DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108429--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, yes I see.
I will plan to attend court on 24th February. As I'm
self-employed, this will cost me a day's pay. I have seen advice
on this forum for making a counter claim for costs, in the event
that I am successful. I will put something together on this
basis, hours spent on the case etc, and come back to this forum
a week before the court date to see what you think, if that's
ok. Many thanks again.
#Post#: 108430--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: benb76 link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=26]b789[/member] is subject to the same whims of life as
the rest of us.
He/she may be in hospital with an illness, he/she might have
just given up on the site, he/she might have passed on.....never
rely on a single member (as wise as b789 was) as a guaranteed
get out of jail card.
#Post#: 108431--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, absolutely.
#Post#: 108444--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 2, 2026, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re. Costs - you're not making a counterclaim, if you win, you
are asking for your costs.
In the Small Claims track, costs are very limited* (this works
both ways, and means that if you lose you also shouldn't be
exposed to onerous costs above the claim value), but you can
generally claim the cost of loss of earnings up to a maximum of
£95 per day.
* the exception to this is that if one party is deemed to have
behaved "unreasonably", a judge can decide to award additional
costs above those normally allowed. You can take with you on the
day a brief costs schedule and, if you win, ask for these - for
those above the standard fixed amounts, you will need to explain
why you believe the claimant has acted unreasonably. The bar for
unreasonable conduct is high.
#Post#: 108465--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 2, 2026, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for explaining, that's great.
#Post#: 109783--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 14, 2026, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2519]benb76[/member]
Do you still have a copy of the original County Court Claim? If
so, can you post it up.
I was just running through JBs Witness Statement to see which of
his ridiculous assertions we can rebut.
#Post#: 109880--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 15, 2026, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, just seen this, I will post it up tonight.
#Post#: 109883--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: benb76
Date: February 15, 2026, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1bhwrWzVEc8wHkVpzG558F9vvHQMCIAWi
I have added the file in here "Claim form 300525" and "Redacted
claim form". Are these the right forms?
Many thanks as always.
#Post#: 109918--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 16, 2026, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect - Yes.
Jake Burgess appears to contradict the claim form in his
evidence.
Let me examine this further.
You have some very strong legal arguments on this case.
#Post#: 110552--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS CN - Stopping in a prohibited zone - Bristol airport - 3
x CNs in 13 minutes
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 21, 2026, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol Airport Hearing Points
1) Reliance on Protection of Freedoms Act (2014) for Keeper
liability.
I am the vehicle keeper and, since this is a contract dispute,
there is no legal requirement to reveal who was driving at the
material time - this position is fully reinforced by solid case
law which I will cover shortly.
The claimant's Particulars of Claim appear to be defective and
not in keeping with the Witness Statement (WS) subsequently
provided by Jake Burgess (JB) - the basis of the claim is
therefore fundamentally flawed.
In his WS, JB clearly states that his company ARE NOT RELYING ON
PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT TO HOLD THE DEFENDANT LIABLE yet, an
examination of the Particulars of Claim, as set out on the Claim
Form, shows, at Point 4, that the defendant is being pursued by
a claimant WHO IS using PoFA to invoke keeper liability.
JB appears to inadvertently sabotage his own claim in that
respect since the claimant appears unable to prove who was
driving on the day in question - that only leaves the PoFA based
'keeper liability' route when trying to establish the basis of
his claim.
In his WS, JB states at point 23(v) that my defence comments on
PoFA reliance are "baseless", yet the Particulars of Claim
expressly set out his company's intention to rely on PoFA in
order to transfer liability onto me as the vehicle keeper and as
such JB's comments appear somewhat confused.
I would respectfully draw the Court's attention to the fact that
JB appears very critical of my initial defence - I find it
ironic that JB is being so critical of me when his behaviour
appears to be so haphazard and lacks the professional attention
to the detail which is needed when presenting evidence to the
court.
