DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108088--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 30, 2026, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
But the deadline date for submitting your witness statement will
be before that. One of the documents you received from the court
(usually the Notice of Allocation) will tell you your deadline.
#Post#: 108091--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: January 30, 2026, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. It looks like I have dropped the ball here; I sent
the amended defence in December, as advised on this forum, but
haven't sought advice on the witness statement, which I now see
was due by 20th January.
As I have now missed the deadline here, can you advise what my
options are now please? Is it time to admit defeat and pay up?
I'm sorry to have messed up here, having received so much advice
and time from people on this forum.
#Post#: 108096--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 31, 2026, 2:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Send it anyway ideally ASAP.
Do you have a WS prepared or are you still building it?
#Post#: 108097--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: January 31, 2026, 3:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't have it prepared yet, I am out this morning but am
free this afternoon to spend some time on this. Thank you.
#Post#: 108098--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 31, 2026, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay - I can supply some pointers if I get time.
There's no point submitting until Monday anyway which will give
others time to comment.
Nothing to worry about here.
#Post#: 108099--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: January 31, 2026, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, much appreciated.
#Post#: 108103--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 31, 2026, 3:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
County Courts often afford a little more leeway than other
courts, understanding that many defendants don't have legal
representation. You may have shot yourself in the foot, but
equally you may get away with late submission. Let's get
something in Monday and see what happens.
#Post#: 108118--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 31, 2026, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some points for starters.
I'll probably come up with more in due course.
VCS Bristol Airport Defence / WS Pointers
Keeper liability denied.
The land at Bristol Airport is land under statutory control and
as such the parking operator is unable to rely on the benefits
of the Protection of Freedoms Act to establish keeper liability
in this case.
The driver has never been identified and there is no legal
obligation for the vehicle keeper to identify the driver to a
private parking operator.
In their communications VCS have consistently asserted their
right to pursue the keeper on grounds of 'reasonable assumption'
that the keeper was the driver.
VCS are seeking to circumvent legislation (Protection of
Freedoms Act) in order hold the keeper liable in a scenario
where the driver is not known to them.
VCS have already fully tested this legal argument in the Appeal
Court and lost.
The defendant therefore presents the persuasive authority of VCS
Ltd v Edward (2023)[HOKF6C9C] where HHJ Gargan held at para.
35.3 that no inference can be drawn from keeper status alone and
that the claimant must prove that the Defendant was the driver.
No such evidence has ever been provided.
Keeper liability is therefore denied.
No contract was formed with the vehicle driver and as such a
driver cannot be held liable.
VCS claim that a driver simply driving past a sign at the
airport entrance is sufficient for VCS to 'instantaneously' form
a legally binding contract with that particular driver.
This appears to be a claim made by VCS out of 'necessity' rather
than any legally recognised contract formation methods based on
the firmly established 'offer-acceptance' process.
When challenged, VCS claim that they see the formation of an
implied contract occurring on the basis of 'acceptance through
conduct' namely; driving past the entrance sign.
In the case of this particular sign the driver has no choice but
to drive past the sign as it is positioned in such a location as
to afford the driver no alternative route.
The driver is already committed to entering the airport as they
are already on the busy access road.
As such, there can be no 'alterative conduct' which would allow
a driver to avoid becoming contracted.
So how do VCS determine the difference between drivers who agree
to contract from those drivers who are not agreeing since all
drivers are made to file past the same sign and therefore all
drivers seemingly demonstrate the same 'conduct'?
VCS are therefore claiming that every driver entering the
airport becomes a contracted party.
In other words, this amounts to a 100% conversion rate from
'perspective clients' to 'contracted clients'.
This is demonstrably a 'pressure sales technique' which is
forbidden under consumer legislation.
The vast majority of drivers passing the entrance sign would
never even realise that the signage constituted an 'offer of
contract' since the sign would flash past in just a second or
two and would simply look like a normal traffic sign.
It is extremely unusual for a vehicle driver to receive such a
hurried 'contract offer' in that manner whilst driving along a
road.
How can any contract be formed if the vehicle drivers never
legally recognise that the sign is offering contract in the
first instance?
Additionally, the signage makes no valid offer of contract.
It does not offer anything and the wording is purely prohibitive
in nature.
The High Court in Ransomes v Anderson [2011] EWHC 1127(QB)
established that no contract can be formed from such prohibitive
signage as the signage does not actually offer anything.
Acceptance of contract is therefore categorically denied.
Unfair terms of alleged contract.
VCS claim that one of the key terms of the alleged contract is
an agreement, by the driver, to the term, "NO STOPPING".
This is a clearly unfair term in a consumer contract.
The term is an unquantified blanket term which would be
unreasonable and unfair to any vehicle driver.
There will be times when a vehicle has to stop for any number of
reasons including reasons which would be totally out of a
drivers control.
As this is contract law as apposed to traffic law, VSC have
asserted that, "any reason for stopping is legally irrelevant",
and as such VCS are demonstrating that they are prepared to
enforce their unfair term in any manner they see fit and
regardless of circumstance.
This therefore constitutes a term which creates a significant
imbalance in any alleged contract.
Notwithstanding my previous points, any consumer contract term
must be judged on the exact wording used and the entitlement
which that term or condition would potentially give the
claimant.
There is seemingly no requirement to examine how the claimant is
exercising this right.
Once again, this is consumer contract law and not traffic law.
The consumer receives nothing in return for their '£100 charge'
and as such it appears clear that the £100 charge is therefore a
contractual penalty.
This appears to be prohibited under consumer legislation.
Once again, VCS are simply creating a legal workaround which
seeks to circumvent the protection afforded to consumers under
relevant legislation.
The contract term on which they are seemingly reliant is
therefore both unlawful and unfair and cannot make up part of
any alleged contract.
#Post#: 108160--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: January 31, 2026, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for this, that's really helpful and I will use to
put together my witness statement.
#Post#: 108224--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 1, 2026, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have a look for some other witness statements on here and the
MSE forum too to get an idea of how they're structured. One key
difference from the defence is that a witness statement is
generally written in the first person.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page