DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53767--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: b789
Date: January 17, 2025, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All that article reiterates is that as long as the Keeper or
Hirer does not blab the drivers identity, VCS cannot transfer
liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.
Unfortunately for you, you mistakenly assumed that the hire
company named you, the known Hirer as the unknown driver. They
didn’t. All they did was name you as the known Hirer and it was
you who then appealed incorrectly and revealed yourself, the
known Hirer to also be the, up until then, the unknown driver.
That was you mistake because you assumed that you had been
revealed as the driver of the hire vehicle. The hire company
does not know who the driver is and all they can do is tell VCS
that you are the Hirer
There is a legal distinction between the driver and the
Hirer/Keeper. There can be no inference that the Hirer/Keeper
must also be the driver. They may be, but the burden of proof is
on the parking operator. There is no legal obligation on the
Hirer/Keeper to do their job for them. It is not for the
Hirer/Keeper to disprove anything.
However, having blown away the “golden ticket” element of any
appeal/defence, you still have another point you can rely on.
However, it will come down to persuading a District Judge that,
as the driver, you did not enter into any contractual agreement
with VCS. Why? Have a read of the PCN and see what it is alleged
the driver has done and what the PCN actually is.
The PCN is nothing more than a speculative invoice for an
alleged breach of contract by the driver. What are the main
elements of a contractual agreement?
1. An Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
For a contract to be formed there must first be an ‘offer’ of
something. Whatever is being ‘offered’ then has to be ‘accepted’
by the other party. ‘Consideration’ is a form of payment or
other benefit, and both parties must give consideration to form
a legally binding contract.
For example, if a VCS sign said “Parking available for £2 per
hour. By parking, you agree to our terms.”, that is an ‘offer’.
If the driver parks their car in the car park, they are
indicating their agreement to the terms displayed, and that is
the ‘acceptance’. The driver pays £2 for one hour of parking,
and VCS provides the space and associated services, which is the
‘consideration.
So, a ‘contractual agreement’ was formed between the driver and
VCS. Now, if one of the terms was that the vehicle must be
parked in a marked bay but the driver parked on the line
dividing two bays, that is a breach of the terms of the contract
and so VCS can invoice the the driver by way of a PCN for the
breach of contract.
Now consider what contract was formed by the signage for the
alleged contravention you have been accused of. If a sign says
“No stopping or picking up or dropping off”, what is being
‘offered’?
A prohibitive sign cannot form a contractual agreement. VCS
cannot simply put up a sign that says “Stopping Prohibited.
Breaching this term will incur a charge of £100” and expect that
it forms a contractual agreement with the driver if they do
stop.
That would be one of your remaining defence arguments. That and
the fact that no one has seen an up to date, valid contract
between Bristol Airport and VCS that permits them to issue PCNs
in their own name or that they even have any right to do so
outside of the car parks.
#Post#: 53768--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 17, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The article references the Airports Act 1986. Is the fact that
motorists are being pursued for alleged contractual breaches on
lands falling under the authority of airport bylaws not an
issue? Stopping where you've been told not to stop in an airport
is, theoretically, a contravention of a clearly identifiable
bylaw, not some legally dubious contract, surely?
#Post#: 53776--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 17, 2025, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
that is one element of the available defences.
for that to be successful you would have to check the area of
the alleged contravention is indeed within the airport land
boundary for bylaws to be applicable.
then you need to consider if the scammers parking Co are
claiming under bylaw contravention or private parking contract.
the response will be different for each.
as b789 has detailed for you there also is the issue of signage
and whether or not a contract has even been offered.
#Post#: 53782--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 17, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are almost certainly making their claim according to an
assumed contract. The issue, however, is whether that's allowed
on land covered by bylaws. Contraventions of stopping
restrictions are surely a bylaw issue not a contractual one on
land so explicitly covered by pretty clear legislation.
I would repeat that VCS has simply not engaged with the point
relating to bylaws. It hasn't even said that bylaws don't apply
in this situation. The Guardian article features a very vague
statement from the airport and nothing from VCS.
#Post#: 53790--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: b789
Date: January 17, 2025, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are absolutely correct to raise the question of whether
Vehicle Control Services (VCS) can lawfully issue a Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) or similar demand based on an assumed
contract when the land is explicitly subject to statutory
byelaws. This is a fundamental issue when dealing with land
governed by specific public law instruments, such as airport
byelaws.
Land explicitly covered by byelaws, such as Bristol Airport,
operates under public law. This means any conduct regulated
under the byelaws (e.g., stopping restrictions, driving
offences, or parking) is enforceable only through the mechanisms
provided within the byelaws. Since stopping restrictions are
governed by the byelaws (e.g., sections 6.13, 6.5), such acts
would fall under public law and would need to be prosecuted
through a magistrates' court as a byelaw breach. A private
company such as VCS cannot bypass this by framing the same
conduct as a contractual issue.
When byelaws regulate specific behavior, such as driving or
stopping, these regulations displace any implied contractual
framework. This principle arises from the fact that byelaws are
statutory instruments intended to regulate the land, overriding
private arrangements. If VCS attempts to enforce stopping
restrictions using a contractual framework, they are effectively
circumventing the byelaws, which is unlawful.
