Author Topic: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone (Read 1476 times)

Martyn.c · « **on:** March 26, 2025, 04:40:15 pm »

I am the registered keeper on the vehicle.

On the 19th March, the driver was going to JL airport to pick up a passenger.

Upon approach the driver was surprised to see passenger stood at roundabout beside mobile camera car. So took a right turn towards car parking.

As the was no place to stop the driver pulled into a car park and immediately turned around and planned to pull back out onto the road.

The passenger came and got into the car while the mobile camera car pulled across on the opposite side which felt intrusive and slightly dangerous to the driver.

The car was not parked or stopped and in the main the car park was used to do a turn around to go back into the road.

The time spent to turn back onto the road was not unduly held up by the passenger getting into the car.

As the registered keeper I need to appeal this letter.

https://imgur.com/a/IHsSNzR

Any help would be appreciated

b789 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 26, 2025, 06:51:35 pm »

Ah... the VCS scam at LJLA (and other regional airports) strikes again. If you follow the advice given here, you will not be paying a penny to the bottom-dwelling, ex-clampers VCS.

Know your rights... LJLA is land that is under statutory control (airport byelaws). As such, PoFA 2012 does not apply as the land is not relevant to it. As VCS are an unregulated private company, you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to them. Only the driver can be liable for a charge, assuming it is legitimate in the first place, and it definitely isn't in this case.

So, consider this... VCS have no idea who the driver is. They are not allowed to infer or even assume that the Keeper must also be the driver (they will anyway) and that is a fact in persuasive appellate case law such as VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C] and others and as long as the Keeper does not identify the driver, inadvertently or otherwise, then they have no hope of winning this battle, especially if it ever went as far as a county court hearing (likely, but that is a good thing).

So, in law, they are in a Catch-22 situation. They cannot sue the Keeper because there is no Keeper liability and they cannot sue the driver because they have no idea who that is.

There are additional matters that are in your favour. For example, the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. However, no contract could ever have been formed (by conduct) because for a contract to exist, there must be three elements. There must be an 'offer', 'acceptance' and 'consideration'. The signage at LJLA makes no 'offer' whatsoever. The signs are all prohibitive. A prohibitive sign cannot offer anything and therefore a contract cannot be formed.

There's more... VCS have stated in the NtK that you are liable as the Keeper if they don't identify the driver. That is a breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Conduct (PPSCoP) where it states in section 8.1.2(d):

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

As I already pointed out to you, LJLA is land that is under statutory control and as such it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. By stating on their NtK that you are liable for the charge if they cannot identify the driver, they have breached this part of the Code. Having breached the PPSCoP, they are therefore in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA which means that they have used your data that they received from the DVLA unlawfully.

There are other issues such as had the location been relevant land, the NtK does not specify a period of parking which is a breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), but that des not matter where the fact is that PoFA does not apply anyway. Also, the driver cannot be responsible for an adult opening the car door while they are stationary and that person getting into it.

So, this is how it is likely to play out if you follow the advice... You make an appeal to VCS which will always be rejected. VCS are IPC members and so a secondary appeal is likely to be a waste of time but some o n here would advise you to try anyway, as it's free. You would only have to post out that as the Keeper, you decline to identify the driver, as is your right, and because the location of not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, there can be no Keeper liability. In other words, they can go get stuffed as there is nowhere for them to go.

However, whilst there is a less than 4% chance of an IAS appeal being successful, this would all then go through the time wasting process of ignoring all debt recovery letters. Whilst appearing to be scary, debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and their some purpose is to scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into lying up out of ignorance and fear. Never, ever, communicate with useless debt collector. Ignore them.

Eventually, VCS will issue a county court claim and it is very easily defended. It will never get as far as a hearing as the claim will either be struck out or discontinued. That is a grater than 99% certainty.

So, the advice for now, is to send the following as your initial appeal, only as the Keeper to VCS:

Quote

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 Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) is not 'relevant land'.

If LJLA wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, 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 bylaws 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 attempt to progress this all the way to litigation, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

I do suggest you issue a formal complaint to the DVLA in the meantime. Your complaint is the VCS are in breach of their KADOE contract because they have issued an NtK that claims Keeper liability when there can be none because the location is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA as LJLA is land that is under statutory control. Mention the fact that they are in breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) and quote it as I have done earlier. You can submit your DVLA complaint online in a few minutes.

Come back when you receive the initial VCS appeal rejection.

Martyn.c · « **Reply #2 on:** March 26, 2025, 07:02:51 pm »

Thank you. I will do.

Martyn.c · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2025, 01:57:33 pm »

The registered keeper had a reply to the appeal.

https://imgur.com/a/RvQlHfF

What is the next course of action.

b789 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2025, 02:37:19 pm »

Respond with the following:

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 3rd April 2025. As you correctly note, "responsibility for this Charge lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention was observed.", therefore, VCS cannot pursue the registered keeper for this charge. As the registered keeper, I decline your invitation to name the driver and I remind you that there is no legal obligation to do so as you are simply an unregulated private parking company with no authoritative powers whatsoever.

Since the charge is for an alleged contravention on land that is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA, it cannot be enforced against the keeper, and since you have no basis in law to presume who the driver was, I consider this matter closed.

