DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87808--------------------------------------------------
PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills show
23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: August 30, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After the initial PVN from VCS I stupidly diclosed the name of
the driver before reading any forums or advice!
I had pre-booked Meet & Greet parking. Upon arrival, I was
momentarily unsure of the correct route due to the presence of
multiple car parks—Drop & Go, Short Stay & Pick Up, and
the Waiting Zone—as shown in the Bristol Airport arrival
guide. This, showing multiple car parks of similar short
duration, combined with significant ongoing construction works
at the site, added to the confusion.
While navigating the roundabout, I accidentally stalled my
vehicle due to being in the wrong gear. I paused
briefly—approximately 21 seconds—to regain my
bearings and determine the correct exit. Your timestamped images
confirm this short duration (from 06:42:51 to 06:43:12). At no
point did I exit the vehicle or turn off the engine. Crucially,
I did not cause any obstruction, as evidenced by another vehicle
passing by during this time.
It is well recognised in various regulatory interpretations
that:
“Attending to a vicissitude of small duration is not
parking.”
A brief, momentary stop due to confusion or vehicle control
issues—especially when navigating unfamiliar
terrain—does not constitute parking or an enforceable
contravention under such circumstances.
In light of the following:
•
from the cctv stills they forwarded;
•
users;
•
several cat parks referring to a short duration
which all were confusingparticularly for first-time
users;
•
to both ‘parking’ and ‘stopping’);
*. The fact that I had a copy of the Meet and Greet, so was
not dropping off or picking up anyone.
I appealed to the Vehicle Control services, they dismissed the
appeal, I appealed to Bristol airporty, they referred me back to
VCS. I wnet on to appeal to the IAS, They rejected the appeal,
saying that they did not look at mitigating circumstances. I
recieved several texts, emails and letters from DCBL. I then
received a Letter before Claim from ELMS Legal.
Any advice would be gratefully recieved!
#Post#: 87809--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 30, 2025, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post the LOC - but not much you can do till they issue a claim
through the court.
#Post#: 87811--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: August 30, 2025, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi RichardW,
HTML https://imgur.com/a/8jjGBBc
I presume you mean the Letter before Claim?
#Post#: 87874--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: August 31, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond to the LoC with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be
capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs
3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist
for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and
proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint
yourselves with them.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties
should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each
other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes
disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
>
> Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to
provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation
upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult
to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side
declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that
confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
> 2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists
between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual
photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the
material date, not a generic stock image
> 3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon
that you allege to have been breached
> 4. The written agreement between your client and the
landowner, establishing authority to enforce
> 5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the
principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and
whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> Your letter pays lip service to the Protocol but ignores its
substance. This undermines the very pre-litigation process it
purports to follow.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96229--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FYI, here is a successful defence with costs awarded against VCS
for exactly the same allegation:
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6635565/bristol-airport-no-stopping-fine-case-success-and-724-cost-dcb-legal/p1
#Post#: 101970--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: December 11, 2025, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just received an email from Elms Legal. I have also
uploaded the email as well as some correspondence whhich they
have replied to in this email. I m afraid the upload is in the
wrong order! Thank you for your continued help!
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/DJzT3lD
#Post#: 101982--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to the Elms email with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Re: Your email of 11 December 2025 – Our Ref: VCS22897672
>
> Dear Sirs
>
> Thank you for your reply. I do not accept your analysis of
either the facts or the law and my complaints to the CMA and
CILEx Regulation will proceed as stated.
>
> You say you are not providing a service to me and therefore my
concerns fall outside your complaints procedure. That is
irrelevant to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act
2024. You are a business engaging in commercial practices
directed at me as a consumer, by sending debt demands and
seeking payment. That is precisely what brings you within the
scope of the DMCC.
>
> Your client’s entire “no stopping at Bristol Airport” model is
legally defective. The signs are purely prohibitive. They say
“No stopping” and then threaten a charge. There is no offer of
any benefit or facility, no licence to stop at all, and
therefore nothing that a motorist can accept by conduct. As you
well know, a prohibition cannot be converted into a contract
just because your client chooses to attach a price to the
forbidden act.
>
> More importantly, the purported term is impossible to perform
lawfully. A vehicle must be able to stop when required to do so
by traffic conditions, mechanical difficulties or basic road
safety. A term that seeks to ban any stopping at all on a live
approach road and roundabout, regardless of circumstances, is
void. No consumer can be bound by a condition that purports to
make them liable for obeying road safety obligations or for an
involuntary stall. Alternatively, such a term is plainly unfair
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, because it creates a grossly
disproportionate imbalance in the parties’ rights and
obligations and is contrary to the requirement of good faith.
>
> You have seen from my appeal that this incident was a brief,
involuntary stall of around 23 seconds while I was trying to
identify the correct route to a pre-booked meet-and-greet car
park. There was no obstruction and no abuse of any facility. To
suggest that such an unavoidable pause can be treated as a
conscious decision to accept a £170 “charge” simply underlines
how penal and unreasonable your client’s model is.