This confusing situation is clearly detrimental to the
defendant's position since it is now unclear how the claimant is
actually holding the defendant liable when it is openly
acknowledged, by the claimants head of legal and only witness,
that PoFA keeper liability is not being relied upon - these
'shifting sands' make it far more difficult for the defendant to
properly plead their case.
I had initially prepared my defence in order to rebut the
claimant's reliance on PoFA as specifically set out on the claim
form - I have subsequently been forced to re-jig my defence at
very short notice - I am a litigant in person and not a legal
professional.
A few questions to put before the Court in order to seek clarity
on the nature of this claim;
Is the claimant pursuing me in the manner set out in the
original County Court Claim or is the claim now being pursued in
the alternative manner which is subsequently being put forward
by JB in his witness statement?
Is the claimant using PoFA to invoke keeper liability or not?
Is the claimant allowed to retrospectively alter the nature of
their claim after the claim form is issued?
After reading JB's WS it has become apparent that the claimant
is seemingly altering the basis of the claim which is actually
set out in the Particulars of Claim - he has replaced pursuit
under PoFA keeper liability (point 4 on the claim) with some
kind of twisted 'balance of probabilities' argument which
appears to deliberately ignore the requirements of PoFA.
I believe that litigation exchanges have made the claimant aware
of the fact that PoFA keeper liability cannot occur at the
location in question and this has caused them to materially
alter the basis of their claim.
Unfortunately, it appears that the claimant has only noticed the
considerable errors in their PoC AFTER the claim was issued -
they are now trying to cover these errors up.
2) Completely false assertion of keeper liability - a clearly
deliberate attempt to circumvent the requirements of PoFA in
order to establish keeper liability in circumstances where the
vehicle driver is not known to them.
In his WS, and now seemingly aware of the fact that he cannot
use PoFA to legally establish keeper liability at this location,
JB appears to assert some kind of 'twisted legal logic' in order
to deliberately circumvent the very strict requirements needed
when establishing keeper liability under PoFA - with due
respect, this seems like desperation on the claimant's part.
JB acknowledges that the driver is not known to the claimant but
asserts that the keeper can still be pursued on the grounds that
the keeper has not nominated any other driver - JB provides no
legal basis for such an outrageous claim since there is
absolutely no legal requirement for a vehicle keeper to nominate
a driver to an unregulated parking operator - if the
requirements of PoFA could so easily be circumvented in such a
manner then PoFA need not exist?
Critically, PoFA does exist and performs without issue when
correctly applied.
Essentially, JB asserts that the keeper can be 'presumed to be
the driver in the absence of evidence to the contrary' - again,
no recognised legal basis is set out - instead, a 'balance of
probabilities' argument is presented - the argument is easily
rebutted since there is no legal requirement for a vehicle
keeper to engage with the private parking operator if they
choose not to do so.
In both instances, JB's assertions actually reverses the
recognised legal principles which requires that the claimant
must prove who was driving - JB's assertion cannot be regarded
as 'legal proof' and, as such, in the absence of any specific
evidence, there is nothing for the defendant to rebut.
With all due respect, in simple terms, JB's assertions are a
clear attempt to 'manufacture' his own synthesized version of
PoFA where he sets the rules which are deliberately designed to
fit with his weak legal position.
JB's assertion totally ignores the fact that a keeper may simply
be exercising their right to say nothing - no adverse conclusion
can be drawn from a keeper who remains quiet when there is no
legal requirement to provide information to a private parking
operator - once again, and again with all due respect, JB's WS
evidence illustrates someone who is desperate to remove an
individual's recognised legal right purely because it does not
suit his own legal position when that individual exercises such
a right.
CRITICALLY, all of JB's 'legal assertions' have already been
fully tested AND DEFEATED in the Appeal Court, ironically, by
exactly the same claimant, namely; VCS Ltd.
JB is well aware of this Appeal Court defeat and as such his
behaviour appears completely unreasonable and, if I may say,
disrespectful.
Not only does JB ignore the clear outcomes of that case, his
comments appear to completely reverse the Judge's decision -
from his comment's you'd think that VCS had actually won that
case!
