DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108255--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 1, 2026, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Should I be including the information that I used in
my amended defence, (as advised here previously), too?
Should I be including site plans, photos etc, in the way they
have done or just relying on the facts as set out above? Thank
you.
#Post#: 108270--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 1, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see below my draft WS. Any comments/feedback appreciated.
Many thanks.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WORCESTER
Claim No: xxx
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
xxx
Defendant
________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the defendant in this claim. I am making this witness
statement in support of my defence.
2. Keeper liability is denied.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. In their communications VCS have consistently asserted their
right to pursue the keeper on grounds of 'reasonable assumption'
that the keeper was the driver.
6. 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.
7. VCS have already fully tested this legal argument in the
Appeal Court and lost.
8. 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.
9. No such evidence has ever been provided.
10. Keeper liability is therefore denied.
11. No contract was formed with the vehicle driver and, as such,
a driver cannot be held liable.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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'?
15. 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 'prospective clients' to
'contracted clients'. This is demonstrably a 'pressure sales
technique', which is forbidden under consumer legislation.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Acceptance of contract is therefore categorically denied.
Unfair terms of alleged contract.
20. VCS claim that one of the key terms of the alleged contract
is an agreement, by the driver, to the term, "NO STOPPING".
21. This is a clearly unfair term in a consumer contract.
22. The term is an unquantified blanket term which would be
unreasonable and unfair to any vehicle driver.
23. There will be times when a vehicle has to stop for any
number of reasons, including reasons which would be totally out
of a driver’s control.
24. As this is contract law as opposed 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.
25. This therefore constitutes a term which creates a
significant imbalance in any alleged contract.
26. 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.
27. There is seemingly no requirement to examine how the
claimant is exercising this right.
28. Once again, this is consumer contract law and not traffic
law.
29. 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.
30. This appears to be prohibited under consumer legislation.
31. Once again, VCS are simply creating a legal workaround which
seeks to circumvent the protection afforded to consumers under
relevant legislation.
32. The contract term on which they are seemingly reliant is
therefore both unlawful and unfair and cannot make up part of
any alleged contract.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are
true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be
brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
Signed: xxx
Date: 1st February 2026
#Post#: 108405--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know if member B789 is still active on this forum?
He/she, amongst others, has been very helpful in my case (but
appears not to have been active since 20/01/26) and I would
appreciate an eye cast over my proposed WS before I submit it
today if at all possible. Many thanks.
#Post#: 108407--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 2, 2026, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would assume not.
Honestly, too many people relied upon [member=26]b789[/member]
doing their work for them and giving them canned responses,
rather than doing their own research and understanding what they
were doing.
Not in your case, I should hasten to add.
#Post#: 108411--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, thank you, I will submit as is.
#Post#: 108418--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 2, 2026, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are further points which can be given if this ever gets to
a hearing.
Their so called 'witness' rarely attends - this means that
pretty much all their evidence will be hearsay evidence -
normally third hand by that point.
Furthermore, there will be holes in their WS when examined
closely.
For example, are the signs illuminated at night? Where on the
plan did the alleged contraventions occur? The alleged signage
is side-on to traffic - meaning that a driver must stop to read
it.
I could go on...
#Post#: 108422--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, much appreciated.
If I could ask a question that may sound stupid...
I have stated in my WS:
"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".
Is the judge likely to ask me who the driver was?
Many thanks.
#Post#: 108424--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: benb76 link ---
>
> Is the judge likely to ask me who the driver was?
>
--- End Quote ---
In theory they shouldn't be doing the claimant's job for them.
But, if they do ask, you must answer truthfully. Some people
suggest various forms of wording about not being required to say
etc. - in my view, the risk with such approaches is that you
p*ss the judge off and come across as evasive, which isn't
necessarily wise. Even less so when you have other valid defence
points that don't rely on the driver's identity being unknown.
#Post#: 108425--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, that's really useful.
#Post#: 108428--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It would probably be procedurally incorrect for the Judge to ask
that question.
If the Judge has read the case through then he will recognise
that beforehand.
Remember that this is a contract law case and not a criminal
case.
As DWMB2 has said, your case is much stronger than that single
point but that single point has been sufficient to win in the
Appeal Court case.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page