VCS. Unauthorised "stopping" at Leeds Bradford Airport - discontinued after 2x complaints to airport

skuther

We recently flew out of Leeds Bradford airport for 1week holiday.

At about 5am we drove in error to the wrong carpark in error - the onsite one instead of a third party one down the road.

I am the keeper. I was NOT the driver. I was front seat passenger and so witness also.

I have NOT named the driver.

We actually went through the barrier - realised our error and talked out way back out.

Then as exiting the car park the driver went round the roundabout and on coming out of it had problems with shifting gear and stalled car.

Already tired and stressed (from getting up at stupid o'clock for flight) the driver was also panicing about missing our flight.

The driver requried a bit of time to calm down after the stalling as was clearly not fit to drive initially (I can confirm this both as an eye witness as a doctor of 15yrs experience, who conincidentally has done over 100 driving medical for the DVLA. It would have been negligent and a high risk to passengers and other road users to have driven off immediately).

The photos of car in context are time stamped  05:14:58 --> 05:15:44 (so less than 1minute).

The photos who the car stopped between the roundabout and a zebra crossing (on a "red" no stopping at all  route - surely that is contraindictory?).

Obviously none of us saw any signs "the contract" of relevance at the time.

Initial appeal was trying to be a common sense one (yes I know now from the forums and another ongoing claim against my wife that private parking companies don't care....) - mentioning the stalling and subsequent need to recover before safe to drive off. Obviously VCS rejected it.

Got back the typical rejection response:

Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:
The signs at the entrance to Leeds Bradford Airport and the access roads within, clearly state "No Stopping, Picking Up or Dropping Off", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.
In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was when your vehicle was seen to be stopped on the access road. It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.
A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped for an unreasonable amount of time on the access road where restrictions apply.
Whilst we note the circumstances you describe, the signs near to the location you stopped clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the Charge displayed.
There are over 60 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable. The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping, Picking Up or Dropping Off" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping). Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that location.
We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand;

The main road outside the hospital is a RED route (not stopping) which has been approved by the council.

The link road is private - but not identified as such on the signage (not seen at the time - but looked up after the event on google street view).

I also complained to Leeds Bradford airport - and initially they sounded like they were going to be reasonable, and said they would pull the CCTV footage and I said that was a reasonable next step.

Of course they then rejected it also.

Thank you for contacting Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA)

We have reviewed the footage and can clearly see that your vehicle was stopped for an extended period in a designated no-stopping zone. We permit vehicles to stop for up to 30 seconds to check signage and directions; however, any vehicle stopped beyond this time is subject to a penalty charge notice.

Please be aware that we contract VCS to enforce this no-stopping zone because it serves as an emergency access point to the airfield. This is a safety-critical road, and unrestricted access is required for emergency services at all times. Blocking or restricting access here poses a safety risk to other airport traffic and emergency vehicles that may need to respond to urgent calls.

From the CCTV footage, we note that you were stopped on a roundabout for 2 minutes and 2 seconds, creating an obstruction for other vehicles, one of which had to dangerously manoeuvre into the oncoming lane to pass your vehicle. 

Unfortunately Leeds Bradford Airport cannot agree to cancel this parking charge. We advise you to follow the process outlined in the charge notice, and you have the right to refer your appeal to the independent appeals service as mentioned in the notice.

Please let me know if I can help further with any other query. 

Kind Regards,​xxx

Interesting how they have clocked it a different time from VCS - clearly one of them is wrong.

skuther

I am confident that this should be easy to defend based on my reading of the forums.

There is a bylaw mentioning which relates to this. Leeds Bradford Airport Byelaws 2022

https://www.leedsbradfordairport.co.uk/airport-byelaws

"5.3 Obstruction
Except in an emergency, no person shall leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by a Sign."

VCS have made themselves very very difficult to contact. No email / telephone provided.

They want you to use their online form - and then they email you a response from a "no-reply" email.

The only one I can find on their website is: litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk

Is this appropriate, or has anyone got a better one.

skuther

How about this as my next message to VCS (just need someone to let me know if they have a functional email address I can use for VCS?):

complaint re. inappropriate pursuit of Parking Charge Notice Number xxx- Vehicle: xxx

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged 'debt' (LOL) against myself but I am not liable. I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle but I was not driving.

You and I both know that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply in this case.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited lost at appeal based on this issue.  Do you need reminding?

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

You are also ignoring Leeds Bradford bylaws that allow for stopping in an emergency (just as the one described to you in the appeal).