VCS Ltd v Edward [H0KF6C9C] is the persuasive case evidence in
this matter and its outcome is compelling - in the case the
Judge concludes that no assumption can be made (by VCS Ltd) on
who was driving a particular vehicle at a particular time - it
can not be 'assumed' that the keeper was the driver - the
claimant must prove who was driving at the material time - the
vehicle keeper is entitled to keep the driver details secret -
the 'balance of probabilities' argument is completely dismantled
and subsequently dismissed.
In particular I would like to draw the Court's attention to a
number of the Judge's comments in that particular case;
Paragraph;
34 I am persuaded by Mr Yamba that the evidential effect of
establishing that the defendant
was the relevant keeper, does not produce any inference,
rebuttable or otherwise, that the
defendant was driving on this particular occasion. Therefore,
there is no material
inference for the defendant to rebut. As there was nothing for
him to rebut, it does not
seem to me to be right to draw an adverse inference from his
failure to engage in seeking
to rebut it. Therefore, I find that the learned district judge
fell into error in making the
finding she did.
35 I am fortified in my decision for three other reasons:
35.1 the finding I make is consistent with the underlying
purpose of Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to
bring in keeper
liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could
not be established. If
this were not the case car parking companies could have simply
have obtained the details of
the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see
whether or
not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence
of a positive
defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an
approach, it would
have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper identify the
driver, or at least
set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility
himself. In my judgment that
was not the position before the Protection from Freedoms Act was
in force;
35.2 my decision preserves and respects the important general
freedom from being
required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do
so; and
35.3 it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis
whereby simply because
somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of
probability they
were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell,
For example, there
will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where
many drivers have
the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be
individual employers are
the registered keeper but who allow a number of people who may
drive their
vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are
each registered
keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive
the other. Or there
may be situations where husband/wife is the registered keeper of
both family cars
and the registered keeper regularly drives one car and their
spouse regularly drives
the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not
appropriate to draw
an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered
keeper was driving on
any given occasion.
36 Therefore, for these reasons, I take the view that the appeal
succeeds, and the judgment
must be set aside. The claim must be dismissed, as must the
material order for costs.
At this point I would respectfully ask the Court to dismiss this
case - the claimant has provided no evidence as to who was
driving - the claimant has stated that they do not wish to rely
on PoFA after all - as such, there is no remaining method by
which they can prove that I am liable.
(If the case is not dismissed at this point then carry on with
evidence below)
3) Road classification.
Although it is accepted that the airport area is 'private land',
the airport access road is actually classed as a road as defined
by Section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act (1984) (RTRA)
- there are in fact no barriers or other obstructions which
either exclude or limit access to the road network which serves
the land-side areas of the airport - as a result all roads are
roads to which the public would reasonably have access - this is
the clear definition in section 142 of RTRA and as such those
airport roads have exactly the same legal classification as any
public highway.
This means that any 'traffic penalty' would only be enforceable
by Traffic Officers as set out in the Traffic Management Act
(2004).
The claimant is therefore attempting to enforce traffic
contraventions on what legally amounts to a public highway via
the convoluted use of 'contract law' instead of normal traffic
law - this behaviour is highly questionable due to the legal
classification of these particular roads.
In his Witness Statement (WS), Jake Burgess (JB) continually
refers to his company (VCS Ltd) 'managing the land' when talking
about their enforcement activities - however, none of JB's
evidence addresses the key legal fact that the enforcement is
clearly taking place on the established road network which is
passing over that land - the law makes clear distinction between
'car parks' and 'roads' in that respect - namely section 142 of
RTRA.
JB's WS implies that the total airport area amounts to, in legal
terms, one large car park - this is clearly not the case and I
believe that JB is deliberately projecting his very specific
narrative because acknowledging the true legal status of the
airport roads would be fatal to his company's activities.
4) No valid contract formation.
In the first instance I would draw the Court's attention to the
fact that none of the claimant's signage is illuminated - the
claimant's pictures appear to be taken at 2am in the morning.
