VCS "No Stopping"

Aimmcm

Hi, I'm looking for a bit of advice and if im doing everything ok here, there is a few finding which i would like some advice on, im currently in the letter before claim stage with VCS / Elms Legal for an alleged contravention for "no stopping" at bristol airport as the registered keeper.

I have appealed as registered keeper through VCS (Denied) and then through IAS (again denied) which was expected, the driver has not been identified and VCS have on their own appeal and IAS appeal confirmed they have disapplied POFA.

the driver of the vehicle performed a turn in a junction which while the cctv van followed the car and proceeded to stop on the junction creating an obstruction where the driver had  to remain stationary while traffic overtook the camera van, the stills and the cctv do show this event happening over around 45 seconds.

Below is the paper trail of the correspondence:

initial appeal:

Note: Keeper was the selected choice.

Appeal Reason: I did not park for the stated time

Appeal: The photographic evidence provided clearly shows the vehicle momentarily stationary at a junction, directly after completing a turning manoeuvre. Road junction markings are visibly present in the image, supporting this. This suggests that the vehicle was stopped momentarily in the interests of road safety and in compliance with road layout requirements, not parked or intentionally stopped in a prohibited zone. There is no indication that the vehicle was left unattended or that the driver exited the vehicle. A brief pause after a turn at a junction cannot reasonably be considered a contravention of the stated code, especially if it was done to ensure safety, assess traffic conditions, or due to the presence of other road users. Furthermore, the NTK fails to take into account the specific circumstances visible in the evidence. I would expect a fair and measured review of such images to consider context before issuing a charge. As the registered keeper, I am not obliged to identify the driver at the time, and I will not be doing so. In light of 

the above, I request that this charge be cancelled. Should you choose to reject this appeal, please ensure that a POPLA verification code is provided so the matter can be escalated appropriately.

VCS Reply:

We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 28/05/2025.

Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

The signs at the entrance to Bristol Airport and the access roads within, clearly state "No Stopping", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge. In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was] when your vehicle was seen to be stopped on the access road. You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 on the Notice issued to 

you; however we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper. 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. We note your comment that you stopped to ask directions from an Enforcement Officer; however as stated, the signs 

near to the location you stopped clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the Charge displayed. There are over 80 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable. The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping). Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that 

location. We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk.

Note: The sign in question where the driver performed a turn was in a hedge in front of a motorised entry barrier to a carpark...which requires a driver to stop.

-----------------------------------------

IAS VCS Pack Stage:

1. Bristol 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 signs on site, at the entrance and throughout the 

roadways, which state ‘No Stopping’, ‘No Drop Off or Pick up’ or ‘No 

Stopping, Picking Up or Dropping Off’. The entrance signage clearly states 

motorists will become liable for a charge of £100 if they contravene these 

Terms and Conditions.

2. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed and the 

entrances and 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. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport approach roads and, 

due to growing congestion caused by vehicles stopping and blocking lanes. 

The subsequent congestion has created safety risks for other motorists and 

potential costly delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at 

the Airport. This CN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on a private 

road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles 

obstructing the roads, no matter for how long can cause serious problems 

for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control 

Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads and bus 

stops, where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making 

motorists aware of the requirements with signs. 

5. The CCTV footage we possess shows that the vehicle stopped on an access 

road which is designated by the landowner as a restricted area, where 

stopping is prohibited at all times for unauthorised purposes. 

6. A review of the CCTV footage shows the appellant’s stopping at a junction 

of the restricted roadway, remaining stationary for approx. 46 seconds 

before the footage ends. As the vehicle was still stationary when the 

footage ends, this is the absolute minimum time the vehicle was stopped.
 

7. We are unable to submit the CCTV footage due to the file size; however the 

appellant’s contravention and its duration are evidenced by the annotated 

IAS CASE SUMMARY 

CCTV stills supplied.

8. In their appeal the appellant states that they are the keeper of the vehicle 

and that the Charge Notice sent to them, was received outside the time 

scales set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. However, as 

was explained in correspondence, we have not cited PoFA 2012 nor stated 

that the appellant was liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper. 

9. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982; we are relying on the 

presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant was the 

driver of the vehicle on the date in question as no evidence to the contrary 

has been provided. 

10. Operators are not required to use the keeper liability provisions within the 

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on land to which it applies. These 

provisions complement the common-law position which may be used to 

establish liability for a Charge irrespective of whether the Act applies or 

not. Where an operator chooses not to rely upon the Act, the stated time 

limits and notice requirements do not apply. 

