DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53585--------------------------------------------------
VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 16, 2025, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
In November, I received a pair of charge notices from VCS,
which, as I'm sure you all know, enforces parking and traffic
flow at Bristol Airport. These notices were issued on foot of my
having stopped, on two separate occasions, in a prohibited area
while returning a hire car.
There was no point in ignoring the notices on the assumption
that VCS could not establish the identity of the driver. The
hire company sold me out at the drop of a hat, providing my
details to VCS and charging me £84 for the trouble.
I appealed to VCS initially, pointing out that these charges
were not enforceable or properly served. That argument was based
on the observations of Gary Rycroft, who was quoted in this
article
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/sep/14/airport-parking-fines-bristol-unenforceable-bylaw:
'Guardian Money also contacted the consumer lawyer Gary Rycroft,
a partner at Lancaster-based Joseph A Jones & Co Solicitors...
“The legal rule under common law is that bylaws are only
enforceable through fines and prosecution in the magistrates
court,” he said. “My view is that private parking invoices
issued by VCS on behalf of Bristol airport are at odds with –
and indeed in direct conflict with – the prosecution and
enforcement regime set out in the Airports Act 1986, and for
that reason I do not believe they are enforceable.” VCS, the
parking contractor at the centre of dispute, has not responded
to repeated requests for comment.'
In rejecting my appeal, VCS completely ignored the reference to
airport bylaws (particularly section 64 of the Airports Act
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/31/section/64).<br
/>Bristol Airport's bylaws are available on it website
HTML https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/media/4vqbdkcf/bristol-airport-byelaws-11062018.pdf.<br
/>Indeed, there is a specific bylaw (6.3) that restricts
stopping
in areas described by notices. VCS is issuing these charge
notices to people who stop in areas described by notices. In
short, VCS is collecting money for breaches of the airport's
bylaws, claiming instead that the issue is one of contract.
I appealed the matter to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).
The appeals process allows each party to submit evidence to and
fro (the appellant submits representations, the operator
responds to those representations, the appellant responds to
that response and so on, until neither party has anything else
to say and the appeal is then considered by adjudicator). In all
the submissions back and forth, VCS simply would not engage with
the bylaws issue. In the end, the IAS couldn't be bothered to do
so either. My appeals were dismissed and I'm on the hook, in
theory, for the original fines.
What are the chances that this is escalated to the county court?
I live in Northern Ireland and, as such, VCS would have to take
further steps to enforce any judgements in this jurisdiction.
Could VCS get a county court judgement against me and simply not
attempt to enforce it in Northern Ireland, punitively allowing
it to fester on my credit file?
#Post#: 53587--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: January 16, 2025, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This will be moved to Private Parking
#Post#: 53596--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 16, 2025, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**,
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 53608--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: b789
Date: January 16, 2025, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You’ve made several basic errors. First was taking note of
that article by the Grauniad which steered you in the wrong
direction.
You’ve blown both feet off, figuratively speaking, by
appealing the way you did. The hire company did not dob you in
it. All they did was transfer liability from them, the keeper,
to you, the Hirer. No one except you, the Hirer knew the
identity of the driver.
Because only you knew the drivers identity, you were under no
legal obligation to reveal it to an unregulated private parking
company.
Because the location is covered by airport bylaws, it is not
relevant land for the purpose of PoFA which means the Hirer
cannot be liable for the charge.
The driver was always liable but if they didn’t know the
drivers identity, they could do nothing about it. If the Hirer
blabbed the drivers identity, inadvertently or otherwise, then
that’s a big screw up.
Any appeal to VCS and especially the IAS is an exercise in
futility. Having appealed and given away the fact that the Hirer
was also the driver, is SNAFU.
You are going to receive a claim from VCS and you’ve blown
your best defence away. However, there are other defences and
they include the fact that there cannot have been a contractual
agreement between VCS and the driver if the signage is
prohibitive.
