Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light.

Imnotpaying

I have received a PCN from Vehicle Control Services, the reason quoted being "104) STOPPING TO PICK UP/DROP OFF IN A RESTRICTED ZONE.  Sadly, in the light of what I have since read on this forum, I appealed almost immediately in which I identified myself as the driver. The final paragraph of my appeal summarises the circumstances. 

"In summary, my sole reason for stopping my vehicle was to comply with the traffic lights, I was stationary for some time until the lights changed, during which time the passengers, against my will, had opened the rear door and begun to board.  I did not intend to be stationary for any longer than was required by the traffic control. I remained stationary only for safety reasons and for only 13 seconds maximum - no longer than was required to prevent any potential injury, as confirmed by your photographic evidence," 

I have read the Newbies' thread and the thread by Im_tired_of_this.  What I need to know is whether it is still possible to fight this outrageous claim from VCS on the same basis as his.  I am 78 years old and not really inclined or fit to fight, but consider it in the interests of all if I do.  Any thoughts from the extremely well-informed and helpful people in this forum would be appreciated.

LDast

It will all depend on how much spare time you have and how determined you are not to be scammed by these vexatious, ex-clamper thugs.

Whilst you have thrown away the most effective shield to being liable for this allegedly heinous "crime", there are other defences you can use. Not least being that you haven't breached any contract at all. Yes, you are not being fined but have been invoiced for an alleged breach of contract with VCS.

No contract can have been formed because nothing was offered.

Whether you had or had not revealed the drivers identity, no appeal would have been accepted and this would and still probably will go all the way to a court claim. That is a good thing because the only truly independent arbiter will be a judge who will decide whether you owe VCS a debt or not.

Fruitcake

That's a good example to copy. Other recent threads to look at are by @RRTechie and @fredblessed. Was this at the fairly recently installed temporary pedestrian controlled traffic lights? That one appears to be a new entrapment zone monitored by CCTV as opposed the the normal scam-van that VCS use at BRS.

It's a shame you blabbed about the driver's identity, but it is not fatal. 

You must make all the standard complaint so the foreign major shareholder/landowner and their sub-contractor, BA Ltd. The former probably won't reply, and the latter probably won't help.
You should also complain to your MP and the DVLA about this scam tactic and data breach.

You could try sending a message to @Im_tired_of_this and ask if they would mind sharing the court case details with you including case number, location and date, and judge's name.

Imnotpaying

Thanks @LDast and @Fruitcake for your help and advice.  Yes, it was at the temporary pedestrian controlled traffic lights and it's monitored by a fixed camera rather than the scam van.  I can't believe these "vehicle control" companies are allowed by law and by the airport company to operate in this way.  I will follow your advice.

Imnotpaying

@Fruitcake, @LDast .  I've now read as much as my old tried brain can cope with, and it's all very useful information, so thanks again.  I've contacted @I'm_tired_of_this as you suggested. When I read the VCS/BAL agreement, I began to wonder who installed the temporary traffic light at the crossing and to whom it belongs.  Was it the Client (BA) to stop users from running down pedestrians on the crossing by complying with VCS's enforcement of the no stopping policy, or was it the Company (VCS) who were then acting against the "Parking Policy" in the document, which clearly states at point 1 that "Parking or stopping on....no stopping zones is NOT PERMITTED for any period of time".  Doesn't this just demonstrate how ridiculous is the whole situation? Do you think there's any mileage in this or am I wasting my energy with it?
If I understand it correctly, I now do not need to contact VCS/Excel again until LoC arrives?  Will you then be able to review my responses, before I send them?  Thanks again for your help.

Coupon-mad

We'll assist whatever happens.

I too wondered if the temporary traffic light plus fixed camera trained on it is simply a trap.

Fruitcake

Your point about no stopping, and having to stop due to byelaws requirements at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings is perfectly valid. I've covered this in other threads about stopping at lights/crossings at BRS.


The byelaws state,

6 ... no person shall:
6.1 Conduct while driving
 drive a vehicle:-
6.1.1 dangerously (by which is meant to drive in such a manner where having regard to the circumstances such driving is likely to cause injury or damage to property)

6.1.2 without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the Airport; 

6.4 Nuisance use, cause or permit to be used, any vehicle in such a way as to cause or to be likely to cause, danger or nuisance to any person. 

