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

skuther

I know the usual advice on these forums is to ignore the debt recovery letters (eg. DCBL) - but after some consideration I though it was worth lodging a complaint with DCBL as (unlike private parking industry) they are actually regulated by someone independent (financial ombudsman) who can take them to task and fine them.

I actually sent this hours before getting my second DCBL letter at the weekend I emailed DCBL the following complaint:

"Dear sirs,

FAO DCBL complaints department.

DCBL reference number: xxx

Regarding misconduct of DCBL, Firm reference number: 702566, Registered company number: 07408649

I acknowledge receipt of your debt threat-o-gram letter dated 29th Nov 2024.

There is no debt, you are in error.

I have never entered into a contract with VCS. There is no debt. There has not even been any "parking".

I am aware of a scam attempt to extort money from me however, for which I have lodged a complaint with the Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) management team. If this is not taken seriously then will lead to a joint claim again VCS and LBA for multiple GDPR breaches, misuse of personal data and recurrent harassment. I can also include you (DCBL) in this claim depending on your behaviour from now onwards as appropriate.

I am aware that on 29th July 2024, one of the cars (xxx, Reg: xxx) for which I am registered keeper turned into the wrong car park at Leeds Bradford Airport – and on realising, the driver turned round and tried to leave the airport to travel to the correct car park (prior to a planned morning flight from the airport).

During this time there was a momentary stop, due to an emergency, for 44sec (according to VCS photos/letter). This stop was necessary to abide by UK law and DVLA rules. The stop was allowed under Leeds Bradford Airport Bylaws (5.3) and allowed for in the joint BPA/IPC code of conduct.

Yet all of this has been ignored by VCS – as per their exploitative making money above all else business model.

Passing this non-existent debt to debt recovery services like yourselves (DCBL)  so they can inflate the amount they demand has been described by the government as "extorting money from motorists".

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

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

 

I am aware that private parking companies attempt to (mis)use the supreme court judgement from Nov 2015 (The "Beavis" case) – which does not apply to this situation for multiple reasons which include:

1. I was not driving the car – and Leeds Bradford Airport is "subject to statutory control" and so Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply and no keeper liability is possible. VCS know this having lost at court (see VCS vs Edwards + Excel vs Smith) and yet continue to pursue this baseless con.
2. VCS have NOT supplied a copy of the signage which they claim forms the basis of a contract and neither I nor the driver have actually seen. So no contract terms have been offered to the driver, let alone to me as the keeper (who was not driving).
3. I note from google street view that the:
   • entrance sign does not offer an actual "contract" as it is just a prohibitive sign with no offer of anything (any "consideration") to the driver, so can't be called a contract under UK law.
   • In order to be aware of the sign and make a conscious decision to accept the terms and conditions one would have to "Stop" to read and consider the signage – which is disallowed by the sign – thus impossible.
   • It is dangerous/unsafe as does NOT allow for
     1. stopping in an emergency,
     2. stopping at the zebra crossing (such as the one in the photo provided by VCS) to allow pedestrians to cross the road
     3. stopping to give way to cars at the roundabout or re-entering the main public road
     4. stopping at the barrier at entrance to the car park
   • and no sane motorist would ever sign up to a contract that endangered passengers, pedestrians and other road users in this way. Even if a contract existed (which it did not) - the dangerous unsafe illegal nature of these terms would make this contract void.

 

If you (DCBL) continue to misuse my personal data and harass me for a non-existent / made up debt then I will be reporting you to the financial ombudsmen. I believe the going rate for fines against you for this would "up to £750" – as per below extract from their website.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/understanding-compensation/compensation-for-distress-or-inconvenience

"Read our case studies where an award of up to £750 was fair

• A consumer complains after a debt collector repeatedly contacts him over mistaken debt – Charlie had been dealing with a debt collector repeatedly contacting him about a debt he supposedly owned, even though they hadn't proven it. Even though he said he didn't owe the debt, they then started legal action, so he got in touch with us."

 

This is your only warning that I will not tolerate attempts to illegally extort money from me when no debt exists.

I will presume that if no satisfactory response has been received within 14days that you are not planning to be reasonable and wish me to escalate this directly to the financial ombudsmen.

I look forward to getting a reasonable response to this complaint shortly.

Yours faithfully,

xxx

skuther

and I actually got a response back with 2days from DCBL which I will take as a victory (still no response from LBA or VCS though):

"Dear xxx,

Thank you for your email, however the reference you have provided shows your case to have previously been closed on client instruction. Accordingly, we have returned your file to our client, Vehicle Control Services Limited, and you will not hear anything further from DCBL regarding this Parking Charge.

 Please let me know if you require anything further from DCBL.

 Kind regards,

xxx

Complaints & Compliance Team Leader

Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd"

Funny how only 2day before I sent my email the 2nd DCBL letter was dated - wonder when they already closed it "on client instruction" then?

