East Midlands Airport - VCS LTD - Petrol Station

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

iWindmill said:

So I've got a response from VCS and as we obviously expected, they rejected the appeal.

I'll give IAS a try, very interested to see what they say.

I thought I'd show you their response:

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on above.

Please give IAS a try, if only for the greater good of getting another joke 'decision' from their non-impartial so-called pool of Assessors who "definitely are NOT the same rookie legals who represent PPCs in court"...

Even though they spout the same crap...

Please then add the decision to my IAS Decisions 2025 thread. Thankyou!

So going down the IAS route was interesting, they've pretty much gave up everything (documents, photographs, site maps etc) so I'm able to save everything onto my computer!

I'll post their Prima Facie case, they're going down the route of holding me, the keeper, as liable as per POFA:

Should I respond to this, or just send the case to adjudicator? 

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on XXXX
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on XXXXXX
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

1. East Midlands International Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 244 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state: ‘No Stopping' or ‘No Pick Up or Drop Off'. The entrance signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100.

2. Signage makes it clear that any motorist stopping in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We are employed solely to strictly enforce the Terms and Conditions as per our contract with the landowner. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed throughout the site.

3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.

4. In this area of the site, alongside the restricted route, there is a fuel station where additional signage makes clear that restrictions still apply. Signage in the area the appellant parked clearly states, “No Stopping.” Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce these areas, where stopping is not permitted unless authorised, and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs. The signage also makes it clear that any motorist contravening the terms and conditions will be liable for a Charge Notice. This PCN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping where stopping is prohibited.

5. A copy of our authority to enforce the No Stopping terms and conditions in place on this site, including where the driver stopped their vehicle, was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.

6. The NTK complies with POFA 2012. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which where explained in the formal Notice sent on 09/10/2025. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.

7. We acknowledge an administrative typographical error within our letter rejecting the appellant's initial appeal to VCS, which stated ‘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.' This administrative error does not nullify the appellant's liability for the charge.

8. A review of the footage we possess shows the appellant's vehicle stationary when first observed and remaining stationary for approx. 20 seconds at which point the footage ends; as the vehicle was stationary before the footage started and after it ended, this was the minimum vehicular stationary period in this case.

9. The appellant does not dispute the facts of the recorded contravention (which is evidenced by the supplied CCTV stills) and confirms that a passenger was dropped off. This was not an appropriate place to drop off a passenger. The airport has clearly signposted drop off and pick up facilities.

10. The circumstances on the day cited by the appellant do not warrant cancellation of the charge. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.

11. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land which they enter. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. At the time of the contravention the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this purpose. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions.

12. The location of the appellant's vehicle can be observed in the supplied annotated signage map which highlights the close proximity of the appellant's vehicle to VCS contractual signage. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.

13. In response to the appellant's comments in relation to the amount of the Charge Notice charge, our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would refer to the judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].

14. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given sufficient notice of the No Stopping terms and conditions in place, the appellant freely chose to stop their vehicle where stopping is prohibited at all times. By doing so the appellant became liable for the charge which was lawfully issued.

15. By stopping in an area where stopping is prohibited, the appellant became liable for the advertised Charge.

Coupon-mad

Let's have a look at all their photos and the landowner authority and any site map.

And have we seen both sides of the NTK?

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

Let's have a look at all their photos and the landowner authority and any site map.

And have we seen both sides of ther NTK?

I've uploaded all the files (redacted) onto Google Drive for ease of view, including NTK:

[LINK REMOVED - DM me if you want to see ]

NOTE: I will put the link up when I'm awake and expecting response, and will take the link down when I'm heading to sleep - just in case I've missed redacting personal information.

There were other files present within the IAS portal but couldn't access or download them:

No documentation showing landowner authority at all.

Coupon-mad

Doesn't look like the vehicle is on double red lines. Therefore it's not a marked red route, otherwise every vehicle using the petrol station could be filmed and penalised. It can't all be a red route within! And there's no evidence showing what the driver is doing, is there?

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

Doesn't look like the vehicle is on double red lines. Therefore it's not a marked red route, otherwise every vehicle using the petrol station could be filmed and penalised. It can't all be a red route within! And there's no evidence showing what the driver is doing, is there?

Indeed - what should my next step now in response to their Prima Facie? 

It's also interesting how they're quoting POFA in IAS prima facie when in their response to my first appeal they're not quoting this.

Coupon-mad

And the POFA doesn't apply at Airports.

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

And the POFA doesn't apply at Airports.

Exactly. What's my best option right now? I can either respond to the operator or refer the case straight to the adjudicator?

Coupon-mad

Respond.  

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

Respond.  

How's this for a response?

VCS have incorrectly stated that they are holding me, the registered keeper, liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). This assertion is legally inaccurate.

Under Paragraph 3(1) and 3(2) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, keeper liability can only apply in respect of “relevant land.” Land is not relevant if it is:

“(1) A public highway; or
(2) Land on which parking is subject to statutory control.”

East Midlands Airport (EMA) is subject to statutory control under the East Midlands Airport Byelaws, which were enacted pursuant to Section 63 of the Airports Act 1986. These byelaws explicitly regulate vehicle use, stopping, and waiting on airport roads. Accordingly, the land is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, and therefore keeper liability cannot apply in law.

VCS’s attempt to rely on PoFA to pursue me as keeper is therefore fundamentally flawed. Their claim that the “NTK complies with PoFA 2012” and that they are “holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4” is legally baseless.

It is also worth noting that in their own rejection letter to me dated [insert date from their rejection letter], VCS explicitly stated:

“We have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper.”

This direct contradiction between their initial position and their IAS submission further undermines their credibility and demonstrates that they are attempting to misapply legislation that does not apply to the land in question.

Furthermore, the images provided by VCS do not show the vehicle stopped on double red lines. If this area were truly a red route, then every vehicle accessing the petrol station could be filmed and penalised, which would be absurd. The photographic evidence merely shows a vehicle momentarily stationary, with no visible obstruction or safety risk.

In addition, the recorded stop lasted less than one minute, which is insufficient to determine any deliberate act of parking or contravention of terms. The images supplied do not establish the driver’s intentions, nor do they show any interference with airport operations or traffic flow.

The IAS must therefore reject any claim of keeper liability, as PoFA simply cannot be used to transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper in this case, and the evidence provided fails to demonstrate any clear breach of the alleged “no stopping” terms.

Coupon-mad

I think I'd add to the end here (even though you've said it once):

The images supplied do not establish the driver’s intentions, nor do they show any interference with airport operations or traffic flow. The vehicle is not stopped on double red lines.