Bristol Airport Charge Notice stopping in prohibited zone - not even on VCS area?

ClaireMin

Hello, thanks for all the many threads on this site about the perils of Bristol Airport.  I received a Charge Notice yesterday from VCS (Notice to Keeper) trying to charge me £100 for reason 46, i.e. Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited.

The area in question is a small entrance way into the Hamptons Hotel car park, which my vehicle did drive into up to the barriers, turned and waited for 1 min while the satnav was fired up and programmed to find the right parking area.  

I've taken a look and this car park entrance does not appear to be in the red shaded section of the service agreement of VCS so are they just having a cheeky try at increasing their fee revenue and can be batted back with that defence, or do wider points of the template need to apply?

I'd be grateful for any advice and pointers to the right places.  As I've said above, I've gone through lots of threads but can't find anything that quite matches my situation.  Would be delighted and v grateful to be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something though, or for any help if not.

Many thanks

LDast

Have you appealed yet?

Fruitcake

These photos I took last year may help.







Note that the VCS sign is outside the no-stopping zone and/or facing the wrong way. It should be warning people leaving the safe haven of the hotel land that they are entering a scam-zone.

If the vehicle was beyond the rain gulley, then it is outside the Red Route/No-Stopping zone, and outside the area where VCS were contracted to operate by Bristol Airport Limited. BA limited are a sub contractor to the landowner. They are not the landowner. VCS have yet to produce a copy of a contract with or flowing from the landowner.

The keeper should complain to the landowner, and BA Ltd, and their MP, and VCS, and the IPC about this spurious PCN. It should be noted that VCS have previously lost in court for issuing charges to vehicles outside the area where they were contracted to operate, but keep trying it on.
You might want to contact the Guardian newspaper as well as they ran an article online about an unregulated private parking company issuing parking charge notices on non-relevant land where byelaws apply, meaning the keeper cannot be held liable. Sadly, the journo that ran the article retired the day after it was published, but someone else at the paper may be interested.
In your case, keeper liability is a secondary point to the fact that a scamvoice has been issued to a vehicle outside their (previously) contracted area.

If a cancellation is not forthcoming, then appeal to VCS as keeper using all the points available to you.

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
No contract with or flowing from the landowner to issue charges
Not relevant land - airport byelaws apply - no keeper liability
Alleged event occurred outside the area where VCS were contracted to operate
Stopping at a car park barrier is not parking
Stopping at an car park barrier is a mandatory Bristol Airport byelaws requirement

Include the VCS photo of the vehicle stopped at the barrier in addition to my photos above in your complaints.

Contact details for the foreign landowner can be found here.

Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light. - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

BA Ltd's contact details are on the airport website. 

All complaints must be in writing.

Coupon-mad

Wonder what twisted interpretation the IAS will put to spin this in favour of the parking firm?

Would be worth it for the laugh and for gathering evidence to the MHCLG.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

Wonder what twisted interpretation the IAS will put to spin this in favour of the parking firm?

Would be worth it for the laugh and for gathering evidence to the MHCLG.

Different part of the airport, but exactly the same as happened to my son, photographed outside the area where they were contracted to operate. I kept bringing it up at every stage, plus all the other points, and became one of the 4% who won at IAS.

@ginger_bread_man's case was the same, and he won in court.

ClaireMin

Many thanks all for your responses.  @LDast - no, done nothing yet as only received the notice on Friday and preferred not to do anything before getting some advice, so my powder is dry.  Sadly @Fruitcake I can't quite tell from the images, but does look like the vehicle was beyond the rain gulley, around 1m from the exit from the junction back onto the main circular road.  The photo has been taken from an angle but believe the tyres do encroach the red line space.  Does this necessarily mean that VCS have the right to collect on that area though, even though the map doesn't show the extent to which they are able to take side turns off the main drag?  Seems if so, there isn't a defence beyond no evidence that I was driving the car.  Huge thanks for your detailed response.

LDast

VCS can only "collect" from the driver. The Keeper is the person who received the NtK. VCS cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver should the Keeper decline to provide the drivers detail.

There is no legal obligation or the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private company. The only way VCS would know the drivers identity is if the Keeper tells them.

Not that the vexatious little scammers at VCS would care and they will still try and pursue the Keeper on the "assumption" that the Keeper was also the driver. They know full well that no inference can be made, especially as VCS are the appellants who lost the now persuasive case in VCS v Edward for exactly this reason.

So, for what it is worth, simply appeal with the following, verbatim and then wait for the rejection:

I am the registered keeper. VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, VCS will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Bristol Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Bristol Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because VCS is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for VCS's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. So, you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

An IAS appeal is not likely to be successful either and some will suggest you try an IAS appeal and others will disagree. If/when VCS try to make a claim, it will be a good defence in court as long as the driver has never been identified.