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.

rzarector_7

Hi!

I’ve been reading through all the Bristol Airport charge notice threads and trying to absorb as much legal and technical advice from the forum as possible. I was hoping someone might be able to offer some general guidance, as I have a situation that closely mirrors the original poster’s case—hence posting in this thread.

I’ve received two separate charge notices as the registered keeper of a vehicle. The first was for stopping at the barrier at the entrance of the Hampton by Hilton Hotel car park at Bristol Airport. The second was issued two minutes later, after the vehicle moved a short distance away from the barrier so the passenger could alight.

In the second notice, CCTV footage clearly shows the driver exiting the vehicle on the road outside the hotel. Could this footage potentially be used to establish the identity of the driver and therefore make them personally liable?

I have until tomorrow to submit a formal challenge within the 14-day window to still qualify for the reduced penalty amount on both notices. I’m currently planning to offer to settle the second charge at the reduced rate (£60), on the condition that the first notice—issued purely for stopping at a barrier—is waived.

My logic is that the first charge is fundamentally unenforceable, as it penalises a driver for stopping at a barrier, which is both necessary and unavoidable. I’m wondering if this is a sensible approach, as it shows a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter before it escalates further. For context, the second incident was a direct consequence of the first, arising from confusion over where it was actually safe and permitted to stop in order to drop off a passenger.

The core of my written dispute centres on the following argument:

“Your own CCTV footage clearly shows that the vehicle was required to stop due to the presence of a barrier at the entrance to the Hampton by Hilton car park. The signage displaying the parking charges is positioned just before the barrier, necessitating a stop in order to read it. I have attached a photograph that demonstrates the position of this sign in relation to the barrier.

In this instance, the driver was effectively forced into a situation where they had no reasonable alternative. Their choices were either:

1. Stop and read the car park signage (as any responsible motorist should),

2. Proceed through the barrier without understanding the charges (while still having to stop anyway for the barrier to rise), or

3. Illegally drive through the lowered barrier, which would contravene Bristol Airport bylaws.”

Would this be considered a strong defence in challenging the charge? I’d really appreciate any input or suggestions from anyone who’s had a similar experience or knows how VCS tend to respond in these situations.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

I have until tomorrow to submit a formal challenge within the 14-day window to still qualify for the reduced penalty amount on both notices. I’m currently planning to offer to settle the second charge at the reduced rate (£60), on the condition that the first notice—issued purely for stopping at a barrier—is waived.

Nope. Absolutely do NOT do that!

rzarector_7

@Coupon-mad @Fruitcake

I'm a little bit confused as to what the best course of action would be then, and what the chances are of actually ending up in court or ending up having to pay more than the early settlement amounts, bearing in mind that the driver would be most likely be identifiable on the CCTV footage if the dispute proceeded.

This was the response challenge I had drafted to send later this evening (I have until midnight to meet the initial 14-day cut-off point). As well as removing the offer to pay the latter charge on the basis of the first one being waived, are there any other amendments that are advisable?

To whom it may concern,

I am writing with reference to Charge Notice reference numbers [redacted] and [redacted] , which have been issued to me as separate invoices. The alleged contraventions occurred within two minutes of each other and, in my view, form part of the same incident. The second event occurred directly after—and as a result of—the first. I am responding solely in my capacity as the registered keeper in both cases.

Regarding [redacted]:

Your own CCTV footage clearly shows that the vehicle was required to stop due to the presence of a barrier at the entrance to the Hampton by Hilton car park. The signage displaying the parking charges is positioned just before the barrier, necessitating a stop in order to read it. I have attached a photograph that demonstrates the position of this sign in relation to the barrier.

In this instance, the driver was effectively forced into a situation where they had no reasonable alternative. Their choices were either:

1. Stop and read the car park signage (as any responsible motorist should),

2. Proceed through the barrier without understanding the charges (while still having to stop anyway for the barrier to rise), or

3. Illegally drive through the lowered barrier, which would contravene Bristol Airport bylaws.

It is important to note that stopping at a car park barrier is a mandatory requirement under Bristol Airport’s own bylaws. Expecting a driver to navigate this scenario and make these decisions in milliseconds—while operating a moving vehicle—is both unrealistic and potentially hazardous. In this context, stopping was the only safe and lawful course of action.

I therefore reject this charge entirely on the grounds that the driver was placed in an unavoidable and unreasonable situation, and acted in accordance with both safety and legal obligations.

I would also draw your attention to a number of media articles highlighting similar disputes, including:

• BBC News (unable to post link)

• BBC follow-up article (unable to post link)

• The Guardian (unable to post link)

These articles contain expert legal opinion that suggests such charges may be unenforceable, and raise broader concerns about questionable and unjust private enforcement practices at Bristol Airport.

Regarding [redacted] :

After being unable to stop appropriately at the barrier (as explained above), the driver moved the vehicle a short distance away in order to allow the passenger to retrieve their luggage without blocking access to the car park. The manoeuvre was carried out safely and without causing any obstruction or risk to others, as there were no other vehicles in the vicinity at the time.

As the registered keeper, I am aware that Vehicle Control Services Ltd cannot hold me liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) for alleged contraventions on land that is subject to statutory control. Bristol Airport is not “relevant land” as defined under PoFA, and as such, keeper liability does not apply.

If Bristol Airport intended to pursue such matters under its bylaws, that would be within its rights as the landowner. However, this is not being pleaded, and even if it were, VCS is not the landowner and does not have standing to issue penalties under those bylaws. VCS’s notices are issued for private profit and do not constitute public penalty charges. As such, they rely solely on alleged contractual breaches by the driver.

Any further attempts to pursue payment of [redacted]  will be regarded as harassment and intimidation, and I will not hesitate to lodge formal complaints with:

• My local MP,

• Bristol Airport Ltd,

• The landowner,

• The IPC, and

• VCS directly.

In addition, I will consider escalating this case to the media and relevant consumer advocacy organisations.

That said, and without any admission of liability, I am willing to offer a gesture of goodwill in order to resolve the matter promptly and avoid unnecessary time and expense for both parties. I am prepared to settle CN Ref [redacted]  at the reduced rate of £60, on the clear condition that this is accepted as full and final settlement of both charges, [redacted]  and [redacted] .

I trust you will consider this a reasonable and fair resolution under the circumstances.

Kind regards,

Richard

doubledotcom

How do you think they could identify the driver from the CCTV? There is no magical unicorn database where they can insert an image of someone and out spits their identity. They have no idea who that person in the images is except that they are the driver.

Besides, if you think a bottom-dwelling, unregulated private parking firm owned by ex-clamper thugs have any "authority" to try and conduct forensic examination of CCTV, then you ave been watching too much TV nonsense.