East Midlands Airport // VCS // No Stopping PCN // County Court Claim stage

Coupon-mad

I think you'd be better copying & pasting your words into two replies openly.  You have nothing to hide.

Have Elms Legal stepped away yet?

1505grandad

Make sure when you post the WS you are using a recent example  -  for instance the SoT is out of date.

tennisfingers

Will do, thank you. 

Yes ELMS stepped away a while ago. 

tennisfingers

1505grandad said:

Make sure when you post the WS you are using a recent example  -  for instance the SoT is out of date.

Just finalising my WS. Which part of the SoT is out of date?

tennisfingers

Here is my WS in full. I am happy to post this now as I will be shortly sending it to VCS anyway... 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am [REDACTED NAME] of [REDACTED ADDRESS]. I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief, and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.
2. In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, citing page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

 

Facts and Sequence of Events

1. On 05/08/2023, my employer ([REDACTED COMPANY]) was invited onto the land occupied by [REDACTED ORGANIZATION] to conduct IT maintenance work. My employer assigned this call to me (Exhibit 1). Upon arriving at the site, I needed to ascertain the specific area or car park I was required to visit. I found a safe place to pull over and make a phone call (Exhibit 2), which happened to be an empty bus stop to the left of the double red lines (Exhibit 3). At the time, I believed stopping in this area was not prohibited. I avoided entering and potentially blocking access to a barricaded car park (Exhibit 4).
2. While on the phone obtaining directions, I noticed a vehicle pull in behind me and then leave shortly after. I initially thought they might have been stopping to offer assistance, but I now realise this was not the case.
3. On 04/09/2023, I received a Hirer Notification from my employer and began preparing my appeal. I attempted to identify the landowner but was unsuccessful. I approached [REDACTED ORGANIZATION] (the land operator) to request that the Claimant cancel the PCN. However, [REDACTED ORGANIZATION] informed me that the Claimant had refused their request. [REDACTED ORGANIZATION] provided a statement to support my appeal (Exhibit 5), confirming that I was invited onto the land by the land operator. At the time, I believed this was sufficient to justify a successful appeal.
4. I submitted my appeal shortly after (Exhibit 6), listing what I believed to be three valid reasons for a successful appeal. On 19/09/2023, I received a reply from the Claimant, which only partially addressed my first point, while points two and three were ignored.
5. I further appealed to the Claimant via email (Exhibit 7), querying whether an error had been made, as my points were not addressed. The Claimant replied (Exhibit 8) but again failed to address the points raised or acknowledge that the land operator had requested the PCN's cancellation. The Claimant stated that all further communications on this matter would be ignored.
6. On 09/10/2023, I appealed to the IAS (Exhibit 9) and requested evidence proving the Claimant's authorisation from the landowner to operate on the land. This evidence was not supplied.
7. In subsequent correspondence, I also requested the full "No Stopping" contravention terms and conditions, as well as the Claimant’s authority to enforce these terms. These were not supplied.
8. On 14/11/2023, the Adjudicator dismissed my appeal (Exhibit 10). I did not accept this decision. As it was not legally binding, I decided to wait for the Claimant to initiate proceedings, believing this would provide a fairer opportunity to state my case.
9. After receiving several threatening demand letters, I eventually received a defective "Letter Before Claim" (LBC) on 27/02/2024 (Exhibits 11 & 12).
10. The letter did not comply with the Practice Direction, as it:

• Failed to provide information on whether the debt arose from an oral, written, or assigned agreement (Practice Direction point 3.1(a)(iii-v)).
• Lacked instructions on how to proceed if the debtor wished to discuss payment options (Practice Direction point 3.1(a)(vii)).