However, if you are an NI resident, you can be sued for a
parking charge relating to an alleged contravention in England,
but the process differs due to jurisdictional issues between
England and Northern Ireland.
Since the alleged parking contravention took place in England,
English law typically governs the matter. However, enforcement
against a defendant residing in Northern Ireland requires the
claimant to adhere to the relevant jurisdictional rules.
VCS must initiate the claim through the English County Court
system (CNBC). The court papers will then need to be served in
Northern Ireland, as the defendant resides there. This is
allowed under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982,
which enables cross-border enforcement of civil debts within the
UK.
VCS must ensure the claim form is correctly served to the
defendant’s address in Northern Ireland. If the service
requirements are not met, the defendant could challenge the
validity of the proceedings.
The defendant can respond to the claim in the usual way
(admitting, defending, or counterclaiming). If defending, the
defendant can argue the case in an English County Court. This
may require travel to England for any court hearings unless the
hearing is conducted remotely (e.g., via video link).
If VCS were to win the case and obtains a County Court Judgment
(CCJ) in England, they can enforce it in Northern Ireland
through the Enforcement of Judgments Office (EJO). This requires
the CCJ to be registered in Northern Ireland, which involves
additional procedural steps and costs for the claimant.
What VCS would need to consider is that the cost of
cross-jurisdiction enforcement may deter them from pursuing
claims against Northern Ireland residents for minor parking
charges, although this is for two charges.
VCS must ensure full compliance with English and Northern
Ireland civil procedure rules to avoid the claim being struck
out.
As an NI resident, you would defend the claim on its merits
(e.g., inadequate signage, no valid contract etc.).
You could also argue inconvenience or jurisdictional challenges,
although these may not automatically prevent the claim.
For now, you will have to wait and see how they decide to go.
You should also carefully check your hire agreement for the
terms relating to private parking charges. It was never a
penalty notice, no “offence” occurred and no
“fine” has been issued. Your PCNs are merely
speculative invoices.
#Post#: 53637--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 16, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this comprehensive reply. I repeated an argument
advanced by an experienced consumer-rights lawyer in a national
newspaper. Having examined the legislation cited, I thought this
position had merit. I still do.
In addition, as the only person registered and insured to drive
the vehicle, VCS would have had little trouble establishing the
identity of the driver if, in the absence of any engagement on
my end, it continued to press the registered keeper for details,
something which may well have cost me more in related admin
costs.
Surely the fact that I'm resident in Northern Ireland would have
no actual bearing on the points I might make in defending any
such claim? Is VCS likely to secure its CCJ and leave it there?
They wouldn't try to enforce the judgement (assuming I didn't
pay up in the wake of it) but they would damage my credit score.
#Post#: 53654--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 16, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
VCS only knew who the hirer was, not the driver. the fact you
were the only one insured etc is irrelevant to that fact.
you shoukd also check your hire agreement to see what it says
about admin fees. some if these T&Cs are contrary to the CRA
2015 rules.
you should take b789's advice, they and others are very
experienced at defending spurious airport pcn's
#Post#: 53659--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: b789
Date: January 16, 2025, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: BelfastBoy link ---
>
> I repeated an argument advanced by an experienced
consumer-rights lawyer in a national newspaper. Having examined
the legislation cited, I thought this position had merit. I
still do.
--- End Quote ---
It didn't do you any good though. Not that any other argument
would have done any better. You are not dealing with a nice firm
with a good customer service ethos. You are dealing with a bunch
of ex-clampers who operate on the very edge of lawfulness and
often beyond. Their only ethos is how much of your money can
they scam you out of.
--- Quote from: BelfastBoy link ---
>
> In addition, as the only person registered and insured to
drive the vehicle, VCS would have had little trouble
establishing the identity of the driver if, in the absence of
any engagement on my end, it continued to press the registered
keeper for details, something which may well have cost me more
in related admin costs.
