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

fisherjim

As a new manager I was told you cannot work for two managers.

Similarly as said before they cannot control parking or stopping under two different sets of rules or regulations.

This land is covered by Byelaws as confirmed by the airport authority and the secretary of state for transport.

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

The Joint BPA/IPC Code of practice states:

Nothing in the Code overrules the provisions and enforcement of byelaws where they
apply.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

If a vehicle was stopped on a road at the end of the runway and someone was on its roof with a pair of binoculars I am absolutely sure they would not send out a PPC camera van, take a photo, leave and send a PCN in the post.

It would be an armed police vehicle dispatched immediately.

These Dilberts cannot have it both ways.

LDast

skuther said:
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. 

They are not allowed to use CCTV to try and forensically identify anyone. They are not the police. How on earth do you imagine they would know it is YOU sitting in the passenger seat. Do you imagine there is some magical unicorn database where a photo is input and out splurges the persons details?

You deny you were the driver and that's the end of the matter. Any burden of proof you were the driver rests on VCS. How do you imagine they can do that unless you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise?

We already know that there is no Keeper liability. VCS can assume all they like that the Keeper must also be the driver but, to show their intellectual malnourishment and expose their vexatious greed, you only have to read the persuasive appeal case they they themselves lost in VCS v Edward.

PeasantsRevolt

You are at the start of a long tedious journey with Vehicle Control Services, the first instance will see you trying to establish the relevant facts to explain that they have made a mistake in issuing you with a fine for stopping. My advice to you is that you erase all thoughts from your mind that you are dealing with a company that will respond to you, they will not. VCS  are set up to worry and bully you into paying their bogus claim for money, please don’t pay them it simply encourages them to continue the wretched scam. They will instigate a small claim against you the owner of the vehicle, never at any point before that tell them who the driver of the vehicle was, this is a legal right that you have because the area in question is governed by the airports byelaws, not on public highways so as is your legal right tell them that you are the registered owner but not the driver of the vehicle. I would waste no time in explain anything else to them as they will not be listening. The money claim will soon amount to around £255  (the bullying). No need to complain or explain as they are not on receive and the months and year you may spend trying to mitigate will be wasted. Await the court documents which will surely follow as VCS use the small claim courts sytem to worry and bully you to pay. Eventually you will be asked to reply with a Witness statement by the Moeny claim on line court system. 

It is at this point that your witness statement received by the court and for the first time since you started that you finally have a voice on the matter that counts, all be it VCS will not acknowledge your witness statement or be likely to read it because they assume at this point you will pay them to make all this unpleasantness go away. The bully is a small clerk in a dismal office poorly paid and likely in reality to be generating standard letters to you at various stages at the push of a button. One good letter from you to the court in the form of a Witness Statement (WS) is going stop this madness.  VCS rely upon you not to know your rights and your job is to get the facts and the knowledge which is  made easier by being here and getting advice. I have been where you are and won as VCS discontinued their case against me a few days before a hearing. I wrote a very simple WS that was legally correct and it worked. It doesn’t need to be overly complicated or explain your circumstances it just needs to be accurate about the legal points. VCS are Charlatans and Carpetbaggers the world seems overly stuffed with their type.

skuther

PeasantsRevolt said:

You are at the start of a long tedious journey with Vehicle Control Services, the first instance will see you trying to establish the relevant facts to explain that they have made a mistake in issuing you with a fine for stopping. My advice to you is that you erase all thoughts from your mind that you are dealing with a company that will respond to you, they will not. VCS  are set up to worry and bully you into paying their bogus claim for money, please don’t pay them it simply encourages them to continue the wretched scam. They will instigate a small claim against you the owner of the vehicle, never at any point before that tell them who the driver of the vehicle was, this is a legal right that you have because the area in question is governed by the airports byelaws, not on public highways so as is your legal right tell them that you are the registered owner but not the driver of the vehicle. I would waste no time in explain anything else to them as they will not be listening. The money claim will soon amount to around £255  (the bullying). No need to complain or explain as they are not on receive and the months and year you may spend trying to mitigate will be wasted. Await the court documents which will surely follow as VCS use the small claim courts sytem to worry and bully you to pay. Eventually you will be asked to reply with a Witness statement by the Moeny claim on line court system. 

It is at this point that your witness statement received by the court and for the first time since you started that you finally have a voice on the matter that counts, all be it VCS will not acknowledge your witness statement or be likely to read it because they assume at this point you will pay them to make all this unpleasantness go away. The bully is a small clerk in a dismal office poorly paid and likely in reality to be generating standard letters to you at various stages at the push of a button. One good letter from you to the court in the form of a Witness Statement (WS) is going stop this madness.  VCS rely upon you not to know your rights and your job is to get the facts and the knowledge which is  made easier by being here and getting advice. I have been where you are and won as VCS discontinued their case against me a few days before a hearing. I wrote a very simple WS that was legally correct and it worked. It doesn’t need to be overly complicated or explain your circumstances it just needs to be accurate about the legal points. VCS are Charlatans and Carpetbaggers the world seems overly stuffed with their type.