11. 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. It is clear that the 

terms and conditions stated, ‘No Stopping’ otherwise the motorist would 

face liability for a Charge Notice. 

12. This was not an appropriate place for the motorist to stop their vehicle for 

any reason. The CCTV evidence shows the motorist had the opportunity to 

leave the junction however remained stationary.

13. The position of the appellant’s vehicle can be observed in the supplied 

annotated overhead and vehicle and signage location which highlight the 

very close proximity of the appellant’s vehicle to VCS signage. To reach the 

position they stopped, they had to pass by the entrance sign when they 

entered the airport grounds, as well as numerous signs repeated along the 

roadways around the area they stopped. The signs are designed to be read 

from a moving vehicle and unambiguously advise that stopping is not 

permitted.
 

14. 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. Once the presence of the signs (which are designed to 

be read from a moving vehicle) is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility 

to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and 

Conditions. 

15. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given sufficient notice 

IAS CASE SUMMARY 

of the No Stopping terms and conditions in place, the appellant freely chose 

to stop their vehicle on a roadway where stopping is prohibited at all times, 

by doing so the appellant became liable for the charge which was lawfully 

issued.

16. By stopping in a zone where stopping was prohibited the appellant 

became liable for the Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and 

Conditions displayed.

Note: I don't understand how a clearly marked junction onto a main road can be subject to a "no stopping" contravention.

-------------------------------------------------

Elms legal LBC Reply:

I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before regarding an alleged "parking charge" issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

I dispute the alleged debt and require full evidence pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims before any further response can be made.

Please note that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. No admission is, or has been, made as to the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged event. Your client has chosen not to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), as is evident from the correspondence. As such, there is no lawful basis to pursue me as the keeper for this charge. 

In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, please supply the following before any further action is considered:

• A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and all subsequent correspondence. 

• A copy of the contract or agreement granting your client the authority to operate and enforce "parking charges" at the site. 

• Evidence of your client’s ownership or legal interest in the land. 

• Copies of all photographs and CCTV stills relied upon, including the unedited video footage. 

• Copies of all signage terms in place at the location at the material time, including a map or plan showing their positions. 

• Details of the alleged contravention, including timestamps, location, and any calibration or operational logs from the enforcement vehicle or camera.

• Copies of all correspondence or notices exchanged between your client and myself (or any third party), as required for full transparency.

• A full explanation and legal justification for the £70 charge, including a breakdown of how this figure was calculated and how it reflects either:

·        A genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered by the landholder, or

·        A legitimate interest in deterrence that is commercially justifiable, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

This matter is fully disputed. Please confirm that it will be placed on hold for a minimum of 30 days while you comply with this request, as required under the Pre-Action Protocol.

Should your client proceed to issue a claim without first complying with the Protocol and supplying the documents requested, I will draw this failure to the court’s attention and seek recovery of all costs and expenses incurred in defending the matter, including but not limited to court fees, travel expenses, and loss of earnings, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable behaviour.

---------------------------------------------------

Elms reply:

Please find attached as requested. The CCTV is in the below WeTransfer link due to the file size:

The parking charge itself falls within the “£50 to £100” range referenced in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] (paragraph 111) and complies with the Accredited Trade Association’s Code of Practice. Specifically, Part 8.2.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, Version 1.1 (17 February 2025), states: “Parking Charges must not exceed £100.” The charge reflects the operational costs of the parking management scheme and serves as a lawful and proportionate deterrent, as confirmed in ParkingEye v Beavis. 

Regarding the £70.00 Debt Recovery Fee, Part 9 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) expressly allows this, stating: “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a sum of up to £70 may be added.”

HHJ Saffman has also clarified that a Parking Operator or its agent may lawfully claim additional contractual charges for late or non-payment of a PCN without this constituting an abuse of process. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy, VCSL issued a PCN and added a £60 charge after 28 days to cover recovery costs. While the District Judge initially struck out the claim, HHJ Saffman allowed the appeal, confirming that contractual debt recovery fees are lawful when applied in accordance with the terms of the contract.

-------------------------------------------------------

Reply to  Elms:

Thank you for your email and for providing some of the documents requested.

However, the disclosure provided is not complete and does not satisfy your client's obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). As a result, the 30-day period for my formal response has not yet begun.

1. Missing IAS Appeal Evidence

 You have not provided the full IAS appeal documentation.

