Free Traffic Legal Advice

There is no legal obligation for the keeper to identify the driver. It is not like a criminal prosecution where the police or an authority can require it. This is a civil law case, not criminal.

Have a read of this persuasive appeal case that involved VCS:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&dl=0

This the response you should give to VCS:

I am the registered keeper. VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, VCS will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Leed Bradford Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Leeds Bradford Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because VCS is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for VCS’s own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and VCS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. VCS have no hope should you try to take this all the way to court, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

However, you are dealing with a bunch of ex-clamper thugs out to scam you for as much money as they can fleece you for. So, don’t expect VCS to sensibly fold like some other unregulated private parking companies such as APCOA or NCP.

As VCS are IPC members, there is no need to waste any effort on an IAS secondary appeal once the initial appeal is rejected. The only sure way this will end without you paying a penny is when VCS actually discontinue just before a hearing.

In the meantime, they are hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay into their scam once you start receiving debt collector letters and eventually, a county court claim.

VCS do not issue Penalty Notices at LBA. They issue “Charge” Notices which are simply speculative invoices for an alleged breach of contract.

In the incoming Private Parking Code of Practice Act, this kind of behaviour is going to be outlawed. VCS can dress up their “invoices” to appear as though they are anything but an invoice but that does not detract from the fact that they are issued for an alleged breach of contract under civil law.

This is the wording in the PPCoP that is going to put a stop to the likes of VCS trying to con motorists that they have any authority to pretend they have powers that, in fact, they don’t. The banning of certain words that imply statutory penalties or a level of 'authority' that this rogue industry doesn't have, and will never have:

Annex E: Terminology in parking operator/debt recovery agent communication

E.1 General

"The terminology used in a notice of parking charge must be clear, concisely conveying to the reader what they are being asked to pay, why, how to pay, the consequences of not paying, and how to appeal against the charge, but must not misrepresent to the reader that the parking charge arises from the exercise of the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. Therefore the notice of parking charge must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority, nor pressurise the reader such that they do not consider all their options or make a decision that they might not otherwise have made.

E.2 Wording used in operator notices

Operators must not use the following terms:

offence, offender, offending vehicle
order for recovery
Notice of Intended Prosecution
illegal parking
crime
violation
(anything impersonating a council PCN)
“Fixed” charge or anything impersonating a “NIP” (Police wording);
fine or penalty
Bailiff
Penalty Charge Notice

This is not an exhaustive list.

Operators must also not use terminology likely to be read as a Penalty Charge Notice (e.g. Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery) or a Notice of Intended Prosecution (e.g. fixed charge)."

The VCS vs Edwards case probably won't be needed here - that was a case where the keeper had been silent on whether or not he was the driver. Here the (prospective) defendant can positively assert that he was not.

Indeed, doing so might dissuade VCS from going all the way to court (although I wouldn't hold my breath).

The reason I mentioned VCS v Edward (no “s”) is because VCS habitually ignore any pleading that the keeper was not the driver. They will almost always infer that the keeper was the driver, hence the mention of the appeal case above.

The fact that there is a CCTV still picture that shows someone who is not the keeper in the drivers seat means nothing. VCS have no idea who anyone is in the picture. Unless this were to reach a hearing before a judge, it means nothing and even then, it would require forensic examination of the pictures which will breach GDPR as this is a civil law case and no criminality is involved.