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

Coupon-mad

Good approach.

And it's a good non-templately WS as well.

Personally, I would suggest exposing the IAS a bit more in case your Judge doesn't know about that 'kangaroo court', so maybe change this and remove Exhibit 10, which isn't needed:

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.

to

8. On 14/11/2023, an anonymous so-called 'Adjudicator' dismissed my appeal with what I now realise was a Template rejection, seen in the appalling (IAS-confirmed) statistic of 95% of IAS 'decisions' that go against appellants. I use the terms in inverted commas loosely. Understandably, I did not accept this rubbish and as it was not legally binding, I decided to wait for the Claimant to file court proceedings, believing this would provide the fair opportunity to state my case that the IAS does not. It is self-serving, described by many as a kangaroo court and it is widely suspected that the 'adjudicators' are not impartial, and are even considered likely to be from the same pool of legal reps who present cases in court, later. Hence the anonymity. If that likelihood is right, then the IAS decision-making staff have a vested interest in the consumer losing. That's not an appeals service. 

tennisfingers

**UPDATE**

Just received the Claimant's WS:

In The County Court at xxxx

Claim No: xxxx

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited

(Claimant)

Mr xxxx

(Defendant)

________________________________________

Witness Statement

I, (Removed by Forum Team), of (Removed by Forum Team), will say as follows:

Introduction

1. I am employed by Vehicle Control Services Limited as an Associate Legal Executive. The facts and matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing scheduled for 28 March 2025 in support of the Claimant's claim against the Defendant. Within this statement, I make reference to various documents. These are now produced to me in a paginated bundle marked JB1-2. The evidence tendered in the exhibits is taken from the Claimant's Company records.

Background

3. The Claimant is engaged in providing and managing private parking facilities on behalf of Clients throughout Great Britain. At all material times, the Claimant has been an Accredited Member of Approved Trade Associations certified by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

4. A vehicle bearing the registration number of XXXX was identified in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions ("Contract") known as East Midlands Airport on the 5th August 2023. Whilst the vehicle was identified on private land, the Defendant was confirmed as the driver of the vehicle.

The Contract

5. At the time the Charge was issued, my Company was prominently displaying signs on the Land stipulating the terms of entry. A copy of the content of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at "JB1". The signs formed the basis of the contract with the driver of the Vehicle ("the Contract"). The following was a term of the Contract:

No Stopping
(Bus Stop - PUBLIC BUSES ONLY)
£100 Charge if you Stop

6. Upon the vehicle entering the Land, the driver accepted the Contract and agreed to be bound by those terms advertised. The Contract provides that a charge is payable by the driver if it is breached, with payment falling due within 28 days. The Contract (i.e. the signs) was prominently displayed on the Land and in this regard, a site plan showing the positioning is exhibited to this Statement at "JB1".

7. Amongst other things, the above signs specifically detail the Terms and Conditions of entry and the consequences of failure to comply with these Terms and Conditions. In particular, the signs specifically state that a charge is levied for breaching the Terms and Conditions. This is a contractual clause which specifies the amount owed. There is sufficient and adequate signage for the Terms and Conditions to have been brought to the attention of any motorist wishing to use the car park.

Breach of Contract

8. The Defendant became liable for the parking charge as the vehicle to which they are responsible for was found in breach of the Contract. The evidence adduced to this statement identifies that the vehicle was stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. The documents adduced at "JB2" are evidence of the vehicle in breach. In light of the breach of the Contract, the Claimant is entitled to levy a charge against the Defendant and therefore the Defendant is liable to the Claimant.

The Defendant's Defence

9. The Defendant's defence is a generic "internet defence" that adopts a scattergun approach, raising multiple arguments in the hope that one will succeed. While the Claimant will address the defence in full, it will first focus on the most apparent issues.

10. The land in question is privately owned by East Midlands Airport. The airport has instructed the Claimant to manage its roadways due to frequent congestion caused by vehicles stopping to pick up or drop off passengers. Additionally, the purpose of this management is to enhance security around the airport’s road network. The Defendant parked on a roadway subject to a “No Stopping” restriction, specifically in a designated public bus stop area.

11. The Defendant has admitted awareness of the restriction but claims he had permission from DHL to stop there. However, no evidence has been provided to support this assertion. The Claimant maintains that the land is owned by East Midlands Airport, which has implemented a strict “No Stopping” prohibition and therefore irrespective of whether DHL gave permission, they had no authority to do so. A title plan is exhibited “JBL”.

12. The video footage clearly shows the Defendant’s vehicle parked in an area covered by the parking restrictions. As a result, a charge of £100 was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions, which the Defendant accepted by entering the land.

13. In support of the Claimant’s position, several appellate court decisions confirm that a valid contract exists in identical circumstances. Specifically, in VCSL v Crucibley, VCSL v Like & Wend, and VCSL v Welbourne, three Circuit Judges concluded that a valid contract was formed, and the charge was lawfully imposed.

14. Moving onto the points raised by the Defendant in his defence, The Claimant refers to the Defence filed and responds as follows. Unless expressly admitted, the Claimant denies each and every allegation made by the Defendant.

Costs and Profitability Allegations

15. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has not incurred costs because a Parking Charge Notice model already includes operational costs and generates profit. This assertion is misconceived. The Supreme Court in *ParkingEye v Brands [2015] UKSC 67* upheld the legitimacy of parking charges as a deterrent and accepted that they serve a legitimate interest beyond mere compensation.

