URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 53840--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: b789
       Date: January 17, 2025, 10:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       We could have predicted that for you. Personally, I never
       recommend wasting time with an IAS appeal. Less than 4% of IAS
       appeals are upheld which is a dismal record. Their assessors are
       anonymous and they simply spew out rubbish. They are definitely
       not "independent" and are funded by the very organisations they
       are supposed to be adjudicating on.
       The IAS decision is not binding on you. You are now in a sort of
       limbo where nothing of significance will happen except you will
       be bombarded with useless debt collector letters. The debt
       collectors are powerless to do anything as they are not a party
       to the supposed contract that the driver allegedly breached. You
       can safely ignore them. Our advice is to never, ever, ever,
       enter into any communication with a useless, powerless debt
       collector/Debt Recovery Agent (DRA). Use their letters as
       kindling or to line the bottom of a litter tray.
       The next step n the process will be a Letter of Claim (LoC). It
       will either be issued through Elms Legal or DCB Legal. When it
       arrives, please come back and we will advise on your next step.
       #Post#: 54123--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: b789
       Date: January 20, 2025, 1:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have been doing a bit more research into this issue of mixing
       enforcement of statutory and civil laws on land controlled by
       byelaws. Part of the issue is differences between the areas
       under control and differentiating between the roads and the car
       parks.
       VCS operate at several airports besides Bristol, including
       Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) and Leeds Bradford Airport
       (LBA) where these issues crop up all the time.
       Regulation 6.7 of the Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA)
       Byelaws is an interesting focal point because it explicitly
       allows the airport operator to impose charges and conditions for
       parking. The interpretation of this regulation determines
       whether the terms and conditions established by a contracted
       parking operator like Vehicle Control Services (VCS) are
       statutory (under the byelaws) or civil (under contract law).
       Key Considerations for Regulation 6.7
       1. Statutory Nature of Regulation 6.7
       Scope of the Byelaws: Regulation 6.7 forms part of the statutory
       byelaws approved under the Airports Act 1986. This means that
       any charges or conditions imposed by the airport operator under
       this regulation derive their authority from statutory law.
       Statutory Enforcement Mechanism: Breaches of Regulation 6.7 are
       enforceable through the byelaws’ statutory framework, typically
       involving prosecution in a magistrates’ court. This would
       classify such terms and conditions as statutory in nature, not
       civil.
       2. Private Contracts and Delegated Authority
       Role of the Contracted Operator: If the airport operator
       contracts VCS to manage car parks and authorises them to install
       signs with terms and conditions, the operator is effectively
       delegating their authority under Regulation 6.7 to VCS.
       
       Civil Contracts: Despite the delegation, the relationship
       between the driver and VCS is still governed by the terms on the
       signage, which constitute a civil contract. This is because the
       authority to impose terms and conditions has been transferred to
       VCS through a private contract, and the enforcement mechanism is
       the civil court system, not the statutory byelaws.
       3. Statutory vs. Civil Enforcement
       The distinction lies in how breaches are enforced:
       Statutory Enforcement: If a driver breaches a condition that
       flows directly from the byelaws (e.g., parking outside
       designated areas or obstructing traffic), enforcement would
       typically occur through prosecution in a magistrates’ court
       under the byelaws.
       Civil Enforcement: If the driver breaches a term set out on
       VCS’s signage (e.g., overstaying a time limit or failing to pay
       a parking fee), enforcement occurs through the private
       operator’s civil contract claim, using the civil court system.
       This dual framework creates a situation where certain aspects of
       parking may overlap:
       The byelaws may set general rules for parking (e.g., designated
       areas, time limits).
       VCS’s terms and conditions (authorised by the airport operator
       under Regulation 6.7) create additional rules, such as charges
       for overstaying or failing to display a ticket, enforced through
       civil claims.
       Legal and Practical Implications
       Flowing Authority: Terms and conditions established by VCS
       ultimately derive their authority from the airport operator
       under Regulation 6.7. However, their enforcement mechanism
       (civil vs. statutory) determines whether they are statutory or
       civil.
       Blurring Lines: While the terms are indirectly linked to the
       byelaws, they remain civil in nature because the airport
       operator has chosen to enforce them through private contracts
       rather than the byelaws’ statutory framework.
