URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 89644--------------------------------------------------
       PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills show
        23 secs
       By: Patmoore Date: September 12, 2025, 7:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The driver stalled at the roundabout closest to the end of the
       new Bristol airport access road. There was a a meet and greet
       booked and they were looking up and driving slowly round the
       roundabout to find the correct car park. There was a short stay,
       hotel car park and Drop and Go and multi story all at the same
       roundabout! The car stalled because the wrong gear was selected
       and the cctv stills show a "stop" or "park" (I was stalled) of
       23 seconds. I’ve attached the original PCN and the letter before
       claim. The stop was involuntary due to a stall, lasted ~23
       seconds, and caused no obstruction. I’ve submitted appeals with
       timestamped images, booking confirmation (Meet and Greet), and
       legal precedent (Jopson v Homeguard), but IAS rejected it. I
       have now received a letter before claim (attached). Looking for
       advice on whether to pay, negotiate, or defend in court. They
       have replied to my reply for the letter before claim and have
       returned the information I requested. They have paused until 9th
       October for me to take advice? Please could I have some help on
       this! I am feeling rather low?
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/kQTo8Da
       #Post#: 89657--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: jfollows Date: September 12, 2025, 8:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Did you identify the driver?
       If not, Bristol Airport is not ‘relevant land’ and PoFA 2012 can
       not be used to transfer liability from the driver to the
       registered keeper.
       Search the forum for
       VCS Bristol
       and find, for example,
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/vcs-cn-stopping-in-a-prohibited-zone-bristol-airport/msg67207/#msg67207
       #Post#: 89658--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: DWMB2 Date: September 12, 2025, 8:33 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=jfollows link=topic=8032.msg89657#msg89657
       date=1757683790]
       Did you identify the driver?
       [/quote]
       Based on the information he has provided, yes.
       #Post#: 89659--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: jfollows Date: September 12, 2025, 8:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Agreed, the appeal identified the driver. I didn’t look that far
       originally.
       #Post#: 89671--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: Patmoore Date: September 12, 2025, 9:18 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Unfortunately, I did, although I have to say that it was really
       was an involuntary stall for 23 seconds as evidenced by their
       cctv footage.
       #Post#: 89680--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: b789 Date: September 12, 2025, 9:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Silly move, identifying the driver but all is not lost. There is
       no contract with the driver because the signs are prohibitory.
       There is nothing on offer.
       [img width=600
       height=1256]
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/8cLRXXf.jpeg[/img]
       Even though the keeper admitted to being the driver (duh!), the
       claim, when it comes, will still have no foundation because
       there is no contract here to breach. The airport signs say “No
       stopping” and then threaten £100 if you stop. That is a
       prohibition, not an offer.
       Contract law needs an offer that a person can accept and receive
       some benefit in return. Here nothing is offered at all; the
       message is “don’t do it”. Doing the forbidden thing cannot turn
       a prohibition into a paid-for contract. At most it would be a
       technical trespass, which only the landowner could pursue for
       actual loss, usually nothing.
       There is also no real chance to agree to anything. These signs
       sit on a live airport approach and a roundabout. A driver must
       watch the road, not pull over to read complex wording. Without a
       fair opportunity to read and choose, there is no agreement by
       conduct.
       A stall is not a choice; it is an unavoidable safety stop.
       Contract liability depends on a voluntary act. Road safety rules
       require the driver to remain where the car dies until it is safe
       to move. An involuntary stop cannot sensibly be treated as the
       driver choosing to buy a £100 “service”.
       This is nothing like the Supreme Court’s Beavis case. In Beavis
       the motorist got something in return (free parking time) and the
       charge protected turnover. Here there is no permission to stop
       at all and no facility provided. The £100 is a deterrent, not a
       price for a service.
       The NtK also undermines their position. They call this a “period
       of parking” but accuse “stopping where stopping is prohibited”.
       Stopping briefly on a roundabout is not parking. On top of that,
       the notice waves around keeper liability where the site is
       airport land under byelaws. While keeper liability no longer
       matters once the driver is known, the misuse of PoFA shows the
       template nature of the claim and weakens credibility.
       In any claim, they would have to prove a valid contract, prove
       clear, prominent signage that offered terms, prove the driver
       had a fair chance to agree before the event, and explain why an
       involuntary safety stop amounts to a deliberate acceptance of a
       charge. They would also have to show they have authority from
       the landowner to sue for a contractual sum rather than for
       trespass.
       Experience is that these “no stopping at airports” claims
       usually unravel on those points. Even if a judge disagreed on
       liability, the common £70 add-on is not recoverable in small
       claims, which further cuts down any exposure.
       Plainly put: this is a vexatious private firm of ex-clampers
       trying to levy a penalty where contract law does not fit. A
       judge is likely to see it as a speculative invoice based on a
       prohibition, not a bargain. Hence, there is still a solid leg to
       stand on despite the driver admission.
       Come back when you receive a response to your response to the
       LoC.
       #Post#: 89681--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: DWMB2 Date: September 12, 2025, 9:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This feels like one they'd be stupid to litigate. But it is
       VCS...
       #Post#: 90738--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: b789 Date: September 20, 2025, 7:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=6702]Patmoore[/member], as per your PM, why on earth
       would you prepare a "court bundle" in response to a Letter of
       Claim (LoC)? Please show us the LoC and ONLY redact your
       personal details and any reference numbers. Please leave
       everything else visible, including the names of any signatory.
       We do not need to see any forms or generic payment info. Just
       the main elements of the LoC and any schedule of what they say
       you owe and why.
       If the LoC is defective per the PAPDC, then we can give you the
       necessary response.
       Remember, this is not winnable by them and is simply being
       progressed to this point because they believe you are
       low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and are likely to pay up
       out of ignorance and fear.
       So, no ned to show us any "bundle" you may have prepared at this
       stage. If/when they actually issue a claim, we will deal with it
       based on the content of the Particulars of Claim (PoC).
       #Post#: 90740--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: Patmoore Date: September 20, 2025, 8:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you for your help! I have uploaded the LoC and my response
       to it?????
  HTML https://imgur.com/UfTio69
       #Post#: 90742--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN for stall at roundabout at Bristol Airport, CCTV stills 
       show 23 secs
       By: Patmoore Date: September 20, 2025, 8:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I am unsure as to whether the laast post contained my reply so I
       have added it in here!
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/Qy5sC3a
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page