Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light.

Fruitcake

Half_way said:

I havent checked recently, but if the airport or its agents say the bylaws ate obsolete then this could cause issues with the CAA (civil aviation authority) as having aset of bylaws for the airport/airfield and operations could be part of the airports licence to operate.
 if it is, then raise a complaint with the CAA 

It's not as easy as you might think as the CAA is responsible for the governance of several airports, but not Bristol. I've been round in circles many times trying to find to whom one should complain regarding the airport itself. However, the CAA does regulate airlines and aircraft manufacturers amongst other things. 
It is therefore feasible that a complaint can be made to the CAA that aircraft will be flying into an unregulated airport, but not about the airport itself.

Complaints should also be made to OTPP, BA Ltd, and the motorist's MP, citing the response from BA Ltd to The Right Hon John Penrose MP when he exposed this lie. Copies of this are available upon request from me, or by searching other BRS airport threads where I have posted the letters.

All this only applies if the OP has received something from the PPC saying bylaws are obsolete. They don't always.

Imnotpaying

That's a very interesting quote, @Half_way.  Where did you see that?  So that must be why such professional and responsible parking companies like VCS have jumped ship to IPC, snigger, snigger. 
I have included references to the Byelaws in several of my communications, but like with other recent OP's cases they seem to have given up on the "Byelaws are no longer in use" cut and paste - its never appeared in my correspondence from them.  Maybe it's finally got into someone's thick skull that repeating a clear untruth is not supportive of their position.  Their referral to para 2.1(c), however, seems to be a new (equally non-supportive) one, unless it's appeared in threads I've missed?

Imnotpaying

I will, of course, include the content of @Coupon-mad's wonderfully crafted text, @Fruitcake.  I have had communications from Excel and I have complained at least once about this to both BAL, DCB Legal, and my MP, in my many missives.  I have not yet complained specifically to VCS' DPO or DVLA.  I seem to be spending enough of my time dealing with DCBLegal's idiotic, but very entertaining correspondence.  I suspect, in view their last response, that I won't now be receiving any more correspondence from them before the Claim, but that's not going to stop me writing to them.

Gr1pr

I hope that you realise that Excel and VCS are sister companies under the same management or owner. ? SRS. !

It wouldn't surprise me if their DPO s were the same person, or same office, same building 

Vcs and Excel joined the IPC AOS member list around 9 years ago or more, not recently 

Imnotpaying

Yes, I do, @Gr1pr.  But they are nonetheless separate companies.  But I'm not focused on the data breach aspects right now, anyway.  That might come later.  I didn't know about the timing of VCS and Excel's change of membership, thanks.

Imnotpaying

@Coupon-mad, @Fruitcake.  I've drafted a response to DCBLegal's latest letter.  Do you have any comments?

Thank you for correcting the untruth relating to your client’s membership of BPA. You now state that your client is ‘regulated' by the IPC.  I do not accept that they are regulated in any way to meet the genuine needs of parking control, and this seems to be supported by the facts in many of the cases publicised.

You refer in your second paragraph to “The Claim that has been issued…”  Please clarify, because no Claim has, in fact, been issued.

You say ‘IPC confirm pursuant to 7.2.1 “If the charge remains unpaid after 28 days, it may increase by up to a further £70 and could result in enforcement through the Courts with additional costs being awarded.”’  I do not understand what 7.2.1 means.  Can you please explain?

It is not for DCBLegal to decide unilaterally what is “proportionate and/or relevant to the substantive issues in dispute”.  I respectfully draw your attention to para 2.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) for Debt Claims (on the assumption that this is the document referred to in your letter), which provides guidance.  It encourages "early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute,”  So far, insufficient information has been supplied by you.  The requests I have made are about issues that are essentially germane to the dispute.

For the third time, I request that you provide me with sufficient information about the matter to clarify unequivocally, in accordance with the PAP, the outstanding issues referred to you in my previous two requests.  This current request is made in a final attempt to comply with the spirit of the PAP which describes the conduct any court will normally expect of the parties prior to the start of proceedings.  Should this matter have to be resolved in court, I shall make a counterclaim to cover my significant costs involved in addressing this alleged charge, including my frustrated attempts to assess its validity, true nature and extent.

Coupon-mad

Much more polite than my version but I would not put this:

"I do not accept that they are regulated in any way to meet the genuine needs of parking control, and this seems to be supported by the facts in many of the cases publicised."

No. The point is, the IPC isn't a regulator. Seems like DCB is lying or misleading (again).

Imnotpaying

Coupon-mad said:

Much more polite than my version but I would not put this:

"I do not accept that they are regulated in any way to meet the genuine needs of parking control, and this seems to be supported by the facts in many of the cases publicised."

No. The point is, the IPC isn't a regulator. Seems like DCB is lying or misleading (again).

Yes.  Thanks.  I get the point.  I'll just say instead that this statement about the "regulator" is misleading. Cheers.

Imnotpaying

@Coupon-mad - I think this is better - Thanks again for. your comment:

You now state that your client is ‘regulated' by the IPC.  The IPC clearly states on its website, under the heading “What We Do”, “We are a Trade Association, not a regulatory body” Your statement is, therefore, yet another which is false and calculated to mislead.

Coupon-mad

Very good!