Your legal arguments are terrible at best and would easily be defeated in court.

I could go on and on but, I don't need to as you have fallen at the first hurdle - as I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so - as then I would be complicit with you in harrassing the driver (Protection from Harassment Act 1997) over your made up money making scam "debt".


You cannot transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because you know I was not the driver. I require you to cancel the PCN and erase my data within 14 days of this email.

Yours sincerely,

xx

KeithP

skuther said:

I am confident that this should be easy to defend based on my reading of the forums.

Absolutely right.

As the airport is covered by byelaws, there is no way that any driver's liability can be transferred to the keeper.

Good to see that you haven't given away the driver's identity. Keep it that way.

Coupon-mad

How about asking LBA for the CCTV footage?  If they've viewed it, then it exists as full footage, as opposed to the still images VCS will cough up as part of the court claim.

And he did finish by saying"please let me know if I can help further".

This is also the first time we've seen this in writing:

"We permit vehicles to stop for up to 30 seconds to check signage and directions; however, any vehicle stopped beyond this time is subject to a penalty charge notice."

skuther

Wrote this partially as a therapeutic rant - but seriously considering sending it to Leeds Bradford customer services - as a ongoing complaint about VCS.

I am not naive enough to think it will change anything massively - but every little helps.

I would be grateful for everyones comments.

Have I gone too far?

I don't think I have posted anything libellous / undefendable?

Have I made any serious technical errors?

Dear Sirs / Leeds Bradford management team,

1. I am deeply concerned that you think that that is the end of the complaint rather than just the "next step".

This was a complaint about the unethical behaviours of your agents VCS - I already know their made up scam "debt" does not apply to me (see below - including keeper vs driver liability in law), but you requesting they cancel it would certainly save you further embarrassment and mitigate your liability.

2. However thank you for looking at the CCTV footage as agreed.

Please confirm what I have already stated that nobody got in/out of the car.

I am sure you agree that the footage is consistent what I have reported to you/VCS - ie. a car stopping unexpectedly due to an "emergency".

I also concerned that the length of time of "stopping" reported by you was different from that provided by VCS. Please clarify if this was due to technological failure or human error.

These discrepancies do not fill me with confidence and I would like to see the CCTV footage.

Specific things that VCS have done poorly in this particular case:

3. In case it wasn't clear from the previous appeal to VCS I was NOT the driver of the car, just the registered keeper.

VCS continues to pursue this charge based on the assumption that I, as the registered keeper, was the driver—an argument that was dismissed in the persuasive appeal case of VCS v Edward [HOKF6C9C] 2023. As they are fully aware there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper is the driver, yet VCS persists in making this baseless claim.

4. VCS make it difficult to contact them. They don't provide a telephone number or an email address. The offer a web based form for enquires - the response comes as a "no-reply" email again with no clear way of responding to them.

5. Confusing signage at the interface between the council approved public road red route and the private "red route"

no time or chance for a driver to read the signs and make an informed decision about accepting the "contract" or leaving - in part as one would have to stop to read it properly and give it due consideration - which is disallowed by the terms of the "contract".

"no stopping" ,with no exemptions of ANY KIND allowed - this is dangerous "contract". It does not allow for emergencies.

It does not even allow for the fact there is a zebra crossing on the road - currently a driver would have to run over any pedestrians crossing to avoid breech of contract. See what a judge thinks of that in court!

Incidentally a zebra crossing in a red no stopping zone is normally considered a contradiction.

6. Failure to provide the actual terms of condition of the "contract" and no copy of alleged sign that was contravened. I have since looked this up in retrospect courtesy of google maps.

7. I note Leeds Bradford airport bylaws (5.3) allow for stopping in an emergency. So surely your operator VCS is in clear breech of your own bylaws - which would quite serious.

https://lba-production.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lba-byelaws-2022---(clean-july-2023).pdf

https://www.leedsbradfordairport.co.uk/airport-byelaws

8. Ignoring the context of the "emergency" stop.

 a) first the clutch problem leading to transient engine failure / stalling would be an example of an unavoidable emergency.

 b) secondly (as stated in the original appeal) - The driver, already tired and stressed (from getting at the time necessary for an early morning flight) also become overwhelmed and panicky about coming to the wrong car park and worried about missing the  flight. They required a bit of time to calm down after the above and was clearly not fit to drive initially. I can confirm this both as an eye witness and as a doctor of 15yrs experience, who coincidentally has done over 100 driving medical for the DVLA.