For VCS to enforce a contractual claim, they must demonstrate
the formation of a valid contract with the driver. However, most
airport signage for stopping restrictions is prohibitive (e.g.,
"No Stopping at Any Time"). Courts have consistently ruled that
prohibitive signage cannot create a contractual relationship
because it does not offer any terms for a driver to accept.
Instead, it communicates a prohibition. If the signage specifies
penalties for breaching byelaws, this would further reinforce
that the matter is a statutory issue, not a contractual one.
VCS may argue that by entering the airport's private roads, the
driver agreed to a set of terms and conditions displayed on
signage, forming a contract. They might then issue a PCN under
contract law for breaching those terms (e.g., stopping in a
restricted area).
However, on land governed by byelaws, VCS cannot establish a
contractual framework for conduct already regulated by statutory
law. If stopping restrictions are enforceable only as byelaw
breaches, VCS cannot claim a financial penalty as damages under
contract law because the statutory framework preempts such
claims. Any signage referencing "fines" or penalties under
byelaws may misrepresent the nature of the charge, further
invalidating their claim.
VCS’s claim based on an assumed contract is certainly invalid on
land covered by statutory byelaws. The regulation of stopping
restrictions is exclusively within the scope of the byelaws,
which can only be enforced via the mechanisms provided—typically
through magistrates' court for criminal proceedings.
If VCS attempts to enforce their claim through contract law, you
should challenge:
[indent]• Their authority to issue contractual demands on
byelaw-governed land.
• The validity of the alleged contract, especially if the
signage is prohibitive.
• Any misrepresentation of their role or authority in enforcing
byelaws.[/indent]
However, just so you are aware, VCS will claim that the airport
bylaws are obsolete, proving their mendacious behaviour. Their
argument that the byelaws are obsolete is an attempt to justify
their reliance on assumed contracts to issue PCNs.
The byelaws governing Bristol Airport were made under the
Airports Act 1986 and approved by the Secretary of State for
Transport. This gives them statutory authority. Byelaws cannot
simply become obsolete; they remain enforceable until formally
revoked, replaced, or invalidated by a court ruling or updated
legislation.
VCSs claim the byelaws are obsolete to justify enforcement under
contract law, amounts to misrepresentation and an unfair
business practice, as it falsely implies that byelaw
restrictions do not apply. Such a claim should be challenged
under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
2008 (CPUTRs), especially as VCS misleads drivers about the
legal framework governing the land.
I have not even covered how VCS can or cannot issue and
prosecute a Penalty Notice even they had statutory authority to
do so. They do not!
#Post#: 53811--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 17, 2025, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much. This is what I'm getting at.
Bristol Airport cannot have bylaws in place governing things
like stopping and parking but choose not to enforce them through
the criminal courts, allowing instead a private contractor to
issue demands for payment in the wake of alleged contractual
breaches relating to the very behaviour that the bylaws cover.
There cannot be two parallel regimes, one statutory and the
other contractual, covering the same acts on the same land.
To be clear again, VCS has made no comment whatsoever about the
bylaws. They said nothing to me (in spite of the fact that I
challenged them on this very issue) and clearly wanted to
contribute nothing to The Guardian on the topic. If the land was
not covered by the bylaws, why would VCS be shy about saying so?
The same goes for Bristol Airport itself. If the bylaws don't
apply, then roads directly adjacent to the airport, which it
clearly owns, do not fall within the scope of the 'the Airport',
as referenced on page 4 of those bylaws
HTML https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/media/4vqbdkcf/bristol-airport-byelaws-11062018.pdf.<br
/>No plan is attached to that document; however, page 11 of this
document
HTML https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/media/2g3l4hjb/bristol-airport-master-plan-2006.pdf<br
/>shows the boundaries of the airport in 2006. The area at issue
in my case is very much inside this boundary, even if the
footprint has changed slightly in the years since.
#Post#: 53818--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 17, 2025, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you looking for meaningful advice on your situation? or just
expressing your opinion as you seem to be fixated on the
argument you've gained from the Gary Rycroft article.
as I said before b789 has given you excellent advice. up to you
if you don't want to use it.
#Post#: 53820--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 17, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
>
>
> Are you looking for meaningful advice on your situation? or
just expressing your opinion as you seem to be fixated on the
argument you've gained from the Gary Rycroft article.
>
> as I said before b789 has given you excellent advice. up to
you if you don't want to use it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I know what you said before. I'm clearly looking for meaningful
advice on my situation. b789 has now provided me with extra
information around the bylaws question, which very much looks
like the information contained in the article I'm 'fixated on'.
#Post#: 53831--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: b789
Date: January 17, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you intend to challenge the PCNs. As I mentioned,
despite throwing away a perfectly good defence, you still have
other arguments, as discussed.
Please remind me where you are at as I simply do not have enough
time to go back and re-read everything from the beginning. Once
I know where you are at in the process I am more than happy to
assist and advise on the next steps, based on your desired
outcome.
You won't be paying a penny to VCS and, if processed correctly,
you could inflict some financial damage on them. I'd suggest
that dome Schadenfreude is always a welcome tidbit.
#Post#: 53836--------------------------------------------------
Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
DIR By: BelfastBoy
Date: January 17, 2025, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks. My appeal to the IAS has just been dismissed.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page