Coupon-mad

Re the complaint, stop calling it a 'fine' and remove this:

"A fine of £100 for a brief stop on the premises is disproportionate and excessive. This high penalty appears to be more focused on generating revenue than on genuine traffic regulation or safety concerns.

Upon seeing the sign at a later date, I am disappointed by the amount of text on it that motorists are expected to read. This is not acceptable when fines are being imposed solely through this implicit contractual agreement mechanism."

Harry96339

The driver has received the appeal rejection. Interesting points in the response:

• They saw passengers enter the vehicle when it was stopped.
  
• They say byelaws are not currently in use which apparently based on previous posts is not true.
  
• They say there are [nearly 100] high profile signs advising drivers not to stop, but I know that the driver didn't see any until they were stopped (it was night).
  

I will await the debt collection correspondence.