VCS no stopping County Court Appeal judgment

ChirpyChicken

Document already in the public domain

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dmgp7zo6ucehnap8p2bhp/nostoppingappeal.pdf?rlkey=bjwco38t0q8bi2xttkurvejdt&st=7ukkjn56&dl=0

DrLex

Some useful commentary on “no stopping” cases.

I do like HHJ Walsh’s examples of voluntary stopping in paragraph 193 “check the football scores on his mobile phone, or to rifle through his glovebox for a mint” - shades of Justice Cocklecarrot…

yarpsnehpets

These 'no stopping' zones are practically unenforceable in my opinion so long as they are defended correctly.

Interesting to note that was no attempt by the Defendant to raise the issue of;

1. Unfair terms in a consumer contract.

2. Is it even legal for a driver to accept the term 'no stopping' given that a vehicle driver is legally required to prevent accidents (regardless of fault) in all circumstances - stopping being the primary method of accident prevention.

3. That the Claimant's representative was clearly open to the fact that 'no stopping' had limitations whereas VCS have openly stated in various other cases that 'the reason for stopping is legally irrelevant'.

4. That Consumer Legislation requires that consumers be given time to consider contract terms before being bound by them - VCS claimed that by passing the 'entry signage' the driver instantly became a contracted party.

5. That the legal process of contract formation set out in the judgement fails to consider that the driver may not have considered that the signage represented a 'contract offer' since it is very unusual for a driver to receive a contract offer whilst driving - the signage is after all simply road signage - in order for there to be 'an intention to form a legal relationship' there must first be a recognition that a contract is being offered.

6. That it was clear from the Judge's comments that he did not recognise the fact that the road ways are still considered 'roads' under highways acts etc.

7. That the road layouts at most airports don't give the motorist opportunity to demonstrate alternative conduct - they are therefore (under VCS contract through conduct argument) forced into a contract - that's a pressure sales technique.

ChirpyChicken

It is a useful judgment

kryten3000

Interesting points there, particularly when considering the Wharburton bridge toll where drivers have no opportunity to stop and read the signs.

daveyjp

It would be worthwhile putting the location as Leeds Bradford Airport in the title.

Bazarius

This appeal Judgment can be challenged further that the Airport Bylaws wasn’t considered in his Judgment . You can have reasonable excuse to stop . VCS doesn’t accept any form of excuses even if there was a concrete wall in front of them .

“5.16 Observe Signs

No person shall without reasonable excuse when on foot or whilst using, driving or

propelling a Vehicle, neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction

given by:-

5.16.1 A Sign erected and displayed by or with the consent of the Airport Company,

placed on or near a private Airport road;

5.16.2 Any road marking on such a road; or

5.16.3 An Airport Official or a Constable for the time being engaged in the regulation of

traffic or pedestrians.”

Bazarius

VCS offer a “contractual license to pass” on these roads. But they cannot do that as a right to pass already exists under bylaws or RTE and no license is needed. 

Provided the motorist adheres to the conditions in the bylaws, all is well.  If  the motorist breaches the conditions, Bylaws 2.1.3 gives the remedy not exceeding level 3 (£1000) (on the standard scale by virtue of section 122 of the Sentencing Act 2020) , the Claimant/ Airport can use to enforce these, but they have chosen not to do so. 

Instead, the Claimant appear to be offering an opportunity to commit a criminal offence in return for a payment of £100 and they will turn a blind eye to prosecution. The legality of such an offer is questionable.

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82034034#Comment_82034034

Additionally, if you read the amended Toll Bridge byelaws you will see that there is clearly an attempt to introduce a convoluted wording (by the parking operator???) in order to turn a byelaw breach into some kind of civil debt which can be pursued through the County Court system - very dubious in my opinion.

What this illustrates is a further attempt by a parking operator to 'overlay' some kind of contract on top of existing byelaws - just like the no stopping zones at the airports.

Car1980

158. The District Judge held at [22]: ‘...In Beavis, as I pointed out in VCS v. Ward, the driver had ample opportunityconsider and accept the terms put forward by the claimant. In the no stopping cases,the driver has no realistic option to do this. In VCS v. Ward, for example, the firstroad sign with alleged contractual force appeared at the exit from a roundabout, meaning that the driver had no realistic opportunity to come to a halt and take areasoned decision as to whether to accepta contractual obligation or not...’(myemphasis) 

159.I read the above as indicating that the District Judge took the view in Wardthat it waspractically impossible for the motorist to withdraw from entry at the point of firstsight of the notice. 1

160.To the extent the District Judge was holding here, that in all no stopping cases, amotorist has ‘no realistic option’ to consider the terms before accepting the offer, Irespectfully disagree. Each case turns on its facts, and I note that, in Ward, thecontravention occurred on a commercial estate accessed directly from a roundabout. 

161.Here, the Signs were displayed on each side of the road at the mouth of each junctionleading off Whitehouse Lane onto the Land via various access roads. 

162.The Defendant, upon seeing these entrance signs, therefore, had a choice - he couldhave continued on Whitehouse Lane and not entered the Land, or turned onto theaccess road and entered beyond the signs. 

163.The Defendant elected to enter and continue along the access road past the Signs. Indoing so he accepted the terms of the offer, displayed on the Signs, by conduct. The District Judge’s conclusion to the contrary, with respect, cannot stand.

This makes no sense. The judge is claiming that you can read and refuse a contract by circling a roundabout umpteen times, glancing a line at a time, which is ridiculous.

The only way these contracts can be successfully presented is with a Stop sign and line, and an option to U-turn.

yarpsnehpets

Further to that, a driver is, in the majority of situations, required to be in the correct lane well ahead of the moment in time when they first sight the signage.

We all know that airport road schemes are often very busy and complex.

In may cases a driver is 'committed' to a particular exit or turning well before reaching the point where the sign is placed.