>
> Against that background, your own conduct as a regulated
litigation firm is particularly troubling. As officers of the
court you are expected to advise your client when a proposed
claim is hopeless or based on an unenforceable or unfair term.
Instead, you have chosen to endorse and press this claim, and to
threaten court proceedings on the back of signage that is
incapable of forming a lawful contract with any driver in these
circumstances. Encouraging litigation in the knowledge that the
underlying term is void or unfair is not consistent with your
duty to the court or with professional diligence.
>
> Your email makes matters worse. You assert that the 2024
Private Parking Code of Practice “allows” parking firms to add
£70 once a charge is overdue, and that Vehicle Control Services
Ltd v Percy somehow confirms that these fees are lawful. That is
wrong. The current Code and the courts’ approach to double
recovery make clear that such additional “debt recovery” uplifts
are not generally recoverable even where there is a valid
parking contract. Presenting the extra £70 to a consumer as a
lawful sum due under a contract, when you know that its
recoverability is at best highly doubtful, is a misleading
action. Simply declaring that “the £70.00 debt recovery fee is
allowed” does not make it true.
>
> You also assert that “how long you stop doesn’t matter
legally” and that any stop, for any reason short of a medical
emergency, breaks the rules. That is not an accurate statement
of the law. Duration, circumstances, necessity and fairness all
matter when a court considers whether a term is enforceable and
whether a consumer is liable. A business model that treats a
brief, unavoidable stall in traffic as a lucrative contractual
breach is not one that any responsible litigation firm should be
promoting.
>
> Your final paragraph states that there has been “no
misrepresentation, omission, or aggressive behaviour” and that
using urgency in debt letters is “legal and standard practice”.
Repeating that you have done nothing wrong is not an answer to
the specific concerns I have raised. Your first letter misstates
the law on recoverability of the £70 add-on, presents the entire
£170 as an undisputed and enforceable contractual debt despite
the obvious issues with the underlying term, and uses urgent and
intimidating language to push for payment. Your latest email
doubles down on those misstatements instead of correcting them.
That will all be placed before the CMA and CILEx Regulation as
part of my complaint.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, my position remains that:
>
> • there is no contractual liability because the “no stopping”
term is prohibitive, impossible to perform in all normal traffic
circumstances and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act;
> • the extra £70 is not lawfully recoverable; and
> • your letters and emails together amount to misleading and
aggressive commercial practices contrary to the DMCC, compounded
by a failure to exercise the professional judgment expected of a
regulated litigation firm and officer of the court.
>
> I again require you to cease all debt-recovery activity in
this matter and to return the file to your client, Vehicle
Control Services Ltd. If VCS genuinely believe they have a
viable cause of action, they are free to issue a properly
particularised county court claim. If they do so, the defence
will focus squarely on the impossibility and unfairness of the
“no stopping” term, the absence of any genuine contractual offer
or consideration, and the penal nature of the charge, together
with your own role in promoting such litigation.
>
> Please confirm in writing whether you will now close your file
and take no further action, or whether you intend to continue to
act in a debt-collection capacity. Any further misleading or
aggressive correspondence from your firm will simply be treated
as additional evidence for the regulators and, if necessary, for
the court in relation to unreasonable conduct and costs.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101994--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: December 11, 2025, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Hero Member,
Thankn you SO much, I really appreciate the help and support. A
very tidy and professional response.
#Post#: 103373--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: Patmoore
Date: December 20, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have received the reply from Elms Legal regarding the email I
sent them on the 15th December. They seem determined to do the
course?
HTML https://imgbox.com/juKdhx1I
HTML https://imgbox.com/KTkoi2O9
HTML https://imgbox.com/ii3rM9yt
#Post#: 103382--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills
show 23 secs
DIR By: b789
Date: December 20, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Ms Grundle
>
> Re: VCS22897672 – Your letter dated 19 December 2025
>
> Thank you for your further letter. I do not accept your
analysis of the law or the facts. My complaints to the CMA and
CILEx Regulation are proceeding and your latest response will be
added to them.
>
> You continue to assert that a binding contract arises from “No
stopping” signs and that any stop for any reason other than a
“genuine emergency” is a breach. That misunderstands basic
contract principles.
>
> A contract requires an offer that confers some permission or
benefit which the consumer can accept, together with
consideration. “No stopping – £100 charge” is not an offer of
any facility at all. It is a prohibition reinforced by a threat
of a penalty. There is no licence to stop, no service provided,
and no bargain to be accepted. What your client has drafted is
at best a bare “you must not stop” rule dressed up as a contract
in order to extract a penalty from motorists who inevitably have
to stop on a live approach road from time to time.