 Specifically, you have not supplied:

• The IAS evidence pack submitted by VCS

• My IAS appeal submission (which your client must retain)

• The IAS adjudicator’s full written reasoning

• Any correspondence exchanged between VCS and the IAS

Your client relied on the IAS adjudication to reject my appeal; therefore, the complete IAS file is fundamental evidence and must be disclosed before litigation is considered.

2. Missing CCTV Calibration and Operational Records

you have provided the CCTV footage itself, but none of the technical evidence supporting it, including: 

• Camera calibration logs

• Maintenance and fault records

• Operational check logs

• Evidence chain documentation (device ID, timestamp verification, storage process)

• Operator training or competency certification

If your client intends to rely on this footage in court, these documents are required to establish the reliability, accuracy, and admissibility of the evidence.

3. The £70 “Debt Recovery Fee”

The £70 add-on remains unproven and unsupported.

Your email cites various codes and a selective interpretation of Percy, but:

• No evidence has been provided demonstrating that your client actually incurred £70 of third-party costs.

• No evidence has been provided showing this sum was ever agreed to by the motorist.

• You have not provided the relevant contractual clause from the signage allegedly forming the contract.

Courts have repeatedly rejected such invented add-ons, including:

Excel v Wilkinson [2020]

G4S v Davies [2018]

ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012] 

Multiple county court decisions calling these fees "double recovery"

Furthermore, the Government’s statutory Code of Practice (currently paused pending review) describes these charges as a harmful practice. They remain highly contentious and far from settled law.

Your legal justification is therefore incomplete without: 

1. The exact contractual clause permitting the £70 charge 

2. Evidence that VCS actually paid £70 to any debt recovery agent 

3. Evidence that such a fee was ever incorporated into a contract with the motorist

Until this evidence is supplied, the £70 charge is disputed.

4. PAP 30-Day Period Has Not Begun

The PAPDC is clear:

The 30-day response window begins only once all requested documents have been supplied. 

As you have not provided the IAS documentation or the CCTV calibration/operational evidence: 

PAP compliance is still outstanding 

The matter must remain on hold

The 30-day period has not commenced 

Your  internal date of xxxx has no legal effect under the Protocol.

5. Future Conduct 

Should your client issue a claim without first fully complying with the Protocol, I will draw this to the court’s attention and seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable behaviour. 

Please confirm when the missing IAS documentation and CCTV operational evidence will be provided.

--------------------------------------------------------

Elms Reply:

Please be advised that we are not privy to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) information; however, I have contacted Vehicle Control Services Limited (our client) and requested that they provide any information which they hold on their systems.

Please note that our client is under no obligation to provide CCTV logs, documentation, or training information. This information remains commercially sensitive and would only be provided by our client should they be ordered to do so by a Judge,

-------------------------------------------------------

Latest Response (registered keeper):

Thanks for your recent email and for providing the IAS case file.

However, the disclosure still remains incomplete under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). The Protocol requires the creditor to supply all documents they intend to rely upon, or provide a legally valid explanation for any missing material (PAPDC 5.2–5.6)

Your client is relying on CCTV footage and still images as key evidence. Yet the technical evidence required to authenticate this footage remains outstanding:

1. The original, unedited CCTV footage in its native format (including metadata), an MP4 file is not native format.

2. The checksum / hash (MD5/SHA256) for the original file.

3. Camera / ANPR device identification (serial numbers / internal IDs).

4. Calibration certificates for the recording equipment for the relevant period.

5. Maintenance and fault logs covering at least ±7 days of the incident.

6. Operational check logs for the CCTV system on the date in question.

7. Chain-of-custody / export logs, confirming who exported the video, when, and using what software.

8. Any ANPR/capture logs associated with the event.

9. Operator/technician training/competence records relevant to evidence handling.

These are necessary for verifying the accuracy, authenticity and completeness of the CCTV evidence.

Additionally, I note from your client’s own IAS evidence that they have admitted that the camera was zoomed. This makes the technical documentation above even more important, because zoomed images can distort perspective, alter distance perception, and materially affect interpretation of the footage. Without the underlying calibration and metadata, the Court cannot rely on it.

Your previous reference to this information being “commercially sensitive” is not a valid ground for refusing PAP disclosure. PAPDC contains no exemption for “commercial sensitivity”. A creditor cannot rely on evidence in court while declining to provide the material needed to verify its authenticity at the pre-action stage.

