Request for peer review - Bristol Airport VCS appeal

Fruitcake

I would suggest changing the word passengers to pedestrians, and perhaps an indication of surprise at their unexpected actions. Also, once the vehicle doors were opened by said pedestrians, the driver would have been required to comply with safety regulations as per airport bylaws and not drive off risking life and limb.

Harry96339

Can I keep this part even if theoretically the registered keeper was driving at the time?
"Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied."

KeithP

The last two words of your para 2 still say 'and driver'.

Harry96339

The registered keeper was driving though. Can I omit 'and driver' and that still be ok?

Fruitcake

Harry96339 said:

Please see my two BA Ltd complaints and the responses here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LuVu4QYoSMaYtxR_Z7A2Ibqmw8H0skMDgaQW3ItaFTc/edit?usp=drive_link

I have messaged you regarding the MP correspondence.

I'll respond to your PM on the morrow.

Meanwhile I would suggest a response to BA Ltd along the following lines.

Dear Bristol Airport Limited,
     Thank you for your response to my complaint of the nth instant, however I would respectively suggest that you have completely at best missed the points I made, or at worst have completely disregarded them.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am the registered keeper of vehicle with registration mark XXX NN XXX.

On X date I (the registered keeper) received a parking charge notice, number VC NNNNNNNN for a non-parking event from Bristol Airport Limited's unregulated sub-contractor, Vehicle Control Services.
Since airport bylaws apply at the material location, and therefore since the site is not relevant land, and since the Protection of Freedoms Act 12012 specifically states that the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable for a parking charge notice, I cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of the driver at the material time.
Airport bylaws do not prohibit stopping in certain circumstances, therefore stopping to enable the driver to get their bearings and seek directions to leave the site is not a breach of the parking contract at the site, nor  a breach of bylaws.
It should also be noted that the mobile camera vehicle used by VCS Ltd purports to be a road safety vehicle, yet it does not comply with the CCTV code of conduct because it does not state for what purpose candid collection of personal data (vehicle registration marks) will be used. I am fully aware that BA Ltd have been made fully aware of this breach  by their unregulated sub-contractor on previous occasions, but have failed to rectify this problem despite being the principal in this matter and responsible for for the actions of their unregulated agent.
Furthermore, BA Ltd's unregulated sub-contractor, VCS Ltd, stated in communications with me that airport bylaws do not apply at this site, despite the fact that this is untrue, a fact that BA Ltd are already aware is untrue.
This was determined in correspondence between The Right Honourable John Penrose MP and BA Ltd. Since BA Ltd are already aware that VCS Ltd are continuing to make untrue statements about bylaws about at Bristol Airport, and have failed to prevent these untrue statements from being repeated by their unregulated sub-contractor, I must warn you that should this parking charge notice not be cancelled, but instead proceed to court, I retain the right to highlight this untruth to the judge.



I'll send you the John Penrose letter by email.

KeithP

Harry96339 said:

The registered keeper was driving though. Can I omit 'and driver' and that still be ok?

You seem to be missing a significant point.

The Protection of Freedoms Act tells us that on land covered by byelaws, there is no way that any driver's liability can be transferred to the keeper.

In other words, all the time they don't know who was driving they have no-one to chase.

For your own good, stop your never ending attempts to tell them who was driving.

Harry96339

Thanks @KeithP , though I only ask because it says the opposite on the 2nd post of the template defence post:

^EDIT THE END OF THIS PARAGRAPH. TO SUIT. If you were driving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.  If you were leasing or hiring the vehicle then change 'registered keeper' to whatever is true.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

Fruitcake

You are not required by law to help the claimant by revealing the driver's identity. It is however your right to give up your right not to tell them.

I suggest you also add a comment about BA Ltd's reply where they say the CCTV images show two people getting into the vehicle in question. This is irrelevant since the claimant has made no mention of pick up/drop off as the reason why the PCN was issued. It was issued for stopping despite the fact that stopping is not a breach of bylaws, nor is it parking.

LDast

No one is telling you to lie! As you are under no legal obligation to identify the unknown (to VCS or anyone else) driver. As the Keeper and the driver are separate legal entities, you, as the known Keeper simply refer to the unknown driver in the third person. No "I did this or that" but "the driver did this or that".

That's all there is to it. The burden of proof is on VCS to prove that the known Keeper is all the unknown driver and how do you think they can find that out? Only if you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

Harry96339

I suggest you also add a comment about BA Ltd's reply where they say the CCTV images show two people getting into the vehicle in question.

@Fruitcake The claimant has not mentioned this in the POC so I'm hesitant to add this part.