Could I ask the claimant to point out (on their provided plan)
the locations of the three alleged contraventions - in JB's WS
it says that these locations have been marked but all we appear
to have is a generic plan showing all sign locations rather than
the specific locations of the alleged contraventions?
The signs appear to be unilluminated and parallel to the road
rather than facing traffic?
JB's claim of contract is made out of necessity and desperation
rather than being based on any recognised contracting method -
he simply recognises the fact that he MUST find a way to get all
drivers under some kind of contract.
JB's WS appears to ignore any requirements or rules set out in
consumer legislation regarding the formation of contracts
between a business and a consumer - once again, this appears
deliberate since consumer legislation is extremely detrimental
to his company's activities.
In this instance, consumer legislation is again fatal to the
claimants position.
When examined closely, JB's claim actually amounts to the
concept of 'instant contract' based on conduct where the driver
has no choice to either consider the contract terms or to
DEMONSTRATE ALTERNATIVE CONDUCT.
It is claimed, that by driving past a sign at the airport
entrance, all drivers instantly agree to all of the terms set
out on the entrance signage and immediately become contracted
parties.
This concept is in clear contravention of relevant consumer
legislation.
In particular, Schedule 2 Paragraph 10 of the Consumer Rights
Act (2015) specifies that, "A term which has the object or
effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which
the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted
before the conclusion of the contract" is to be considered an
UNFAIR TERM.
Paragraph 10 appears to be fatal to the claimants case as the
claimant is reliant on a contract being immediately enforceable
without the driver having time to consider its terms - most
drivers would pass the airport entrance sign in just a few
seconds and would then instantly be considered, by VCS, to be a
contracted party.
Furthermore, the allegation of 'contract through conduct' is
highly questionable in this situation.
I have examined a number of contract through conduct cases.
In the first instance, contract through conduct normally
requires a series of interactions between the two contracting
parties - in this instance, VCS Ltd appear to be relying on one
specific action by the driver to constitute sufficient conduct -
this is legally unacceptable because one specific action by one
party does not adequately demonstrate the intention to enter a
contract - by way of example, a transaction in a shop is
'contract through conduct' - such a contract is formed by a
series of several actions made by both parties and NOT BY ONE
SINGLE ACTION BY ONE PARTY.
Secondly, in various cases, Judges have indicated that conduct
which leads to contract must constitute conduct which is
regarded as being 'traditional' in nature - meaning that the
conduct being examined must be conduct which is openly
recognised as being conduct which leads to a contract being
formed.
I this instance, the alleged conduct of the driver does not pass
either of the aforementioned tests - there is no multiple 'back
and forth' between the two parties and the action of driving
past a road sign is not openly recognised as being conduct which
traditionally leads to contract - in this case it is clearly
arguable that the vast majority of drivers would not even
realise that their behaviour had allegedly formed such a
contract.
Furthermore, the method used by VCS to establish contract would
demonstrably constitute a 'pressure sales technique' - each
driver entering the airport is given no choice but to drive past
the entrance sign and thus become instantly contracted - this
method establishes a 100% conversion rate from perspective
client to contracted client - the consumer is pressured into
forming the contract due to the deliberate layout of the
claimant's signage.
5) Unlawful and unfair contract terms.
The claimant's contract term, "No Stopping" is both an unlawful
term and an unfair contract term.
In the first instance, the term "No Stopping" is a contract term
that the driver of a motor vehicle could never legally agree to
- the law in this country makes vehicle drivers responsible for
avoiding accidents in all circumstances regardless of who might
be at fault - the primary method of accident prevention is
stopping - any driver who agreed to such a contract term would
therefore be breaking the law in doing so.
Notwithstanding the first point, the term "No Stopping" would be
a clearly unfair term in a consumer contract - VCS have openly
stated that, "Any reason for stopping is legally irrelevant" -
this demonstrates the severity of the unfair nature of such a
contract term - the term is a blanket unquantified term which
leaves the consumer totally at the mercy of the claimant and is
therefore a term that creates a massive imbalance in the rights
of the two parties.