--- End Quote ---
I disagree. The burden of proof is on the claimant (VCS) to
show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Hirer (or
registered keeper) was the driver at the time of the alleged
contravention. However, the following factors can complicate
this:
If the Hirer permitted another person to drive the vehicle
(e.g., a friend or family member), the hire agreement’s
restrictions do not matter in this context. Provided that the
third party had adequate insurance (e.g., “Driving Other Cars”
cover under their own insurance policy), they could lawfully
drive the vehicle with the Hirer’s permission. In such cases,
the identity of the driver becomes ambiguous, which weakens the
claimant’s case.
The hire agreement may be evidence that the Hirer was likely the
driver, but it is not conclusive proof. The claimant would still
need to provide additional evidence (e.g., witness statements,
video footage, or admissions from the Hirer) to support their
assertion.
Your reasoning is flawed for several reasons. Being the sole
person "registered and insured" to drive the vehicle does not
conclusively prove that the Hirer was driving at the time of the
alleged contravention. As stated earlier, another person could
have driven the vehicle with the Hirer’s permission, provided
they held adequate insurance. This creates sufficient ambiguity
to undermine the claimant’s case.
VCS cannot legally force the Hirer (or the registered keeper) to
disclose the driver’s identity. The Hirer is under no obligation
to respond, and silence does not constitute evidence. Civil law
does not allow adverse inferences to be drawn from the Hirer’s
refusal to name the driver.
Since the alleged contravention occurred on airport land, which
is not considered "relevant land" under PoFA 2012, VCS cannot
use the legislation to transfer liability to the Hirer if the
driver’s identity is not known. Without this legal mechanism,
VCS is wholly reliant on proving who the driver was, a
significant burden when the Hirer does not engage or disclose.
If you had not engaged, VCS would have had no direct evidence of
driver identity, leaving them to rely solely on circumstantial
evidence such as "insurance or registration" details. This is
insufficient to meet the burden of proof. In the absence of PoFA
applicability, a claim would likely fail unless VCS could
provide clear evidence.
Your concern about being liable for ‘additional admin costs’ if
VCS pressed the hire company for the driver’s details is
misplaced. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA), once the hire company has complied with its
obligations to transfer liability to the Hirer, VCS cannot
pursue the hire company again or demand additional information.
The liability is fully and permanently transferred to the Hirer,
and the hire company is no longer involved. There is no
provision in PoFA that allows VCS to revert to the hire company
or ‘press’ them for further action.
Once VCS receives the Hirer’s details from the hire company, any
further administrative costs related to this transfer are not
the Hirer’s responsibility. Your assumption that VCS would
continue pressing the hire company and somehow pass additional
costs onto you, the Hirer, is not supported by how liability
transfer works under PoFA.
The transfer of liability under PoFA allows VCS to pursue the
Hirer only if the land qualifies as “relevant land” under PoFA.
Since airport land is not relevant land, the transfer of
liability does not enable VCS to hold the Hirer liable unless
they can prove the Hirer was the driver. Therefore, even if the
hire company transferred liability, VCS would still face the
same evidentiary hurdle of proving who was driving the vehicle.
Your belief that engagement was necessary to avoid further admin
costs is based on a misunderstanding of how PoFA works. Once
liability was transferred, the hire company was entirely out of
the process, and VCS could not pursue them again. Your
engagement provided VCS with direct evidence of driver identity,
strengthening their case. By remaining silent and allowing VCS
to rely on their own limited evidence, you would have had a much
stronger defence.
--- Quote from: BelfastBoy link ---
>
> Surely the fact that I'm resident in Northern Ireland would
have no actual bearing on the points I might make in defending
any such claim? Is VCS likely to secure its CCJ and leave it
there? They wouldn't try to enforce the judgement (assuming I
didn't pay up in the wake of it) but they would damage my credit
score.
>
--- End Quote ---
Your residency in Northern Ireland does not affect the substance
of the legal points you can make in your defence—those remain
grounded in the facts of the case, the applicable law (e.g., the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, contract law, signage
compliance), and procedural fairness. However, your location
could impact procedural aspects of how VCS pursues the claim and
enforces any resulting judgment.
