PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station

https://ibb.co/ymvDnTM6

Having examined the notice I would say that they are going to claim that this is PoFA compliant even though this is airport land.

It makes no odds at this point as we are going to send them a simple response to their previous letter in order to move the matter forward.

Send the following letter back to VCS in response to their previous letter;



To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your previous letter - I have duly notice its contents.

I write as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.

In this instance I will not be supplying any driver details (either now or at any point in the future) as the law does not require it.

As you are no doubt aware, no adverse conclusion can be drawn in a situation where I exercise my right to say nothing in a circumstance where the law does not require it.

As I understand it, there is no possible way that a vehicle driver could have entered into a contract with VCS in the manner which you appear to claim.

I am sorry that I cannot help you further.


Best wishes,

xxxxx xxxxxxxxx

Submitted the 2nd Appeal.
Thank you for your help.
 
Coalman

Hello Lads.
I had a reply from my appeal letter last Friday:
We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 15/06/2026.
Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our
main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:
The signs where your vehicle was observed within the Fuel Station, clearly state "No Stopping", giving clear notice
that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed
vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay the advertised Charge.
We note that you have declined to name the driver of your vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is
important that we make you aware that in this case we may pursue you as the registered keeper of the vehicle for the
outstanding Charge, as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The notice sent to you clearly states: Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day
after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid
in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have
the right to recover from the registered keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed
to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is
proved.
A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped for an unreasonable
amount of time in any area where stopping for any reason is strictly prohibited. As stated, the signs near to the
location your vehicle was observed clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the charge advertised.

I hope and will thank you all in anticipation for your further advice on my next move.
Cheers!

You could reply with the following;


PCN Number -

Dear VCS person,

Thank you for your recent correspondence relating to the above PCN.

You guys appear to have got yourselves into a terrible muddle over this matter.

You continue to claim a reliance on PoFA when PoFA cannot possibly apply at this location.

For the purposes of clarity, this site appears to be some kind of fuel station set within the established statutory area known as East Midlands Airport. This area has a clearly established boundary and your client's land is clearly set within that boundary. This area is controlled by a statutory instrument (SI) and road traffic is specifically covered in the SI.

This means that this is NOT relevant land for the purposes of PoFA since land under statutory control is specifically EXCUDED from PoFA.

As a parking operator you should already be aware of this.

Furthermore, you are in clear breach of your Code of Practice (COP).

Your COP expressly forbids operator's from claiming PoFA in situations where PoFA cannot be applied.

You have therefore obtained my keeper details (from the DVLA) unlawfully since the DVLA require you to agree to follow the COP in order to access keeper records.

In your last letter, you once again claimed PoFA keeper liability - this appears a deliberate attempt to mislead me.

I will not be making any further representations at this time - there simply no route to liability in this matter.


Best wishes,

xxxxxx xxxxxxxx

On top of everything jfollows as said, and hopefully relevant for other, you can check if byelaws apply using this website which I personally developed:


It confirms that the petrol station is well within the boundaries.

Thank you, once again, Intercity 125.  I will send an email to VCS today which will contain your much-appreciated information.  I will also send then the link to the Bye Laws that jfellows has suggested as well. Thank you.
Regards.
Coalman

Good day to you all.  We received this from IAS yesterday:
Attention! You need to log back into the system and upload your response to the operators information and evidence or refer it straight to an Adjudicator.  ( This was in bold lettering to grab your attention....it grabbed my wife's and frightened her! )
We received your appeal.
You now have until 31/07/26 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.

You need to log into the IAS system at portal.theias.org and view the information that the Parking Operator has uploaded.

The Parking Operator should have uploaded sufficient evidence to show that you are, on the face of it, liable to pay the charge.

You will then have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

IMPORTANT: If you are unsure as to which option to choose, you will need to seek your own independent legal advice. The IAS is not able to comment on the evidence or assist you in making this decision.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

******
Now this is the , I presume standard response from VCS:
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 06/05/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 06/05/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
1. The BP Fuel Station at the East Midlands Airport is private land which motorists are permitted to enter subject to the advertised restrictions.

2. Signage in the area the appellant stopped clearly states, “No Stopping.” Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol manage and enforce these areas, where stopping is not permitted unless authorised, and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs. The signage also makes it clear that any motorist contravening the terms and conditions will be liable for a Charge Notice. This PCN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping where stopping is prohibited.

3. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice sent on 06/05/2026. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.

4. The issue of this charge and the NTK comply with POFA 2012.
5. A copy of our authority to enforce the No Stopping terms and conditions in place on this site, including where the appellant stopped their vehicle, was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.

6. A review of the footage we possess shows the appellant's vehicle stationary when first observed and remaining stationary for approx. ** minute and ** seconds at which point the vehicle starts to move; as the vehicle was already stationary when first observed this was the minimum amount of time that the vehicle was stationary for. During this period two passengers are dropped off.

7. We are unable to submit the actual footage due to GDPR, principally the presence of the driver's passengers, however we do submit an annotated series of footage frames to further demonstrate the contravention and its duration.

8. The appellant does not deny the material facts of the recorded contravention.

9. The No Stopping signs are visible on entry to the Fuel Station and in the vicinity of the location the vehicle stopped. As such, we deem it implausible a motorist could enter the Fuel Station and be unaware of the restrictions.

10. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated vehicles must not be stopped; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.

11. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land which they park. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. At the time of the contravention the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this purpose. Once the presence of the signs; which are designed to be rad from a moving vehicle; is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions.
12. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose. The location in which the appellant had stopped can be observed in the supplied annotated overhead and vehicle and signage location image which highlight the close proximity of the appellant's vehicle to VCS contractual signage.

13. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given sufficient notice of the No Stopping terms and conditions in place, the driver freely chose to stop their vehicle on a roadway where stopping is prohibited at all times. By doing so the appellant as registered keeper of the vehicle became liable for the charge which was lawfully issued.

14. By the driver stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
******

I am sorry this is so long.
What is my response, please?
Thanks again.
Coalman

Comments on the operator's evidence;

1. The operator has not rebutted the fact that their client's land is inside the statutory area at East Midlands Airport - A statutory instrument is in place and therefore POFA cannot be applied in this situation since the land is not relevant land under POFA.

2. The operator is in clear breach of their Code of Practice since they are not allowed to state or imply POFA capabilities in situations where POFA cannot apply.

3. The driver remains unknown to the operator and as such there is no liability in this matter.

4. Elliott v Loake DOES NOT establish that the keeper was the driver - this case is a criminal case which turned on the facts of the case and, as any legal professional will know, criminal cases do not turn on mere 'assumption' - this case turned on the ample evidence which was put before the court and there is no mention of 'reasonable assumption' in the case summary.

5. The operator claims that the driver entered a contract with the operator when they entered their client's land - this contract claim is denied - operator's are required (both by the Code of Practice and by consumer laws) to provide drivers with a consideration period (in order to examine and understand T&Cs) before being bound by such terms - Consumer legislation cannot be circumvented purely due to its inconvenience.

Oh Boy!  What would numpties like me and others do without the knowledge of you and others who know what to write and put us at ease when the operators are threatening us with all kinds of nasty legal things!
Thank you very much!
PS.... It is also noted that in the IAS 'response' box, it doesn't accept 'copy and paste' ! lol

Hello again and I am sorry for the late response, once more.  This arrived about 29th August.
Our IAS appeal seems too have fallen on deaf ears, no surprise there,eh? They have sent me a massive email telling the reasons why that is the case.
''The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity to consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. In consideration for entering the site they agree not to park in a restricted area or pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms.

I am satisfied that the signs are clear, numerous and unequivocal. This is evidenced by the Operators site map, exhibits and images.

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must not be parked in a restricted area. A failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice.

Even if I accept the Appellant's claims, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The terms are clear. If the driver parks in a restricted area they have few options. They could contact the Operator and request temporary permission to park. Alternatively, they could park elsewhere. Otherwise they could remain parked and agree to pay the charge.
In this Appeal it is clear from the images provided that the Appellant's vehicle was stationary within the restricted area in contravention of the terms and conditions which were prominently displayed throughout the site. The extensive signage on site makes it clear that no stopping is permitted in any circumstances.

Some definitions of ‘parking' refer to leaving the vehicle. Leave in this sense does not mean to walk away from the vehicle. It means to allow or cause to remain. I do not agree with the Appellant's definition of parking. By their definition they could remain there for an unspecified period of time and not be parked, then at some point not identified they would become parked. Clearly parking is a question of fact not degree. One cannot become parked after the passage of an indeterminate period of time. The code of practice defines parked as “being stationary other than in the course of driving.” This incorporates the position of the Appellant's vehicle.

The Appellant should note that stopping in a restricted area to read the wording within the sign is not permissable. It should be easy for any competent driver to read whilst travelling and without stopping. This is the very nature of most road signs. Unfortunately for the Appellant by stopping has breached the terms for entering and as a result the Appellant is liable for the parking charge. For the avoidance of doubt, consideration and grace periods do not apply.

Turning to the identity of the driver, POFA 2012 and case law permits the Operator to hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge regardless as to whether they are the driver or not. The Appellant accepts that they were the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident they were the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

The Notice to Keeper is considered in time unless there is evidence beyond the Appellant's mere assertion that it was received after the second working day. In the absence of such evidence I cannot consider the matter further.
The Operator does not need to provide any information relating to their relationship with the land owner. Obviously if they do not at least provide the evidence and information to show there is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful. Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is lawful and the Appellant is liable. However, there is no requirement to provide anything. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator. In any event the landowner authority is provided to me.

The Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, and they exercised it in the Appellant's favour, by offering the reduced payment. Having rejected this offer the Appellant is now liable to pay the full charge.
So!  The missus is poking me 'just' to pay up, but I worked hard for my nest egg and I am not too keen on letting these scammers trample over my legal rights.
I hope that you will be able to guide me forward.
Thanks, Coalman

That isn’t a surprise to anyone who is familiar with the IAS, they are fundamentally hand in glove with the parking companies so just need to be ignored, their decision is not binding on you in any way.
But now begins a bit of a test of your resolve. You’ll hear from the parking scum very quickly to tell you that you lost and need to pay up. Just ignore that.
Then begins the series of letters from an appointed debt collector, who have no power in this matter until a court decides that a debt is due and you fail to pay it in the prescribed time frame. That is not where we are currently.
I guess the proper advice is to retain these letters but do not under any circumstances engage with the debt collectors.
Wait until you get a letter from solicitors (this can be at best months away) which is headed letter of claim or letter before claim and then resurrect this post and seek advice as regards your reply - there will be threads on here that you can find that provide some background and potential drafts to use when you reply to that letter as it is the next stage at which you need to engage.

Thankk you for the reassurance.
Much appreciated. 
Coalman

The IAS comments on Elliott v Loake are simply untrue and the Court's have consistently thrown out attempts to imply that the case is relevent.

The Assessor simply skips over POFA.

You cannot be liable for this charge so no need to pay.

You will win in the end.

Should be noted that VCS have been known to push it all the way to a hearing, so OP needs to be prepared for that!