LDast

Without trawling bc through the thread, did you cover the following reasons in your defence? I ask because your WS doesn't seem to put much emphasis the fact that they are suing you for a breach of contract where not contract could ave ever been formed based on the signage. This was a question asked for a similar situation at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) which is also infested with VCS and plagued by them issuing unlawful PCNs:

So, "terms & conditions mean that they are chasing you for an alleged debt because the driver as breached those Ts&Cs (the contract). The supposed contract was allegedly entered into by the conduct of the driver, whether they read the signs or not.

I suggest you do a GSV run through LJLA and show us any sign that is capable of forming a contract. A prohibitory sign, such as "No Stopping," fails to form a contract with a driver because it lacks the fundamental elements necessary to create a legally binding agreement.

A contractual sign requires a clear offer. A prohibitory sign does not constitute an offer to do something in exchange for consideration; instead, it dictates prohibited behaviour. For example, "No Stopping" is not inviting the driver to accept an offer but simply forbidding an action.

A contract also requires consideration—something of value exchanged between the parties. A sign prohibiting stopping does not offer anything of value to the driver in exchange for compliance. Without mutual consideration, there can be no valid contract.

For a contract to be enforceable, its terms must be clear and specific. A "No Stopping" sign is a regulatory or instructional notice, not a contractual term offering terms for stopping or parking. It does not outline the obligations, rights, or penalties in a way that would form a mutual agreement.

In contract law, acceptance is a conscious agreement to the terms of an offer. Drivers cannot "accept" a prohibition because it does not invite or permit acceptance. A prohibition is a directive, not a negotiable term.

A "No Stopping" sign is typically interpreted as a rule or regulation rather than an offer to enter into a private agreement. Such signs are designed to enforce behaviour, not to create a contractual relationship.

Both parties must intend to create legal relations for a contract to be valid. A prohibitory sign does not demonstrate an intention to form a contract; it indicates a prohibition enforced by penalty, typically through statutory or administrative mechanisms, not contract law.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasised that signage must clearly set out terms and conditions for a contract to be valid. A prohibitory sign such as "No Stopping" does not set terms or conditions; it simply prohibits an action, meaning no contract is formed.

This distinction is critical in cases involving unregulated private parking companies, as they often attempt to enforce penalties on the basis of implied contracts. A prohibitory sign undermines such claims because it lacks the legal framework to establish a contractual agreement.

The signage at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) uses prohibitory language, stating "No Stopping" and "£100 Charge if you Stop." Such language cannot form the basis of a contractual offer, as it does not permit or offer terms capable of acceptance.

Even if the sign could be interpreted as offering terms it is ambiguous. It does not specify how long a vehicle must stop to incur the charge or whether stopping momentarily for safety would constitute a breach. Ambiguity in purported terms renders them unenforceable.

The £100 charge is clearly punitive, arising from a prohibition, and does not represent a contractual term. Penalty charges in civil contract law are unenforceable unless they reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which VCS has not demonstrated.

So, no enforceable contract was entered into or breached. Easily defended if they were to allow this to go all the way to a hearing in the small claims track of the county court.

Additionally, the following was a short essay on the legality of VCS being able to override statutory law for breaches on the public roads within airports they operate at. If your defence covered any aspect of this, then it should be included and highlighted in your WS:

The Incompatibility of Contractual Parking Enforcement with Statutory Byelaws*

The issuance of Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) by Vehicle Control Services (VCS) for alleged contractual breaches on airport roads governed by statutory byelaws raises significant legal issues. This situation frequently arises at airports such as Bristol Airport, Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA), and Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA), where VCS enforces stopping restrictions using assumed contractual frameworks, despite the presence of statutory byelaws.

Statutory Byelaws and Public Law Jurisdiction

Airport roads are typically subject to statutory byelaws made under the Airports Act 1986, which regulate conduct such as stopping, driving, and parking. These byelaws are public law instruments approved by the Secretary of State and can only be enforced via their prescribed mechanisms, usually prosecution in a magistrates' court for breaches.  