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. 

6.9 Observe signs
without reasonable excuse on foot or whilst driving or propelling a vehicle neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by: 6.9.1 a traffic or pedestrian sign erected and displayed by or with the consent of the Company placed on or near such parts of the Airport; 6.9.2 any road markings;

6.7 is interesting because it effectively states that on roads where Traffic enactments don't apply, (in other words, roads within the airport boundary) failure to comply with regulations that would apply if the vehicle was on a road where road traffic enactments do apply is a breach of byelaws. Failing to stop at a red traffic light and/or pedestrian crossing would therefore be a breach of byelaws.

You can't not stop, if that makes sense.

This completely contradicts the no stopping contract terms. In any case, signs that say no stopping, £100 charge if you do are forbidding in nature. You cannot agree to something that is prohibited.

In any case, what an adult passenger does whilst a vehicle is stationary whilst the driver complies with mandatory road traffic signs/lights is completely outside the control of the driver and/or keeper.

Im_tired_of_this

My successful counterclaim against Vehicle Control Systems:

In the County Court at Bath Law Courts

Claim Number: J7QZ0E6Q

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

V

MR STEPHEN JOHNSTON (Defendant)

COUNTERCLAIM HEARING ON 22/02/2023

Sadly for you, there is nothing in my case that will help you overturn the original claim. The claimant failed to pay the hearing fee in time for the original claim, so it was simply struck out. I then persisted with my counterclaim. 

As per my original thread comments I was not successful in challenging the legitimacy of the original claim as part of my counterclaim, but the judge - forgive me, I've not got his name anywhere near me - was sympathetic to the claim that using the parking legislation to ask for my keeper's details in order to establish the reason for me stopping at a pedestrian crossing - i.e. a fishing exercise - was not legitimate. It seems likely that a similar counterclaim could be made in your case.

Good luck. 

And thanks again to this forum for its support last year, and sorry I rather disappeared shortly after my case concluded and didn't share the case details above.  

Imnotpaying

Thanks @Coupon-mad for your very kind offer of help with this.  The more I read the more determined I am not to give in to pressure from these people.  And thanks @Fruitcake for your very clear references to the bye-laws.  (I assume these are the ones that VCS/Excel regard as obsolete!!)

Surprise, surprise!  This morning I received notification, by email, from Excel Parking Services (not VCS who I think issued the CN, since their name appears at the end of the Notice) that my appeal has been rejected.  I will now write letters of complaint to my MP, BAL, and the landowners, as advised previously.   Presumably I should complain to DVLA about their providing my information to VSC without good reason.  There are two further questions in my mind:
1. To whom should I complain about VSC passing on my electronically stored data to Excel Parking Services (EPS).
2. Most importantly, do I need to communicate further with VCS, or just ignore everything for now until I receive a Letter of Claim - it all seems a bit scary......

I really welcome your comments.  Not only are they of immense practical value, they also provide moral support.  Thanks again. 

Imnotpaying

Many thanks @Im_tired_of_this for the info supplied.  What I would really like to do is follow a path that eventually leads to a judgement that would totally prevent this company from attempting to scam innocent airport users whilst behaving in an outrageous and apparently illegal manner.  In my view, it's fraudulent, but I'm no legal expert.  Do you think my best course of action is to follow your course of action but taking into account that I have (to my great chagrin) inadvertently already admitted that I was the driver.  

Coupon-mad

Imnotpaying said:

There are two further questions in my mind: 
1. To whom should I complain about VSC passing on my electronically stored data to Excel Parking Services (EPS). 
2. Most importantly, do I need to communicate further with VCS, or just ignore everything for now

1. Complain fist to VCS. Exhaust their published complaints policy them complain to the Information Commissioner.

2.  Other then that, ignore VCS and the £170 debt demands, sent by whoever.  Ignore.

Come back if you get a LBC or court claim.

If you move house within 6 years you MUST tell them. But that's all.  Other than that, get on with your life. No worries!