Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Patmoore on September 12, 2025, 01:54:52 pm
-
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-best-to-make-a-competition-or-consumer-law-complaint-and-what-happens-next
-
Ok - Thank you, Can you advise as to how to construct the complaint to the CMA please? Thanks.
-
Should I actually follow up and complain to the CMA too?
If you send correspondence saying you're going to do something, I would recommend you actually do, so that you don't create the impression that you are all bluster and no substance.
-
Wow, Thank you very much. I will do just that. - Should I actually follow up and complain to the CMA too?
-
Whilst I wouldn't normally advise responding to any debt recovery letter, in this case, Elms are clearly in breach of the DMCC and they should be reported to the CMA and I would suggest you email the following to Elms and CC yourself:
Subject: Your reference VCS22897672 – Notice of complaint under the DMCC and request to return file to client
Dear Sirs
I refer to your “URGENT: NOTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION” dated 24 November 2025 in respect of an alleged Parking Charge Notice issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (“VCS”) at Bristol Airport on 28 March 2025.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept that any contractual liability exists. The allegation arises from a brief, involuntary stall of around 23 seconds at a live roundabout while I was attempting to locate a pre-booked meet-and-greet facility. The signage relied upon is wholly prohibitive (“No stopping”) and offers no contractual licence or consideration to motorists. At most, any complaint would sound in trespass (for which only the landowner could claim actual loss). VCS also seek an additional £70 “costs” on top of the £100 parking charge, a sum which is not recoverable in law.
In those circumstances, the “debt” you are seeking to recover is disputed, is not legally owed, and is based on a speculative airport “no stopping” charge on non-relevant land which cannot give rise to keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Notwithstanding the above, your letter presents the sum of £170 as a recoverable contractual debt and uses urgent and intimidating language that is plainly designed to pressurise payment. In my view this conduct amounts to unfair commercial practices within the meaning of Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCC”), including:
1. Misleading actions, by giving the false impression that there is a valid contractual right to recover £170 from me when no such right exists and the £70 add-on is not recoverable.
2. Misleading omissions, by failing to explain the legal limitations on liability on airport land and the true status and enforceability of the alleged debt.
3. Aggressive practices, by deploying an “URGENT” heading, repeated “Action Required” wording and implied threats of further costs in circumstances where the existence of any debt is highly questionable, thereby exerting undue pressure on a consumer.
4. A failure to meet the standard of professional diligence reasonably to be expected of a CILEx-regulated legal business dealing with consumers in a highly technical area of law.
A commercial practice which is misleading, aggressive, or contrary to professional diligence, and which is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken (such as paying an unenforceable parking charge), is prohibited and unlawful under the DMCC.
I therefore put you on notice that:
a) I am submitting a formal complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority regarding your letter and your firm’s role in the wider practice of pursuing unenforceable airport “no-stopping” parking charges as alleged contractual debts. I will be providing the CMA with copies of your letter, the underlying VCS documentation and a summary of why the alleged debt is not legally recoverable.
b) I am also submitting a complaint to CILEx Regulation on the basis that your conduct appears to breach your regulatory duties of integrity, transparency and professional diligence when dealing with consumers. If any of the individuals responsible for this matter are also solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, I reserve the right to raise the same concerns with the SRA.
c) A separate complaint will be made to the CMA concerning VCS’s own conduct and business model in issuing such charges at Bristol Airport on a prohibitive signage basis.
You will be aware that the CMA now has direct civil enforcement powers under the DMCC and can decide for itself whether a commercial practice is unfair and, if so, impose significant financial penalties, require redress for affected consumers and seek enforcement orders and undertakings. I will be inviting the CMA to consider whether your standard debt-recovery templates and your relationship with VCS form part of a wider pattern of unfair commercial practices in the private parking sector.
In light of the above, I now require you to cease all debt-recovery activity on this matter and to return the file to your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, making it clear that I deny any liability. If VCS genuinely consider that they have a viable cause of action, they are at liberty to issue a properly particularised county court claim which will be robustly defended.
Please note that any further misleading or aggressive correspondence from your firm will be treated as further evidence of unfair commercial practices under the DMCC and may be relied upon in any court proceedings, regulatory complaints or costs applications regarding unreasonable conduct.
I look forward to your written confirmation that you have closed your file and referred the matter back to your client.
Yours faithfully
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
-
It's just another debt collecting letter which you can ignore.
Whilst it does look like a step backwards in the process, you have to remember that these people are incompetent in the extreme.
-
After having received an LBC and replied back still dipsuting but adding that the letter was not compliant (which it wasn't).
(It is disappointing to note that your letter fails to meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the Protocol, as well as paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions are not optional; they exist to facilitate informed engagement and proportionate resolution prior to litigation. I encourage you to review them carefully.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 3, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, require that parties exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s position before proceedings are issued. Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the dispute. Your letter refers to a “contract” yet fails to provide one—undermining the very basis of your client’s claim and obstructing meaningful pre-litigation dialogue.
I also note that your Letter Before Claim fails to enclose the required Reply Form and Information Sheet, as stipulated under paragraph 3.1(a) of the Protocol. Providing only a hyperlink to these documents does not satisfy the requirement to include them with the letter itself. This omission impedes my ability to respond meaningfully and constitutes a procedural defect. I request that you remedy this by supplying the required documents before any further action is taken.)
They had set a hold date of the 13th Nov. I have heard nothing until today. This seems to be a backward move in the process? Any thoughts please? I received a letter from ELMS Legal https://ibb.co/DDPPNfKm
-
This one is also very good as the OP goes to great lengths to explain the various processes which he or she goes through;
https://nationalconsumerservice.co.uk/topic/468850-vcs-cnntk-appealed-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-bristol-airport-claim-dismissed/#comments
-
b789
Hero Member
Thank you SO much for your ongoing interest and help in this case ! I will let you know the outcome in due course? Regards!
-
FYI, here is a successful defence with costs awarded against VCS for exactly the same allegation:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6635565/bristol-airport-no-stopping-fine-case-success-and-724-cost-dcb-legal/p1
-
Hi - I responded by post, with a certificate of posting as well as email!
-
As a matter of interest, did you send that by post? If so, did you post it first class and get a free certificate of posting from any post office?
We never recommend using post. It is too unreliable and slow. You should ALWAYS, if possible correspond by email. You can attach any correspondence as a PDF to an email and you have proof of sending, proof of delivery and it is instantaneous with no trees being harmed in the pro9cess.
Elms Legal show the following email address which you should use:
info@elm-online.co.uk
-
Thank you!
-
All good so far. The ball is now in their court and you are waiting for their response to your letter.
-
I am unsure as to whether the laast post contained my reply so I have added it in here!
https://imgur.com/a/Qy5sC3a
-
Thank you for your help! I have uploaded the LoC and my response to it?????
https://imgur.com/UfTio69
-
@Patmoore, 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).
-
This feels like one they'd be stupid to litigate. But it is VCS...
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/8cLRXXf.jpeg)
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.
-
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.
-
Agreed, the appeal identified the driver. I didn’t look that far originally.
-
Did you identify the driver?
Based on the information he has provided, yes.
-
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, https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/vcs-cn-stopping-in-a-prohibited-zone-bristol-airport/msg67207/#msg67207
-
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?
https://imgur.com/a/kQTo8Da