>
> Moreover, the term your client relies on is impossible and
unlawful in its absolute form. A vehicle must be able to stop
when compelled by traffic or road conditions, or by mechanical
issues. The law requires drivers to drive safely, not to press
on through a stall or into the path of an oncoming bus in order
to satisfy a private company’s “no stopping” policy. Any term
which purports to make a motorist financially liable for
complying with road safety obligations, or for an involuntary
stall, is void for impossibility and is plainly unfair under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015. No fair contract term can require a
driver to ignore the Highway Code or basic mechanical reality.
>
> That is exactly what happened here. The vehicle stalled
because the wrong gear was selected. I then had to remain
stationary briefly because of an approaching bus. That is not a
“voluntary stop”, it is a combination of mechanical difficulty
and traffic conditions – precisely the situation in which a
driver is obliged to remain where they are until it is safe to
move off. Your attempt to recast this as some kind of
deliberate, chargeable pause only highlights how penal your
client’s model is.
>
> Your heavy reliance on county court decisions such as Ward and
Crutchley does not assist you. Those are fact-specific,
non-binding decisions. In any event, they do not give your
client carte blanche to impose contractual liability on every
motorist who momentarily stops in a live traffic situation, nor
do they override the Consumer Rights Act. A District Judge will
decide this case on its own facts and on current law, not on
carefully selected quotes from other people’s hearings.
>
> More fundamentally, as a regulated litigation firm you are not
entitled to hide behind your client’s business model. You are
not mere message-carriers. You owe duties to the court and
obligations of professional judgment. You know, or ought to
know, that a term which purports to outlaw all stopping on a
live airport roundabout, regardless of safety or mechanical
necessity, is at serious risk of being held void and/or unfair.
You also know, or ought to know, that additional “debt recovery”
uplifts are routinely disallowed as unrecoverable double
recovery even where a parking contract does exist. Your role
should be to advise your client against pursuing hopeless or
abusive litigation, not to encourage it.
>
> Instead, you have chosen to adopt and repeat your client’s
most extreme positions. You assert, without qualification, that
the extra £70 is both lawful and recoverable and that the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice “expressly permits” such
uplifts. You then go on to tell me that I have been “accurately
informed” of the legal position and that there is no
misrepresentation or omission. In other words, you seek to bless
your client’s position with the authority of a regulated law
firm and to use that status to pressurise a consumer into paying
a charge which you know is strongly contested and legally
doubtful.
>
> That is exactly the kind of conduct which is likely to be
viewed as a misleading and aggressive commercial practice under
the DMCC. You are presenting a highly contentious and one-sided
legal view as if it were objective fact; you are telling me that
a plainly penal and arguably impossible term is reasonable and
enforceable; and you are doing so in the context of debt demands
couched in urgent and insistent language. It is not enough
simply to say “we wholly reject your DMCC allegations” and then
repeat the same assertions. The Act is concerned with the effect
of your communications on consumers, not with your own opinion
of your conduct.
>
> I also note that your latest letter accepts that there is a
fundamental disagreement as to “the legal basis, enforceability,
or fairness of the charge” and concludes that “the appropriate
course is for the matter to be determined by the court”. On that
at least we can agree. There is no point in further
correspondence while you persist in treating an impossible “no
stopping” term as a watertight contract and a brief involuntary
stall as a lucrative breach.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, my position remains:
>
> 1. No contract was formed because the “no stopping” signage is
purely prohibitive and offers no licence or consideration.
> 2. Even if a contract could somehow be implied, the term
relied on is impossible to perform in normal traffic conditions
and is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act, and is therefore
not binding.
> 3. The additional £70 “debt recovery fee” is not lawfully
recoverable and your repeated assertion that it is due is
misleading.
> 4. Your own correspondence will be relied upon as evidence of
misleading and aggressive commercial practices under the DMCC,
and of a failure to exercise the professional judgment expected
of a regulated litigation firm and officers of the court.
>
> In light of this, I invite you one last time to do what you
should have done at the outset: advise your client that their
“no stopping” contract at Bristol Airport is fundamentally
flawed, that pursuing motorists over brief, unavoidable stops is
vexatious, and that any claim based on these facts is at serious
risk of being dismissed with an adverse costs order for
unreasonable conduct.
>
> If, despite that, your client insists on litigating, they
should issue a properly particularised claim. Any such claim
will be fully defended and I will place your entire file of
correspondence, including your reliance on an impossible and
unfair contract term and your insistence that the £70 uplift is
recoverable, before the court in support of a costs application
for unreasonable behaviour.
>
> If your client does not intend to issue proceedings, then the
proper course is for you to close your file and make no further
contact. Please confirm, within 14 days, whether you intend to
(a) close your file and take no further action, or (b) continue
to act in a debt-collection and pre-action capacity. Any further
demands or attempts to re-state the same position will simply be
treated as additional evidence for the regulators and, if
necessary, the court.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Patrick Moore
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page