Accordingly:

Your client has not yet complied with the Pre-Action Protocol, and the 30-day period for my formal response has not begun.

The matter must remain on hold until the full set of CCTV technical documents has been provided.

Once the outstanding evidence has been supplied in full, I will review it and provide my formal response within 30 days in line with the Protocol.

Please confirm when this will be supplied or if you are refusing to supply the CCTV logs

------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

The original contract with the landowner states only: "Services: the provision of parking and stopping control and enforcement services by the company at the site"

the addendum also supplied:

which states:

Original instructions:
*no stopping
*no pickup
*no drop off

revised instructions:
- no parking on  access road at anytime
- no parking at any time
- the addendum is an addition to the existing contract contract - the original plan still stands alongside this one

Query:

VCScant rely on vague wording in the original contract when the addendum is specific? specific terms override generic terms?

basically the contract says VCS is authorised to enforce parking and not stopping?

I can upload images if required but im not sure its actually needed, having "no stopping" signs which require a driver to stop the vehicle to read the terms cant form a contract, and saying a  driver cannot stop under any circumstance even if at a junction is completely bonkers, VCS dont seem to make sense in most of their replies

TIA and any advice is much appreciated

Half_way

With this being an airport site, then bye-laws will be in place, have you included that and told them to go and whistle as registered keeper you are under no obligation to provide them with a driver's name or inform them as to who could have been driving.

Airport site

byle-laws in force

not relevant land

SRS can  FRO

Aimmcm

Appellant’s response to our Prima Facie submission. 

he appellant made their response on xxx.

I am appealing as the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx and deny any 

liability for this charge. The operator has confirmed they are not relying on POFA 

2012 Schedule 4, and therefore have no legal basis to pursue me as the keeper. 

As no evidence has been provided to identify the driver, the charge must be 

cancelled. 

Furthermore, the video stills provided show the vehicle stationary for a short 

period - less than 1 minute - during which time a vehicle can be seen 

overtaking. This suggests the vehicle was momentarily paused due to an 

obstruction, not parked or stopped in breach of signage. Notably this obstruction 

appears to be caused by the operators own enforcement vehicle, which was 

positioned in such a way that it forced oncoming traffic to overtake and 

restricted the appellants ability to continue safely. 

There is no evidence that the driver chose to stop voluntarily or for any 

prohibited purpose such as drop-off or pick-up. The brief pause was the direct 

result of the operators own vehicle obstructing the road, and its unreasonable 

and unfair to penalise a driver for being cautious and allowing an overtaking 

vehicle to pass safely. 

In addition, the operator has not provided clear evidence that adequate signage 

was visible and readable at the point of entry or while in motion. a contract 

cannot be formed unless the driver is given the opportunity to read and 

understand the terms before a breach is alleged, no such proof has been 

presented. 

Finally, the operators reliance on Elliot v Loake is irrelevant. That case involved 

criminal proceedings and forensic evidence identifying the driver. In civil parking 

matters, it does not establish any presumption of driver identity and has been 

repeatedly dismissed by POPLA and other adjudicators in similar contexts. 

In summary, the alleged stop was: 

- Not voluntary 

- Caused by the operators own enforcement vehicle obstructing the road 

- lasted only a brief period 

- Not supported by clear evidence of a valid contract or visible signage
 

For these reason the charge must be cancelled.

VCS response to the appellant’s response of xxx. 

The operator made their response on xxx. 

1. The annotated CCTV stills supplied clearly show that the appellant had plenty 

of opportunity during the recorded footage. 

2. CCTV video and images are recorded by mobile enforcement cameras solely 

to show vehicles in contravention of the “no stopping” requirement and have no 

interest in the occupants, drivers or passengers of any vehicle using the private 

access roads. All operational CCTV vehicles are marked clearly with ANPR 

company livery which fully identifies the company. The operators of these 

vehicles are employed solely to record CCTV images of vehicles which stop or 

park on the private access roads where signs state: “No Stopping”; they do not 

issue charge notices or involve themselves in other parking issues and do not 

approach road users to offer advice or directions, except in cases of emergency. 

3. The enforcement vehicle appears to be closer than it actually would have been 

due to the vehicle's camera being zoomed in to record the appellant's 

contravention.

IAS adjudication. 

The adjudicator made their decision on xxx.
 

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a 

position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the 

parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances 

of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the 

Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent 

legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a 

barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of 

the law and legal principles.
 

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being 

appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. 

