East Midlands Airport - VCS LTD - Petrol Station

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

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.

They made a 1 line response:

"The NTK sent to the appellant was POFA compliant"

Coupon-mad

Respond and say they are citing a law that only applies on 'relevant land' and quote the clause in the Joint Code (Feb 2025) that says operators must not seek keeper liability under the POFA where that law doesn't apply.

I don't know which clause but I know it's there because I helped create the 2022 Code.

iWindmill

Coupon-mad said:

Respond and say they are citing a law that only applies on 'relevant land' and quote the clause in the Joint Code (Feb 2025) that says operators must not seek keeper liability under the POFA where that law doesn't apply.

I don't know which clause but I know it's there because I helped create the 2022 Code.

I couldn't find this clause you mentioned - would you mind having a look and point out the clause?

EDIT: It's actually in the first version 2022 (1.0) - this clause has been removed from the latest version. I don't think we can use this clause now that the first version has been withdrawn?

However I did find a clause that explains relevant land - so I've made a response:

VCS state in their response that “The NTK sent to the appellant was POFA compliant” and that they intend to hold me, the registered keeper, liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). This is legally impossible.

PoFA keeper liability only applies on “relevant land”

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

• Land subject to statutory control
• Land covered by byelaws
• Airport land governed under the Airports Act 1986

This is not only the definition in PoFA itself, but it is also reaffirmed in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, February 2025) clause 2.31, which states:

“any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1)of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

East Midlands Airport is subject to East Midlands Airport Byelaws, enacted under Section 63 of the Airports Act 1986, which regulate stopping, waiting and use of roadways. Therefore the land is subject to statutory control, and is not “relevant land” for PoFA. Thus VCS cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

VCS also contradicted themselves. In their rejection letter to me, VCS explicitly stated:

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

Yet in their IAS submission they now argue the opposite, claiming PoFA keeper liability. Both statements cannot be true. This inconsistency demonstrates that their reliance on PoFA is improper and without legal basis.

Coupon-mad

Are you sure they removed it in the disingenuous joint code? I recall making a pretty forensic comparison in 2024 for the Government's information and I found over 30 cynical changes ... but I don't recall that particular one was dropped entirely?

iWindmill

Unless I'm being dumb or blind - I don't see it in February 2025 version. 

Coupon-mad

But it's googleable and is also linked on both trade body websites.

LoneStarState

It's still in there in section 8 "Parking Charge"

8.1 Design and Language
8.1.1
The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:
 a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory authority where none exists;
 b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement penalty charge notice;
 c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
 d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable. 

I assume they made reference to POFA on their NTK?

iWindmill

Thanks both - updated my response by adding section 8 at bottom, I wanted to check to check if this makes perfect sense.

1.      Keeper Liability Cannot Apply

VCS state in their response that “The NTK sent to the appellant was POFA compliant” and that they intend to hold me, the registered keeper, liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”).
This is legally impossible.

Under Paragraphs 3(1) and 3(2) of Schedule 4 PoFA, keeper liability can only arise on “relevant land”. Land is not relevant if it is:

• land subject to statutory control
• land covered by byelaws
• airport land governed under the Airports Act 1986

This definition is not only contained in PoFA itself but is reaffirmed in the Joint Code of Practice (Version 1.1, February 2025) — clause 2.31, which states that “relevant land” excludes:

“any land… on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

East Midlands Airport is subject to the East Midlands Airport Byelaws, enacted under Section 63 of the Airports Act 1986. These byelaws regulate stopping, waiting, and vehicle use on airport roadways. Therefore the land is subject to statutory control and cannot be “relevant land”. Accordingly, VCS cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

2.      Contradictory Statements by VCS

VCS contradicted themselves. In their rejection letter to me, they stated:

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

Yet in their IAS submission they now assert the opposite, claiming PoFA keeper liability. Both positions cannot be true. This inconsistency demonstrates that their attempt to invoke PoFA is improper and legally unsustainable.

3.      Breach of the Joint Code of Practice (February 2025)

The Joint Code of Practice (February 2025), Section 8 – Parking Charge, explicitly prohibits operators from:

“stating the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”

By asserting keeper liability on land where PoFA cannot apply, VCS have breached this mandatory requirement.

Their conduct:

• misrepresents the law
• implies keeper liability where none exists
• directly violates Section 8(d) of the Joint Code of Practice

A breach of the Code is itself grounds for dismissal of the charge.

 

 

Coupon-mad

The only outstanding matter is perhaps proving that this petrol station is within the curtilage of the Airport. Add a map if you can add something now.

1505grandad

"directly violates Section 8(d) of the Joint Code of Practice"

Missing some numbers re the relevant para?