Furthermore, such a term leaves the driver in a position where
they could receive a charge for events that are far beyond their
control - once again the unfairness of the term is clearly
demonstrated.
6) No valid or recognisable offer of contract.
There are a number of compelling reasons why the contract
claimed by JB is invalid.
The signage set out in the operators evidence is not capable of
forming a contract as the signage does not offer anything.
All signage is prohibitive in nature.
Alleged contracts between VCS Limited and a vehicle driver would
clearly constitute a 'consumer contract' as defined in consumer
legislation.
To be a valid consumer contract offer, the signage must offer
something; either goods, digital content or services - no such
description is set out and as such it would be impossible for
the consumer to establish what is actually being offered as no
clear offer is ever made.
Furthermore, legislation makes it clear that, in order for a
valid contract to be formed, there must be 'an intention to form
a legal relationship' by both the consumer and the trader.
In all instances, intention on the part of the driver can only
occur if the driver clearly recognises that a contract offer has
been made in the first instance.
Logic dictates that there can be no 'intention to form a
contract', via conduct or otherwise, if the driver doesn't
recognise that the signage is making a contract offer in the
first place.
In this instance, the claimant cannot prove that each driver
recognised that the signage actually represented a 'contract
offer' rather than just being a normal road warning sign of some
description - this is again fatal to the claimants case.
I therefore ask the claimant to prove that the driver recognised
that a contract offer was being made in the first instance?
Obviously they are unable to do that.
********* SUPER CRITICAL *********
It is notable that, in his evidence, JB sets out a number of
signs which threaten penalties of £100 etc - however, none of
those signs would reasonably be recognised by drivers as
constituting an 'offer of contract'.
In all instances, drivers would simply view the signage as being
a normal road sign - this further reinforces the point regarding
'intention to make a contract' - namely, that there can never be
'INTENTION to accept an offer of contract' if the 'contract
offer' is not recognised as being a contract offer in the first
instance.
This destroys the basis of the claimant's entire case.
In his WS evidence, JB never explains how he thinks that drivers
would differentiate the VCS 'contract offer' signage from a
normal 'non contract offer' based road signage which might also,
in certain circumstances, specify a particular charge, fine or
penalty based in statute law / road traffic law rather than
contract law.
Although JB claims that the signage constitutes and offer of
contract (in his mind), this does not automatically mean that
the average driver would immediately recognise the same - 99%
probably would not.
Additionally, ironically, JB's own evidence further underlines
this point; in his evidence JB specifies that his signage is
supplemented by both 'Urban Clearway' signs along with 'Double
Red Lines' - All of these are statutory road markings and
symbols which further evidence the fact that drivers would not
consider that statutory markings and signs would reasonably be
setting out an offer of contract.
Ultimately, the claim of contract can never succeed because the
claimant can never prove that any particular driver regarded the
signage, symbols and markings as being an offer of contract as
apposed to being a normal road sign and markings etc.
Critically, a driver, receiving a postal demand for £100, will
only come to realise that the matter was, legally, a 'breach of
contract' in retrospect.
At that point, the driver would be well within their rights to
question the nature of the alleged contract which the claimant
was seemingly reliant on - if the driver only reaches this point
of understanding in the weeks following the event then how can
the claimant claim that a contract was in fact formed at the
material time - by definition, there could not have been any
intention on the part of the driver at the material time?
The evidence offered by JB clearly outlines a situation where
the formation of the contract is not an 'intention' of both
parties - in fact, the evidence shows a scenario where only VCS
shows any intention - this actually illustrates a situation
where VCS are trying to force a contract regardless of the
intentions of the counter-party - this is clearly contra to the
balanced nature of contract formation where both parties must
show clear intention.
As previously stated, the claimant must prove that all drivers
recognise the signage and markings etc as being an offer of
contract in the first instance - clearly they are unable to do
this and as a result their claim must fail as no contract is
ever formed.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page