16. The costs associated with enforcement extend beyond the issuance of letters and reminders. The Claimant incurs expenses related to staff, technology, legal fees, and other operational matters. The contention that debt collectors charge nothing in failed cases is irrelevant to the Claimant’s legitimate recovery of enforcement costs.

17. This was concluded on Appeal in the case of *VSCL v Perry* and *OPS & Wilshaw* in where both Circuit Judges concluded that the additional charges were legitimate.

Code of Practice and Market Failure Assertions

18. The Defendant’s reference to the DLUHC Code of Practice is misplaced. The Code has not been implemented and does not override existing contractual obligations. The BPA and IPC Codes remain the relevant industry standards, and compliance with them supports the enforceability of the charge.

19. The Defendant’s reliance on broad claims of ‘market failure’ lacks relevance to the contractual obligations of motorists who park on private land. The Claimant’s authority to issue and enforce parking charges remains valid and enforceable.

20. The Defendant seeks to rely on grace periods, but the IPC Code of Practice explicitly does not allow a grace period for contraventions related to “No Stopping” areas. The relevant section of the IPC Code states that where stopping is prohibited, enforcement action may be taken immediately without any grace period being afforded. This is consistent with the principle that such prohibitions are in place for safety and traffic management purposes.

Judicial Findings and Case Law

21. The Defendant criticises Circuit Judges (which is unhelpful) and refers to District Judges who have purportedly dismissed added fees in previous cases. This argument fails to recognise the binding nature of higher court authority. The judgments in Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien and One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were considered and remain persuasive authority.

22. The Defendant's attempt to distinguish Beavis is without merit. The Supreme Court confirmed that a charge can be enforceable even if it exceeds direct losses, provided it serves a legitimate interest and is not unconscionable or exorbitant.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) Compliance

23. The Defendant asserts that the sum claimed exceeds the maximum recoverable from a registered keeper under POFA. The Claimant maintains that the charge is lawful and enforceable. In any event, the claim is brought against the Defendant as the driver.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) Allegations

24. The Defendant alleges breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), asserting that the terms were not prominent, fair, or clear. The Claimant denies this and maintains that:

• The signage at the site was clear and prominently displayed.

• The contractual terms were legible and adhered to industry standards.

• The Defendant had reasonable notice of the terms.

25. The Defendant's references to Spurling v Bradshaw, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, and Vine v Waltham Forest do not assist them. These cases concerned contractual incorporation and visibility of terms in very different contexts. The Defendant had ample opportunity to review the signage and was bound by the displayed terms.

Landowner Authority and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

26. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's authority to issue and enforce the charge. The Claimant maintains that it has the necessary authority through contractual arrangements with the landowner and will provide evidence if required.

27. The Defendant alleges a lack of fair ADR. The Claimant followed the appeals process outlined in the relevant industry Codes and maintains that an adequate dispute resolution mechanism was available to the Defendant.

Costs and Conduct

28. The Defendant's claim that the Claimant acted unreasonably is rejected. The claim is properly pleaded, and any application for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) is without merit.

Conclusion

29. Accordingly the Claimant is entitled to a Judgment. It is a matter of agreement that the instance of parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions of the signs. Liability is agreed to be the sum contained in accordance with the amount stated on the signs.   

30. I may not be able to attend the forthcoming hearing. Should this be the case, I will instruct an advocate to attend on my behalf and ask that the Court accepts this as my written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9 (1). Should I be unable to attend, I request the honourable Court decide the Claim in my absence, taking into account this Statement and any other evidence I may file. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of CPR 27.9 (1).

________________________________________

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the contents of 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.

Date: xxxx

Sign:

(Removed by Forum Team) A.CILEx

Associate Legal Executive

For and on behalf of Vehicle Control Services Limited

inthedepthsofthesea

You've left their full name and address in your latest post, probably best to edit it out.

Edit: I see now it's a business address, so may be fine

Le_Kirk

Isn't that the claimant's address?

tennisfingers

It’s the Claimants business address. I don’t see any need to redact it. 

Bazarius

Can I see the purported contract (the sign)  JB relies  on because apparently he says the sign states “public buses only”  - I’ve never seen that . 

tennisfingers

Bazarius said:

Can I see the purported contract (the sign)  JB relies  on because apparently he says the sign states “public buses only”  - I’ve never seen that . 

This is the sign. I can’t understand how they believe this prohibitory sign is capable of forming a contract. 

Fruitcake

tennisfingers said:

Bazarius said:

Can I see the purported contract (the sign)  JB relies  on because apparently he says the sign states “public buses only”  - I’ve never seen that . 

This is the sign. I can’t understand who they believe this prohibitory sign is capable of forming a contract. 

That is not the sign displayed at the material location. It is a stock image held on a computer database. Do you have your own image of the sign, or do you have a date and time stamped image of the sign provided by the claimant in their WS?
If not, then you should put the claimant to strict proof that there is a sign that was displayed at the material location on the material date with those exact terms and conditions.

If their WS contains a copy of the alleged contract between VCS and the airport owners, please show it here, suitably redacted of personal data.
You can upload it to a web hosting site such as Dropbox or similar, then post a link to it here. Please ensure the web hosting account is not in your real name, and does not contain any other private data.

Coupon-mad

Paragraph 7 says:

"There is sufficient and adequate signage for the Terms and Conditions to have been brought to the attention of any motorist wishing to use the car park."

Pot/kettle/black re parties using a template?!

Did JB attach any of those appeal decisions like Crucibiy, Wend, etc?

tennisfingers

Yeah I noticed that too. And no, all the referenced cases have not been attached!