The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of 

contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating 

circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display 

throughout the site and seemingly visible in the vicinity of the vehicle, makes it 

sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a 

PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, 

regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While 

noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that 

the Appellant did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the displayed 

terms as alleged by the Operator. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that 

the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am 

further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle 

has been identified stopped at the time suggested in the images provided and 

that the correct Appellant is pursued.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having 

some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been 

established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking 

charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed

Aimmcm

Half_way said:

With this being an airport site, then bye-laws will be in place, have you included that and told them to go and whistle as registered keeper you are under no obligation to provide them with a driver's name or inform them as to who could have been driving.

Airport site

byle-laws in force

not relevant land

SRS can  FRO

Yes of course, no admission to who the driver was

Coupon-mad

IAS appeal confirmed they have disapplied POFA.

No it didn't.

The IAS decision (widely considered a service that is as bent as a nine bob note) didn't mention POFA or liability. You should never have tried the IAS. Complete waste of time.

I assume you've already searched the forum and read about Elliott v Loake on threads?!

  

Aimmcm

Coupon-mad said:

IAS appeal confirmed they have disapplied POFA.

No it didn't.

The IAS decision (widely considered a service that is as bent as a nine bob note) didn't mention POFA or liability. You should never have tried the IAS. Complete waste of time.

I assume you've already searched the forum and read about Elliott v Loake on threads?!

  

Sorry that's not what I meant, disapplied was probably wrong choice of wording, I mean VCS has said in both their appeal and the IAS appeal that they are not citing pofa and not saying keeper is liable.

From what I've researched EvL is irrelevant as it was a criminal case with forensic evidence.

I know IAS is a kangaroo court but I didn't consider it a waste of time, I have now seen all the evidence and arguments from VCS so I figured it gave me a bit more preparation should a court claim be put forward.

Thanks

1505grandad

"VCS Reply:"

Just thinking out loud  -  wonder why the following was included:-

"We note your comment that you stopped to ask directions from an Enforcement Officer; however as stated, the signs near to the location you stopped clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the Charge displayed. "

James_Poisson

"I mean VCS has said in both their appeal and the IAS appeal that they are not citing pofa and not saying keeper is liable".

But in contradiction they are trying this rubbish on:

(A) 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

Also as @1505grandadhas stated they seem to have produced this:

(B) We note your comment that you stopped to ask directions from an Enforcement Officer; however as stated, the signs near to the location you stopped clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the Charge displayed. 

Also all through their rejection and the IAS rejection they state the appellant did this the appellant did that which means that the keeper (you) as the appellant (you) is being assumed to be the driver which is not an assumption they can make, or have you blown that in (B) somehow?

Car1980

I'm interested in this setup of a CCTV van trundling around forcing people to stop so they can be charged. 

If this really is true I'd consider sending your footage to the police and media, because it would be fraud.

Aimmcm

James_Poisson said:

"I mean VCS has said in both their appeal and the IAS appeal that they are not citing pofa and not saying keeper is liable".

But in contradiction they are trying this rubbish on:

(A) 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

Also as @1505grandadhas stated they seem to have produced this:

(B) We note your comment that you stopped to ask directions from an Enforcement Officer; however as stated, the signs near to the location you stopped clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the Charge displayed. 

Also all through their rejection and the IAS rejection they state the appellant did this the appellant did that which means that the keeper (you) as the appellant (you) is being assumed to be the driver which is not an assumption they can make, or have you blown that in (B) somehow?

The appeal information was a direct copy and paste I haven't changed any of the terms they have used

Coupon-mad

Aimmcm said:

Coupon-mad said:

IAS appeal confirmed they have disapplied POFA.

No it didn't.

The IAS decision (widely considered a service that is as bent as a nine bob note) didn't mention POFA or liability. You should never have tried the IAS. Complete waste of time.

I assume you've already searched the forum and read about Elliott v Loake on threads?!

  

Sorry that's not what I meant, disapplied was probably wrong choice of wording, I mean VCS has said in both their appeal and the IAS appeal that they are not citing pofa and not saying keeper is liable.

From what I've researched EvL is irrelevant as it was a criminal case with forensic evidence.

I know IAS is a kangaroo court but I didn't consider it a waste of time, I have now seen all the evidence and arguments from VCS so I figured it gave me a bit more preparation should a court claim be put forward.

Thanks

Good point. I'm glad you went into it knowing it is considered a not-fit-for-purpose system.