Show Posts - OldNDaft

In relation to their claims, I believe that, Elliot vs Loake is wholly inappropriate in this instance, criminal law case with undeniable evidence, not civil law, its vcs scaremongering. I have claimed through both appeals I was not the driver, but I believe I do not need to disclose who was, I believe they need to prove who the driver is.Its airport land, therefore relevant land, bylaws etc.They did not quote in any way Pofa 2012 in the initial letter to Keeper, it also arrived 15 days after the alleged incident, I do not believe they have any slide on that timescale, although I could be wrong.I was informed that the driver was new to that area and road system and totally missed the signage and initial red lines, Its possible that, if a driver is unfamiliar and is paying attention to the road and vehicles, that it is wholly acceptable that signage is missed, and therefore an assumption on the contract can become irrelevant...Would these be grounds to appeal?

This is the email response by vcs through ias appeals.The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 03/07/2026 10:19:14.The operator reported that...The appellant was the driver.The appellant was the keeper.ANPR/CCTV was used.The Notice to Keeper was sent on 19/05/2026.A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.The ticket was issued on 19/05/2026.The charge is based in Contract.The operator made the following comments...1. Norwich Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. The VCS signage onsite, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state ‘No Stopping, Picking Up or Dropping Off'. The signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100 if they contravene these Terms and Conditions.2. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed and the entrances and throughout the site. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.4. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport approach roads and, due to growing congestion caused by vehicles stopping and blocking lanes. The subsequent congestion has created safety risks for other motorists and potential costly delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the Airport. This CN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on a private road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing the roads, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.5. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982, we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant, as registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and we support this by the knowledge the appellant has in relation to the circumstances ("events of the day") in relation to this Charge Notice. Furthermore, the appellant does not deny know who the driver is. Until and unless evidence to the contrary is presented, we will continue to hold the appellant liable for the charge as the driver at the time.6. 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.7. The CCTV footage we possess shows that the vehicle stopped on an access road which is designated by the landowner as a restricted area, where stopping is prohibited at all times.8. A review of the footage shows the appellant's vehicle stopping to drop off a passenger.9. This was not a suitable place to stop their vehicle to drop of a passenger and the motorist had no cause to believe they were authorised to do so without accepting liability for the charge. The airport has clearly signposted pick up and drop off facilities.10. The appellant's position within the site can be observed in the supplied annotated overhead, which highlights the close proximity of the appellant's vehicle to VCS signage. Furthermore, to reach their stationary position the appellant would have driven past signs clearly advertising the No Stopping terms and conditions.11. The contract between the motorist and VCS was formed upon entry to the site itself by the appellant. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of stopping a vehicle in a particular area, by implication a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop.12. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of stopping a vehicle in a particular area, by implication a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop.13. 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 enter. 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. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions.14. A copy of our authority to enforce the no stopping terms and conditions on this site was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.15. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given sufficient notice of the 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 became liable for the charge which was lawfully issued.16. By stopping in a zone where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.

Had a reply from vcs through the ias process.Is it ok to post the reply on here?Looking for advice going forward.In a nutshell, they claim i have not disputed i am the driver (despite both appeals stipulating) and that until such evidence appears, I am legally the person they are going after. Is this standard??Happy to post their full response if appropriate.

Quote from: jfollows on 27 Jun, 2026 15:33Agreed.VCS have history for this “assumption that you were the driver” rubbish.They can assume anything they like, it’s just that there’s no foundation in law for the assumption, and they dress it up as such in the hope that you give in and pay up.That seems to be what I have been finding.Politely force you into paying through fear of not...so far

Quote from: tincombe on 27 Jun, 2026 15:29I don't follow your email.VCS are not stating that they have a legal right under PoFA to enforce against you as the Keeper in lieu of their claim against the driver, they are threatening to pursue you because in their minds they may assume that the keeper was the driver and therefore in their model they are pursuing the liable person. They're not claiming this has anything to do with PoFA, so I don't understand you referring to what is not at issue at such length.I would have focused on this:'..we may pursue you on the assumption that you (the keeper) were the driver.'What VCS choose to assume is a matter for them. What counts is whether there is a legal presumption upon which they may rely. You assume that the Assessor is well versed in English law to know that no such presumption applies. If they are in doubt, then apparently there is a High Court case (referenced in an earlier post) to which they could be referred. I posted what i found as templates to use in the ias appeals.Based on my not being the driver and the initial appeal being turned down.Vcs stated they are assuming I am the driver and they are continuing to process unless I prove otherwise.My response was Based on numerous templates/advice found, to counter their alleged claim. Does that make sense?