The legal arguments you make (e.g., PoFA does not apply on
airport land, VCS cannot prove driver identity, unclear signage)
are not affected by your residency. These points apply
regardless of where you live because the alleged contravention
occurred in England. If VCS pursues a claim, they must:
[indent]• Issue the claim through the English County Court
system.
• Ensure the claim is served correctly to your address in
Northern Ireland under UK cross-border service rules.[/indent]
Residency only complicates matters for VCS logistically, not
legally, when they attempt to pursue a claim.
If VCS files a claim and you do not defend or fail to respond,
they will obtain a default judgment against you. However, if you
defend the claim robustly, VCS would need to:
[indent]• Prove the alleged contravention occurred.
• Overcome defences such as the inapplicability of PoFA on
airport land or the lack of evidence identifying you as the
driver. (moot at this point)
• Address any procedural errors, such as improper service of
documents to Northern Ireland.['indent]
So, if you provide a strong defence, VCS is less likely to
succeed in obtaining a CCJ.
However, if VCS obtains a judgment, the consequences depend on
what they do next:
A. Judgment Left Unenforced
If you do not pay the judgment within 30 days, it will be
recorded on your credit file for six years. This will negatively
impact your credit score, affecting your ability to secure
loans, mortgages, or other financial products.
VCS might leave the judgment unenforced if they view the cost of
cross-jurisdictional enforcement as uneconomical, especially if
it is for less than £600.
B. Judgment Enforced in Northern Ireland
For VCS to enforce the judgment in Northern Ireland, they would
need to register the English County Court Judgment with the
Enforcement of Judgments Office (EJO) in Northern Ireland. This
adds administrative costs for VCS and makes enforcement less
likely if the debt is relatively small (e.g., less than £600).
So, in conclusion, your residency in Northern Ireland has no
bearing on the legal arguments for your defence but does
complicate enforcement for VCS. If you respond and defend a
claim, VCS is less likely to succeed, especially given that the
alleged contravention occurred on airport land, where PoFA does
not apply, and the signage was prohibitive, preventing the
formation of a valid contract.
However, since you have already revealed yourself as the driver,
VCS no longer needs to prove driver identity, which strengthens
their position. If the court ultimately rules against you, as
long as you pay the CCJ in full within one calendar month of
judgment, the CCJ will be expunged from your credit record and
will not affect your credit score.
An English CCJ can negatively affect a Northern Ireland
resident’s credit score even without enforcement because it is
entered into the UK-wide credit reporting system. However, VCS
would need to register the judgment in Northern Ireland to take
any legal steps to recover the debt. (unlikely if under £600)
At this stage, you need to decide whether to continue fighting
the claim based on the remaining points, particularly the
argument that no contract could have been formed because the
signage is prohibitive, or to prepare for the possibility of
settling promptly if the judgment is not in your favour.
#Post#: 53725--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 16, 2025, 4:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this very extensive reply. I’m concerned to note
that VCS would not be required to try and actually recover the
debt. They could leave it unenforced, collecting no money
themselves but impacting my credit score.
Does any part of your response relate to bylaws?
Also, would the identity of the driver not be examined during a
court hearing? Or are you saying that my refusal to answer that
question in a court setting would be a sufficient defence?
#Post#: 53736--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: b789
Date: January 16, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no legal obligation on the Hirer to identify the
driver. This is not a criminal matter that is subject to
forensic examination.
Have a read of this persuasive appeal court decision that is
often used to explain why the defendant is not under any
obligation and the burden of proof is on the claimant:
VCS v Edward (2023)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=wpnxrkyx&dl=0
The only relationship to bylaws is that because of them, the
location is under statutory control and therefore, not relevant
land for the purposes of PoFA.
#Post#: 53756--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 17, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, the argument posited by Gary Rycroft is moot?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page