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:
• 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.
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!
I repeated an argument advanced by an experienced consumer-rights lawyer in a national newspaper. Having examined the legislation cited, I thought this position had merit. I still do.
It didn't do you any good though. Not that any other argument would have done any better. You are not dealing with a nice firm with a good customer service ethos. You are dealing with a bunch of ex-clampers who operate on the very edge of lawfulness and often beyond. Their only ethos is how much of your money can they scam you out of.
In addition, as the only person registered and insured to drive the vehicle, VCS would have had little trouble establishing the identity of the driver if, in the absence of any engagement on my end, it continued to press the registered keeper for details, something which may well have cost me more in related admin costs.
I disagree. The burden of proof is on the claimant (VCS) to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Hirer (or registered keeper) was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. However, the following factors can complicate this:
If the Hirer permitted another person to drive the vehicle (e.g., a friend or family member), the hire agreement’s restrictions do not matter in this context. Provided that the third party had adequate insurance (e.g., “Driving Other Cars” cover under their own insurance policy), they could lawfully drive the vehicle with the Hirer’s permission. In such cases, the identity of the driver becomes ambiguous, which weakens the claimant’s case.
The hire agreement may be evidence that the Hirer was likely the driver, but it is not conclusive proof. The claimant would still need to provide additional evidence (e.g., witness statements, video footage, or admissions from the Hirer) to support their assertion.
Your reasoning is flawed for several reasons. Being the sole person "registered and insured" to drive the vehicle does not conclusively prove that the Hirer was driving at the time of the alleged contravention. As stated earlier, another person could have driven the vehicle with the Hirer’s permission, provided they held adequate insurance. This creates sufficient ambiguity to undermine the claimant’s case.
VCS cannot legally force the Hirer (or the registered keeper) to disclose the driver’s identity. The Hirer is under no obligation to respond, and silence does not constitute evidence. Civil law does not allow adverse inferences to be drawn from the Hirer’s refusal to name the driver.
Since the alleged contravention occurred on airport land, which is not considered "relevant land" under PoFA 2012, VCS cannot use the legislation to transfer liability to the Hirer if the driver’s identity is not known. Without this legal mechanism, VCS is wholly reliant on proving who the driver was, a significant burden when the Hirer does not engage or disclose.
If you had not engaged, VCS would have had no direct evidence of driver identity, leaving them to rely solely on circumstantial evidence such as "insurance or registration" details. This is insufficient to meet the burden of proof. In the absence of PoFA applicability, a claim would likely fail unless VCS could provide clear evidence.
Your concern about being liable for ‘additional admin costs’ if VCS pressed the hire company for the driver’s details is misplaced. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), once the hire company has complied with its obligations to transfer liability to the Hirer, VCS cannot pursue the hire company again or demand additional information. The liability is fully and permanently transferred to the Hirer, and the hire company is no longer involved. There is no provision in PoFA that allows VCS to revert to the hire company or ‘press’ them for further action.
Once VCS receives the Hirer’s details from the hire company, any further administrative costs related to this transfer are not the Hirer’s responsibility. Your assumption that VCS would continue pressing the hire company and somehow pass additional costs onto you, the Hirer, is not supported by how liability transfer works under PoFA.
The transfer of liability under PoFA allows VCS to pursue the Hirer only if the land qualifies as “relevant land” under PoFA. Since airport land is not relevant land, the transfer of liability does not enable VCS to hold the Hirer liable unless they can prove the Hirer was the driver. Therefore, even if the hire company transferred liability, VCS would still face the same evidentiary hurdle of proving who was driving the vehicle.
Your belief that engagement was necessary to avoid further admin costs is based on a misunderstanding of how PoFA works. Once liability was transferred, the hire company was entirely out of the process, and VCS could not pursue them again. Your engagement provided VCS with direct evidence of driver identity, strengthening their case. By remaining silent and allowing VCS to rely on their own limited evidence, you would have had a much stronger defence.
Surely the fact that I'm resident in Northern Ireland would have no actual bearing on the points I might make in defending any such claim? Is VCS likely to secure its CCJ and leave it there? They wouldn't try to enforce the judgement (assuming I didn't pay up in the wake of it) but they would damage my credit score.
Your residency in Northern Ireland does not affect the substance of the legal points you can make in your defence—those remain grounded in the facts of the case, the applicable law (e.g., the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, contract law, signage compliance), and procedural fairness. However, your location could impact procedural aspects of how VCS pursues the claim and enforces any resulting judgment.
The legal arguments you make (e.g., PoFA does not apply on airport land, VCS cannot prove driver identity, unclear signage) are not affected by your residency. These points apply regardless of where you live because the alleged contravention occurred in England. If VCS pursues a claim, they must:
• Issue the claim through the English County Court system.
• Ensure the claim is served correctly to your address in Northern Ireland under UK cross-border service rules.
Residency only complicates matters for VCS logistically, not legally, when they attempt to pursue a claim.
If VCS files a claim and you do not defend or fail to respond, they will obtain a default judgment against you. However, if you defend the claim robustly, VCS would need to:
• Prove the alleged contravention occurred.
• Overcome defences such as the inapplicability of PoFA on airport land or the lack of evidence identifying you as the driver. (moot at this point)
• Address any procedural errors, such as improper service of documents to Northern Ireland.['indent]
So, if you provide a strong defence, VCS is less likely to succeed in obtaining a CCJ.
However, if VCS obtains a judgment, the consequences depend on what they do next:
A. Judgment Left Unenforced
If you do not pay the judgment within 30 days, it will be recorded on your credit file for six years. This will negatively impact your credit score, affecting your ability to secure loans, mortgages, or other financial products.
VCS might leave the judgment unenforced if they view the cost of cross-jurisdictional enforcement as uneconomical, especially if it is for less than £600.
B. Judgment Enforced in Northern Ireland
For VCS to enforce the judgment in Northern Ireland, they would need to register the English County Court Judgment with the Enforcement of Judgments Office (EJO) in Northern Ireland. This adds administrative costs for VCS and makes enforcement less likely if the debt is relatively small (e.g., less than £600).
So, in conclusion, your residency in Northern Ireland has no bearing on the legal arguments for your defence but does complicate enforcement for VCS. If you respond and defend a claim, VCS is less likely to succeed, especially given that the alleged contravention occurred on airport land, where PoFA does not apply, and the signage was prohibitive, preventing the formation of a valid contract.
However, since you have already revealed yourself as the driver, VCS no longer needs to prove driver identity, which strengthens their position. If the court ultimately rules against you, as long as you pay the CCJ in full within one calendar month of judgment, the CCJ will be expunged from your credit record and will not affect your credit score.
An English CCJ can negatively affect a Northern Ireland resident’s credit score even without enforcement because it is entered into the UK-wide credit reporting system. However, VCS would need to register the judgment in Northern Ireland to take any legal steps to recover the debt. (unlikely if under £600)
At this stage, you need to decide whether to continue fighting the claim based on the remaining points, particularly the argument that no contract could have been formed because the signage is prohibitive, or to prepare for the possibility of settling promptly if the judgment is not in your favour.