Email sent via the IAS email system as the IAS website was glitching and kept me in a draft setting, not allowing me to send a final submission.Email was as follows;Appeal Capacity: Registered Keeper Grounds of Appeal:I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and I decline the invitation to name the driver.Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) has failed to invoke, and cannot invoke keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The notice to keeper completely omits the mandatory POFA statutory wording required to transfer liability to the keeper. The alleged incident took place at Delft Way, Norwich Airport. Airport land is subject to statutory control and airport bylaws. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of "relevant land" under Section 3(1)(c) of POFA 2012.Because the land is not "relevant land," the operator has no legal mechanism to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. As I was not the driver, and POFA does not apply, I am not liable for this charge.Furthermore, I draw the assessor's attention to the High Court authority of VCS v Operations Manager (Milton Keynes), which confirmed that where bylaws apply, POFA keeper liability cannot be used.As VCS has no legal right to pursue me, the registered keeper, I request that this parking charge notice be cancelled immediately.

Quote from: jfollows on 26 Jun, 2026 13:14VCS is tenatious so you need to follow the process, including the irrelevant appeal to the IAS. You need to be seen to do the right thing by the courts, should it come to that. You have no obligation to identify the driver.Received thanks.I shall appeal on the basis of the relevant land and by laws, where I was not the driver and I am under no obligation to provide such details.

https://ibb.co/Q30q4c7thttps://i.ibb.co/BK7c0bMh/Screenshot-20260626-124700-Outlook-6.jpgHopefully you can access the response emails attached

So I have received their response to my appeal.No surprises, rejected.They are pushing that i need to disclose who the driver was.I believe it am not legally obliged to do so. Do I continue the appeal through IAS, or directly to the chasing company and reiterate under relevant land/bylaws, as the owner, but not the driver, I am not required to provide the driver's details, nor do I have to prove i wasnt the driver??

Quote from: InterCity125 on 31 May, 2026 10:21Yes - this is normal VCS cow poo for airport areas / access roads etc.There is no legal basis for claiming a contract between any driver and VCS as the driver was likely unaware that any 'contract' was ever being offered in the first instance - a contract cannot be formed unless there is clear intent on the part of both parties to form that contract.As a result this Charging Notice is virtually unenforceable but this will not stop VCS from trying so you'll probably have to jump through the hoops.In your initial post you imply that you were not the driver - this means that you can simply write and tell them that you refute the charge since you were not the driver.Additionally, there is no requirement in law for you to identify the driver to a private parking contractor.Template used and appeal lodged, will keep you in the loop. For note, there is a "reasons" drop box that is mandatory, unfortunately, the reason for my appeal is not facilitated in the available reasons within the drop box, so I chose an appropriate one (lack of signage) and then filled in the appeal blank space with template above and reason for choosing that drop down within reasons box.Hope that makes sense?You could simply reply with the following;Charging Notice Number - To whom it may concern,I write in relation to the above Charging Notice which I recently received.Unfortunately, I was not the driver at the material time.I understand that there is no legal requirement for me to provide further information to you and I will not be doing so.After taking advice, and not withstanding the above, it's my understanding that there is no viable contract between VCS and the vehicle driver which would allow you to send a speculative invoice.I am sorry that I am unable to help you further.Best wishes,xxxxx xxxxxxxx

Brilliant and thank you for all the time and replies you have all put in. It is appreciated.

Quote from: jfollows on 31 May, 2026 09:43No use of PoFA 2012, so dates and/or “relevant land” don’t apply.“Charge notice” rather than “parking charge notice” or “penalty charge notice”.Presumably both usual for VCS at airports?I don't have a clue, as this is the first that's ever come through my door.

Quote from: jfollows on 31 May, 2026 08:52In order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 has to be complied with. One of the requirements is for a notice to reach the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged infraction, and there may be a presumption of delivery two working days after the issue date; clearly if the issue date is too late there is definitely a failure to comply. However airport land is usually covered under byelaws which makes the land not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA 2012 anyway.From https://www.norwichairport.co.uk/car-park-terms-conditions/Quote2.5 The use of the car parks is regulated by Norwich Airport byelaws under which a penalty may be payable for failing to comply with these terms and conditions or the requirements of the relevant order or byelaw.The signage for the carpark and the threat of action if proceeded to the carpark were on the approach roundabout, they didn't want to go through there, so they took the next turning near the hotel and McDonald's. They didn't see any signage or road markings on this road.

https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HLTYHXj_md.jpghttps://cdn.imgpile.com/f/hXV3LoG_md.jpgHopefully these links can show the pictures.Have followed forum instructions for the earlier attempt to post the pics and tried another 3rd party photo app, please tell me you can see these ones?And thank you all for the replies so far.My understanding is the relevant land issue comes into play here. Do people think there is mileage in going to see about and photograph road markings and signage (or lack of)?I probably feel not due to the relevant land by-law.

Apologies, the details were on the pics, will try again to upload.Date was 12th May this year at Norwich airport. Around 0730am.