When specific behavior, such as stopping in a restricted zone, is regulated by byelaws, this statutory framework supersedes any implied contractual arrangement. Attempts by VCS to enforce stopping restrictions through assumed contracts amount to circumventing statutory law, which is legally unsustainable.  

Prohibitive Signage and Contract Formation

To establish a valid contractual claim, there must be an offer of terms that a driver can accept. However, signage at these airports often displays prohibitive language, such as "No Stopping at Any Time." This type of signage does not offer terms for acceptance; it communicates a prohibition. Courts have repeatedly determined that prohibitive signage cannot form the basis of a contractual relationship.  

Furthermore, the signs enforced by VCS do not reference the governing airport byelaws. This omission creates a misleading impression that VCS has contractual authority to issue PCNs for prohibited conduct. In reality, such conduct falls within the jurisdiction of the byelaws and must be addressed through statutory enforcement mechanisms.  

Misrepresentation and Unfair Practices

At various airports, including Bristol Airport, LJLA, and LBA, VCS frequently argues that airport byelaws are "obsolete," thereby justifying their reliance on assumed contracts. This claim is not only factually incorrect but also constitutes a misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs). Byelaws remain valid and enforceable until formally revoked, replaced, or invalidated by a court or updated legislation. Misleading drivers about the applicable legal framework is an unfair business practice that undermines the legitimacy of VCS’s claims.  

Challenges to VCS’s Enforcement Claims

If VCS pursues enforcement under contract law on byelaw-governed land, their claim should be challenged on several grounds:  

1. Authority: VCS must demonstrate their authority to issue contractual demands on land regulated by statutory byelaws.  
2. Contract Validity: The alleged contract is invalid due to the prohibitive nature of the signage and the absence of any offer for acceptance.  
3. Omission of Byelaws: Failure to reference the byelaws on signage further undermines the validity of their claims.  
4. Misrepresentation: Claims that byelaws are obsolete or irrelevant should be contested as breaches of the CPUTRs.  

Conclusion

VCS’s reliance on assumed contractual frameworks to enforce stopping restrictions on byelaw-governed land is fundamentally flawed. Prohibitive signage that omits references to the applicable byelaws creates a misleading basis for enforcement, leaving VCS’s claims legally untenable.  

This issue is not limited to Bristol Airport; it equally applies to LJLA, LBA, and other airports where VCS operates. Drivers who receive PCNs in such circumstances should challenge the claims, exposing their unlawful nature and safeguarding the rights of motorists against predatory enforcement practices.  

tennisfingers

Thank you very much for that information. I did refer to breach of contact / no contract made so I will use those points in my WS. I didn't mention the Bylaws point in my Defence, so does that mean I can't use them in my WS?

Also, can you share those document sources?

Coupon-mad

The entire SoT is over 5 years out of date.

Please read other recent WS and read the WS and exhibits guidance in the NEWBIES thread.

tennisfingers

I've checked the NEWBIES thread as you suggested and also looked for more recent WS to compare, but still a little confused... are you saying only the Statement of Truth is outdated? and should be replaced with this, for example?

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

All other points are OK?

tennisfingers

SoT changed to the above and also added in the information shared by LDast into my Witness Statement, after mentioning it in my Defence. 

Just need to compile the pack with all exhibits ready to send to the Claimant and the court. 

I’ve received a letter from VCS asking if I want to settle for £200. They’ve also shared some information I obviously already know about it being transferred to court. I responded via email in the same manner and explained I was looking forward to receiving the following documents before the 11th Feb:

1. A copy of the written terms of the contract between us,

2. A copy of the agreement by which they are authorised by the landowner to carry out parking operations on the relevant land, redacted where appropriate,

3. Details of the location where the contract was formed,

4. Clear, colour A4 sized copies of any photographic evidence upon which they are relying,

5. A detailed outline of the alleged breach of contract,

6. A breakdown of how the amount of the alleged debt is calculated under the terms of the agreement.

I wanted to demonstrate to them I can also read the letter sent by the court.