Any further correspondence from your debt recovery agents will be considered harassment and reported as such.

Yours faithfully,

[Keeper’s name]

You should also now report them to the DVLA as they have used your data unlawfully. They claim to have the right to pursue you as the Keeper of the vehicle on their NtK. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which clearly states:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

By having done so, they have breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA. Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:

Quote

• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.[/indent]

The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

Quote
I am submitting a formal complaint against Vehicle Control Services Ltd, an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.

The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.

I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

Quote
SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 19/03/2025
Vehicle registration: DL23PYT

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS), who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.

The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.

In this case, VCS has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:

They have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) for an alleged contravention at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) and on that notice they have mentioned all the requirements of PoFA 2012 and stated that they can hold the Keeper liable for the charge.

This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which clearly states:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

As the land where the alleged contravention occurred is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA because it is under statutory control (airport byelaws), they have knowingly made a false and unlawful statement on their NtK.

This is not minor or technical breach. It shows a clear disregard for the standards required under the current single Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.

The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.

This may include:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]

Make sure that you include a copy of the NtK with it.

Martyn.c · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2025, 07:48:21 pm »

Thank you. I will do this tomorrow.

What is going to happen next. I assume they will send debt letters and then pursue court etc. are CCJ’s issued before court ?

I am keen to understand in the long run if credit ratings will be affected by non payment or can these things be over turned. As the registered keeper I am more than happy to attend court. If there is enough information resource to ensure success

jfollows · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2025, 07:54:16 pm »

Don’t get side-tracked by “CCJ” nonsense, which is mentioned only to scare you into paying.

A recorded county court judgement against you only happens if you go to court, you lose your case and then refuse to pay up. None of these are likely here, but even if you mess up completely and have a judgement made against you, even then if you pay up there is no “CCJ” anyway.

See https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/kellys-storage-luton-universal-parking-enforcement-ltd/msg59804/#msg59804, for example, for a longer explanation.

Martyn.c · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2025, 07:58:30 pm »

Thanks all

I’ll complain to the dvla and send the response. I’ll update when the next letter is received.

Martyn.c · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2025, 07:05:40 pm »

Hello

As registered owner. I received this. Interestingly the registered owner sent the appeal as written above and does not “state you were not the driver”

https://imgur.com/a/UHJsDUp

b789 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2025, 08:55:17 pm »

You are not the registered owner". There is no such thing as a registry of owners. You are the Registered Keeper (RK). If you have a look at your V5C, you will note that it very clearly states on the front of it in bold:

So, as expected, VCS has rejected the appeal. It matters not one iota what you put in your initial appeal. They will always reject as there is no chance of ripping you off for some money if they accept it. You are not dealing with a company that has any customer service ethos. You are dealing with a firm of ex-clampers who will do anything to scam you out of your money.

The appeal rejection from Vehicle Control Services (VCS) follows their standard script:

• It attempts to rely on signs that state "No Stopping" to create an alleged contractual relationship (which is not legally possible).
• It wrongly assumes that the keeper can be presumed to be the driver, despite this being unsupported in law.
• It makes no mention whatsoever of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or whether they are relying on it (unsurprising, as they cannot).
• It fails to engage with the fact that Liverpool John Lennon Airport is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of PoFA due to statutory control via airport byelaws.
• It directs you to the IAS, which is nothing more than a kangaroo court which widely criticised for bias and being unfit for adjudicating these disputes (as you should already know if you've read these forums).

Since the appeal has now been rejected, you are exactly where expected in the process. You have appealed and (predictably) had it rejected and you have submitted the DVLA complaint citing misuse of data under KADOE due to non-relevant land and breach of PPSCoP 8.1.2(d).

Do not engage with the IAS — the odds of success are negligible. It is not a fair or impartial appeals service, and their decisions cannot be enforced in court. Moreover, appealing can prejudice your position by making it look like you consider their process legitimate.

You will eventually start to receive debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. They are powerless and their only function is try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Never, ever communicate with a useless debt collector. Ignore them.

Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) which you should show us. We will advise on how to respond. They will, in due course issue an N1SDT Claim Form which must be responded to and, again, we will advise on how to do that and provide a template defence.

They will never let this get in front of a judge because they know they would be on a hiding to nothing. But that doesn't stop them from trying to bully and scare you into capitulation.

This is why they would have no chance:

• No contract could have been formed (signs are prohibitive, not offering parking).
• Land is not relevant land – no keeper liability under PoFA.
• VCS are not the airport operator and cannot issue penalties under byelaws.
• Misuse of DVLA data and breach of KADOE.
• Well-established persuasive case law (VCS v Edward 2023, Excel v Smith 2017) confirms no inference can be drawn that the Keeper was the driver.

Martyn.c · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2025, 09:02:19 pm »

Thank you

Will update when the next stage comes

Martyn.c · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2025, 10:27:26 am »

The registered keeper has just received from school a notice of debt recovery. Letters will be ignored as per the above.

b789 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2025, 11:30:29 am »

Wait for the Letter of Claim (LoC) and then let us know.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone (Read 1476 times)

Martyn.c

Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

b789

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

b789

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

jfollows

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

b789

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

Martyn.c

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone

b789

Re: Charge notice. Issued by VCS. John Lennon Airport red zone