       Potential Challenges: Drivers might argue that since the
       conditions flow from Regulation 6.7, breaches should be enforced
       through statutory mechanisms rather than civil claims. This
       could undermine the operator's ability to rely on private
       enforcement.
       Conclusion
       The terms and conditions on VCS’s signs are civil, not
       statutory, despite originating from the airport operator’s
       authority under Regulation 6.7. This is because the enforcement
       mechanism for these terms is through the civil court system as
       private contractual claims, rather than prosecution under the
       byelaws. The airport operator’s decision to delegate authority
       to a private company effectively shifts enforcement into the
       realm of contract law, even though the underlying authority
       comes from statutory byelaws.
       This distinction between statutory and civil enforcement is
       crucial in understanding the legitimacy of private parking
       operators' actions and the legal framework governing parking on
       byelaw-regulated land.
       However, you may be thinking that section 3 above contradicts
       the argument. You are absolutely right to note the tension in
       Section 3 regarding enforcement mechanisms. For example, not
       parking in a marked bay within a car park presents a situation
       where the conduct breaches both the statutory byelaws (e.g.,
       "parking outside of a designated area") and the contractual
       terms displayed on the VCS signage. This overlap creates
       ambiguity as to whether the breach should be enforced
       statutorily or civilly.
       The enforcement of parking outside a designated area within car
       parks is handled civilly through VCS’s contractual terms, even
       though the same behaviour could constitute a statutory breach of
       byelaws. This practice is facilitated by the airport operator’s
       delegation of enforcement authority under Regulation 6.7 and
       reflects a preference for civil enforcement over statutory
       prosecution due to its practicality and efficiency.
       However, this dual regulatory framework raises legitimate
       questions about the boundaries between statutory and civil
       enforcement. While the current approach is widely used, it
       remains vulnerable to legal challenges that question the
       compatibility of contractual enforcement with statutory byelaws.
       For drivers, this ambiguity underscores the importance of
       understanding their rights and the legal basis for any
       enforcement action.
       Food for thought on how to handle the breaches of byelaws on the
       roads.
       #Post#: 54142--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: BelfastBoy
       Date: January 20, 2025, 4:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you very much for posting such a detailed analysis. I'm
       afraid that these fairly complicated questions around byelaws
       are not going to be tested in a small-claims court, where the
       issue of whether or not a contract exists is much more likely to
       be considered.
       #Post#: 59051--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: BelfastBoy
       Date: February 20, 2025, 10:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have now received a letter from DCBL.
       I note that DBCL
  HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/
       and DCB Legal
  HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/
       are two sides of the same coin. I'm
       seeing in another post on this forum that the distinction is
       important.
       Anyway, have a read of the correspondence pictured. I’d be
       grateful for your thoughts.
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 59071--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: b789
       Date: February 20, 2025, 12:54 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       We don't need to read any correspondence from DCBL. You can
       safely ignore anything from them or any other Debt Recovery
       Agent (DRA). They are powerless to do anything except try and
       scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out
       of ignorance and fear. Ignore them.
       Yes, DCB Legal and DCBL are sister companies. However, DCBL are
       just debt collectors and are not a party to any contract
       allegedly breached by the driver and cannot do anything.
       DCB Legal are an incompetent bulk litigator and you will at some
       sate receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from them. When you do,
       show it to us. Ignore all DRA letters.
       #Post#: 59077--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: BelfastBoy
       Date: February 20, 2025, 1:05 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       That's fine.
       I appreciate that you don't need to read debt recovery letters.
       However, I thought I would ask about this correspondence just to
       be sure.
       Thanks for the clarity and ongoing advice.
       #Post#: 103379--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: BelfastBoy
       Date: December 20, 2025, 2:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Update on this. I’ve not received any communications since
       March. Presumably, the DCBL crowd decided they couldn’t be
       bothered coming after an individual in Northern Ireland.
       #Post#: 103406--------------------------------------------------
       Re: VCS @ Bristol Airport
   DIR By: b789
       Date: December 20, 2025, 10:57 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Probably. But they may try and resurrect it one day. Not that
       they can do much about it though.
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page