It wasn't even me that stopped! I am just the keeper. If needed I can obtain 3x statements from adults in my travel party all stating they can confirm I was not driving - but don't want to incriminate the driver who doesn't deserve any of this crap.

I have just lodged a complaint with the ICO for misuse of my personal information and ignoring my right to erasure GDPR request.

If they escalate it to "debt recovery agency" - I would be willing to put a claim against them for misuse of personal information and harassment (assuming you lot think it would work out?).

skuther

Castle said:

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. 

Leeds Bradford reponded saying they didn't have the video footage themselves and were not the data controller so could not help me, and directed me back to VCS.... but at least they provided me with an email address for them.

skuther

h2g2 said:

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?

Lol. Right now I would love an IPC IPA at £2 a pint.

skuther

So back to plan A - upgrade the complaint to Leeds Bradford Airport.

Revised version with some updates from above feedback.

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" as per previous emails.

This was a complaint about the unethical behaviours of your agents VCS and their misuse of personal data (breech of GDPR rule) and harassment.

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 – so there was no “parking” (as per the legal definition, as nobody left the car) and no drop off / pick up.

I am sure you agree that the footage is consistent what I have reported to you/VCS - ie. a car stopping unexpectedly for a short period of time 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.

 

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

 3. In case it was clear from the previous appeal to VCS/Excel 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 by the courts. 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.

Two examples of this are:

(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.

 

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.  I made the mistake of responding to their no-reply email and it took a while to realise why they won't responding.  So thank you for providing me with an email address for them - however they of course ignored my complaint to them.

 

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

I have received specialist advice regarding your sign:

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.

Incidentally none of the occupants of the car recall seeing the sign in question.

 

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

There is no time or chance for a driver to read the signs and make an informed decision about accepting the alledged "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 on the sign.

1.        It does not allow for emergencies.

2.        It does not even allow for the fact there is a zebra crossing on the road (as seen on the photo of my car). A zebra crossing in a red no stopping zone is normally considered a contradiction. Currently a driver would have to run over any pedestrians crossing to avoid alledged breech of contract.

3.        It does not allow for anyone to “stop” before the barrier to the car park.

4.        It does not allow for anyone to “stop” to give way to traffic at the roundabout or on rejoining the main road.

This is dangerously unsafe "contract" – which no sane motorist would ever willingly enter into. See what a judge thinks of that in court!

Last week I went on holiday from Manchester airport (as am boycotting your airport currently due to this unresolved complaint) - Their signage is much better - rather than an impossible to read safely when driving small print sign at the entrance, they have have large simple repeating banners along the side of the roads (I took photos if you want to see!)

1. Do not leave you vehicle unattended. £100 charge

2. Pick up not permitted. £100 charge

3. Driver must stay with vehicle at all times. £25 charge.

Note that they do not have a "no stopping" rule - perhaps as they have realised it is not helpful, safe or legally enforcable!

Other airports also have a help line to ring if you break down - which you might want to consider if you are genuinely interested in "safety"

 

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 is also 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 at 5am (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 medicals for the DVLA.

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

9. VCS negligence in the contractual duties (as reported to me by you in previous email)

“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.”

So by your standards 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!

 

Wider concerns about VCS

 

10. 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

 

11. 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

 

12. 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.

13 .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''.

14. 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

 

15. Private parking companies typically belong to the IPC or the BPA.

 - IPC 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.

 

 

16. So to summarise wider concerns

 - there is strong evidence that companies like VCS have a business model that is about making money ahead of all else (including safety) by trying to using aggressively predatory tactics to get as many £100+ payments as possible.

 - 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).

 

17.  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"

18. As of yesterday, I have also reported this matter the Information Commisioners Office for misuse of personal information. https://ico.org.uk

 

19. I am also looking into whether VCS have breeched the terms of the DVLA/Kadoe rules. I believe they have and I asked the ICO to check this also and will be contacting the DVLA separately in due course.

https://kadoe.co.uk/dvlaimportantinfo

 

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 currently - if in the event VCS pursue this further I will robustly fight this in court and hold you jointly responsible for any damages/expenses. I believe the going rate for damages starts from £500+ for harassment with misuse of personal data.

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

Yours sincerely,

xxx

 

Coupon-mad

They won't read that and neither did I, beyond the first 2 paragraphs. Sorry!

Complaints should be short and punchy.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  FYI  -  "breach" not "breech" in this context.

stop_this_nonsense

skuther said:

Castle said:

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. 

Leeds Bradford reponded saying they didn't have the video footage themselves and were not the data controller so could not help me, and directed me back to VCS.... but at least they provided me with an email address for them.

The best they could expect is to be considered a a joint controller. VCS are there at the airports behest; the airport is a data controller.