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

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Actually do it every time your vehicle visits an Airport, whether it gets a PCN or not. 

inthedepthsofthesea

A small detail, and I realise this is just a first draft, but I would refer to the time the driver woke up as "the time necessary for an early morning flight" and not "stupid o'clock" as that could suggest that in your opinion their tiredness was needlessly self inflicted.

skuther

inthedepthsofthesea said:

A small detail, and I realise this is just a first draft, but I would refer to the time the driver woke up as "the time necessary for an early morning flight" and not "stupid o'clock" as that could suggest that in your opinion their tiredness was needlessly self inflicted.

Fair point - ammended. thanks

skuther

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Ok sounds fair.

So as my next email along I about to send the following more gentle response - and yes will be interested in seeing CCTV.

Still feel LBA need to know what kind of company they are working with (if they don't already) - so will still send a longer one later.

I will hold off sending the other email to VCS for a little longer  (I still only have the "litigation" email address for them). Presumably if VCS actually do respond positively and quickly to it then they would delete the CCTV and I would lose my chance to see it.

Hi xxx,

Thanks for reviewing the footage - but I am of course disappointed with that answer and will likely have more to say on the matter after seeking specialist advice.

The 51seconds figure was stated in good faith as that is the information provided by VCS. I am a little suprised it was as long as 2min 2 secs (although two reasons were provided to VCS why this was the case and why it was not safe to drive off sooner - and happy to elaborate further).

One of the problems is that VCS make themselves very difficult to contact. They don't provide an email address or a contact telephone number. You can only communicate via web submission form - and in response you get an email from a "no-reply" address. I made the mistake of responding to that previously and took 2wks for me to realise why I wasn't getting a response so I not been able to enter into any meaningful discussion with them.

You asked if you could "help further with any other query" - yes please.

1. Please can you provide a contact email address for VCS.

2. As keeper of the car and as a passenger (who presumably can be seen through the car window on your footage) I formally request a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the CCTV footage under GDPR rules. I understand you may need to readact third party information, if any is on there. You obviously are able to confirm my name/address as per the DVLA request for keeper details from VCS. If you require further evidence of my identity please let me know.

Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,

xxx

fisherjim

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.

I would tell them that VCS are negligent in their contractual duties in this specific example as sending a £100 speculative demand for payment days after an alleged event/incident quite obviously cannot clear any obstruction at that time.

Maybe they should consider regular patrols by a vehicle similar to traffic officers on a motorway helping motorists. This would be a better modus operandi, but of course the fact is that VCS actually want people to stop for any reason as their business model is undeniably profits over safety!

skuther

fisherjim said:

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.

I would tell them that VCS are negligent in their contractual duties in this specific example as sending a £100 speculative demand for payment days after an alleged event/incident quite obviously cannot clear any obstruction at that time.

Maybe they should consider regular patrols by a vehicle similar to traffic officers on a motorway helping motorists. This would be a better modus operandi, but of course the fact is that VCS actually want people to stop for any reason as their business model is undeniably profits over safety!

Good point. I note for example other places/airports have a number you can ring if you are eg. broken down so they can speedily clear any obstruction. Of course I noted from other threads that failing to ring that number when broken down on private land was also a reason to get £100 "fine"...

h2g2

Do you need to correct IPA to IPC?

If the parking industry and the brewing industry team up do you think they could produce an IPC IPA, at £2 for a pint, but with T&C's where you agree to pay £100 if you don't finish it, leave the glass on your table, or take longer then 5 minutes to drink it?

KeithP

skuther said:
Hi xxx,

I thought we had established that an appropriate salutation would be 'Dear Sirs'?

LDast

You also keep referring to the "contract" allegedly breached. There is no contract.

Prohibitive signage, by its nature, is not intended to form a contract but rather to impose a prohibition or restriction. In contract law, for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations. Prohibitive signs, such as those stating "No Parking" or "No Stopping" do not offer terms that a person can accept; rather, they set out rules that prevent certain actions.

Where signage merely prohibits an action, it cannot logically be seen as an offer, since no contract can arise from a "forbidden" action. For example, if a sign says "No Stopping" and someone stops in contravention of that, there has been no contract because the signage did not offer terms that could be accepted. In the context of private parking, any enforcement of a breach based on such signage would have to rely on statutory or other grounds (e.g., bylaws or trespass) rather than contract law.

A parking charge is issued based on prohibitive signage, should be challenged on the grounds that no valid contract was formed, as the terms did not constitute an offer capable of being accepted by conduct.

Le_Kirk

2. As keeper of the car and as a passenger (who presumably can be seen through the car window on your footage) I formally request submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the CCTV footage under GDPR rules.

If you haven't sent it yet, you don't request a request you submit a request.