Coupon-mad

Nice!  But I'm pretty sure this isn't right because the Financial Ombudsman doesn't get involved in alleged debt cases that don't involve a credit agreement:

they are actually regulated by someone independent (financial ombudsman) 

In other words they ARE regulated by the CSA but in relation to CCA 1974 cases only.  And only those 'regulated' cases can go to the Ombudsman.

Parking being unregulated debt, they fly under the radar of the FCA and FO.

skuther

Got the email from LBA confirming cancellation.

"

Good afternoon xxxx,  

We write to confirm that we have instructed VCS to withdraw the penalty fine on this occasion. 

Please note that this is only intended as a gesture of goodwill, and not a statement as to the validity of the penalty fine. In fact, in confirming the withdrawal of the penalty fine, we do again wish to highlight the seriousness of your actions, in the hope that something like this doesn’t happen again. 

As you are aware, the road around the airport is in large a designated no-stopping zone. It is critical from a safety perspective that traffic continuously flows around the airport, and that no hazards are present (such as a stationary vehicle) which would restrict this flow. A hazard could cause an accident with another vehicle, which in turn could restrict access to the airport or potentially cause closure of the road all together. As we’ve mentioned earlier, any restricted access to the airport poses a safety risk to other airport traffic and emergency vehicles that may need to respond to urgent calls within the airport terminal. A car collision as a result of a vehicle stopping in designated no-stopping area could have serious consequences, for example, an ambulance would be unable to attend to a medical emergency or passengers may be unable to access parking and as a consequence miss their flight. 

To be clear, you received a penalty fine because your vehicle was stopped on a roundabout for 2 minutes and 2 seconds (and way in excess of the permitted 30 second stoppage time to check signage and directions), creating an obstruction for other vehicles and therefore becoming a hazard. Your actions caused another vehicle to dangerously manoeuvre into the oncoming lane to pass your vehicle. Fortunately, nobody was hurt as a result of this, but the circumstances could have been different. The correct thing to do in these circumstances, if you needed to stop for a longer period of time, would be to continue into an area which isn’t subject to such restrictions. 

We apologise that you perceived this situation as you did and if you have felt upset in receiving the penalty charge. However, the signage is clear and the restrictions are in place to ensure the safety of our passengers and employees of the airport.  Given the nature of your last email, we do want to state that all our rights and remedies are strictly reserved, but we hope by explaining the above clarifies why the fine was issued, and you feel that this matter is now resolved

Please let me know if I can help further in any way. 

 

Best wishes,

Charlie

LBA Customer Care"

skuther

Coupon-mad said:

Nice!  But I'm pretty sure this isn't right because the Financial Ombudsman doesn't get involved in alleged debt cases that don't involve a credit agreement:

they are actually regulated by someone independent (financial ombudsman) 

In other words they ARE regulated by the CSA but in relation to CCA 1974 cases only.  And only those 'regulated' cases can go to the Ombudsman.

Parking being unregulated debt, they fly under the radar of the FCA and FO.

Not really sure, but I couldn't resist when I saw the case study on the ombudsmen website that was a potential mirror of this one. Ie. pursuing someone for a nonexistent debt...

Coupon-mad

Dear LBA,

I'm relieved that in my case at least, what an MP called an 'outrageous scam' parking charge is cancelled.

Six final questions:

1. Why are you calling an invoice from VCS a 'penalty fine' several times and even a 'penalty charge'?  Do you think that's what they issue? They don't.

2.  Why is the charge an exorbitant £100, when a (real) 'penalty charge' on the Public Highway red route (just outside the Airport boundary) is £70 and works far better than VCS' scheme?

3. Why do you think you are getting so many complaints?  Could it be the covert operation by VCS using lurking vans/hidden cameras and inadequate signage (in my opinion, and I'm not the only one) might just be the real problem? How about making the cameras overt and obvious, with warning colours? 

4.  On what possible planet does issuing an invoice to the registered keeper by snail mail, two weeks later, prevent accidents? Did VCS tell you that? Think about it. Stop believing every word from a notorious ex-clamper firm.

5.  Did VCS tell you that the Government is regulating the rogue parking industry in 2025? Keep your eye on the new statutory regulations because nobody in the know (including MPs and journalists) expects ex-clampers VCS to emerge as a shining example of regulatory compliance. Read news articles about VCS and their sister firm, Excel Parking, this year.  Do you see any good ones? No. Excel (VCS sister firm) were named and shamed on BBC news and in the House of Commons just weeks ago.

6. Why does this matter to LBA? Well ... if VCS/Excel get a DVLA ban (again...) then the whole house of cards will fall and they won't be able to get a single keeper's data. Not a single invoice will be issued at all.  Do you think they'll tell you if that happens ... does your contract require them to tell you and that the contract ends immediately (breach by them) if they are banned by the DVLA?

You need provision for that eventuality.

Please read the above carefully. It is constructive and might be news to your board.

yours sincerely