It would have been negligent and a high risk to passengers and other road users to have driven off sooner.

Wider concerns about VCS

9. I don't know if you are aware of VCSs terrible business practices.

 a) If you are then you are being wilfully complicit

 b) if you are not then you being negligent in monitoring the agents who represent you and are still complicit

10. VCS has a very poor reputation. You only have to search for them on Google to see the trail of destruction and misery they have inflicted on motorists across the country.

1.2 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot from over a hundred reviews  - and the only "positive" review was an ironic one "5 star useless parasites in society scamming clowns"

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/vehiclecontrolservices.co.uk

11. I note VCS have got themselves in quite a lot of trouble recently, including some high profile court losses and several cases in the news.

The government has been investigating misconduct in the parking industry.

12 .These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

13. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

Appeals service not fit for purpose

14. Private parking companies typically belong to the IPA or the BPA.

 - IPA members (like VCS) typically use the IAS - which is not considered to be independent has been shown to be affiliated with the private parking industry. The IAS is not considered fit for purpose. This so called "appeals" service only upheld 4% of cases last year - many of which later went on to win in court, so motorist are usually advised not to even consider using it.

- BPA member typical use POPLA - which has a better reputation, but still not considered adequate.

15. So to summarise wider concerns

 - there is strong evidence that companies like VCS have a business model that involves trying to impose as many £100 scam "debts" as possible to make them their money.

 - They ignore reasonable appeals.

 - VCS use IAS, who are have a reputation for bias and not fit for purpose.

 - They then inflate the "debt" (typically by another £70) by outsourcing to third party "debt recovery" services - despite knowing it is the will of parliament to ban this.

 - They then use bulk-litigation legal firms to threaten motorists

 - They then follow through with small claims courts to anyone who does not known enough about the law to defend themselves -  knowing that by this point the majority of motorists will have been worn down by harassment from the processes above and have been intimidated into paying them.

 - They lose any even semi-defended court case - but don't care as overall make a good profit (that doesn't actually have anything to do with their actual day jobs of providing parking solutions).

 

16.  Please note I have already reported this matter to my MP  - the initial response is supportive "As a fellow motorist who has fallen victim to such companies previously, I fully understand your frustration with the industry as a whole" and "will certainly bear your experiences and your comments in mind when this issue is next highlighted in the House"

I think it exceptionally unlikely that VCS would ever be able to bring this case to court.

Although I don't intend to take you/them to court - if in the unlikely event VCS pursue this I will robustly fight this in court and hold you jointly responsible for any expenses.

I hope for your sake and the sake of your future customers that you take these concerns seriously.

Yours sincerely,

xxx

skuther

Copy of "terms and conditions" taken from google maps.

KeithP

skuther said:

Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

That paragraph needs slight adjustment. The code is not yet live and I am sure @Coupon-mad can expand on that if necessary.

Not a good idea to head that letter/email with 'To whom it may concern'.
In my opinion it would be better starting with just 'Dear Sirs'.

skuther

KeithP said:

skuther said:

Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

That paragraph needs slight adjustment. The code is not yet live and I am sure @Coupon-mad can expand on that if necessary.

Not a good idea to head that letter/email with 'To whom it may concern'.
In my opinion it would be better starting with just 'Dear Sirs'.

ammended to Dear Sirs (also updated a few other typos / numbering + inserted comments in email from MP's team)

The above is copy and paste from Coupon-Mads template defence - I think I recall reading justification for that was as it is not dead it is 'live', but I will of course defer to what ever I am advised. thanks

KeithP

skuther said:

KeithP said:

skuther said:

Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

That paragraph needs slight adjustment. The code is not yet live and I am sure @Coupon-mad can expand on that if necessary.

The above is copy and paste from Coupon-Mads template defence - I think I recall reading justification for that was as it is not dead it is 'live', but I will of course defer to what ever I am advised. thanks

Yes, having checked, I can see that the template Defence paragraph 10 does say exactly what you have posted.

But I still have my doubts on that point.

Coupon-mad

I suggest you keep all that for later and just ask nicely for the footage first. Could be useful and you know it exists because he said it does and he's viewed it.

Ask for it now before they wipe it, and remind him this is your right under SAR rules. Tell them they can redact other numberplates (or faces but it was unlikely there were any passers-by).

You will never see it unless you get it now.

Maybe we should always use this tactic with Airports. SAR them every time for the footage.  It will annoy them and could be very useful.