Ok, thank You very much for Your help. I will just pay the £60 and in future I will be wiser to ask first and appeal later.
Please!!!! Do not pay these vexatious little scammers. By paying at the "mugs discount" you are simply becoming part of the problem by funding their scam. This is easily defended if they try to litigate to collect the alleged debt.
You need to understand that this is not a "fine" and VCS have no statutory authority to penalise anyone. What you received is a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of of "contract" (we'll come to that in a minute) by the driver.
Whilst you blew away one very useful defence point by identifying the driver, as this location is land under statutory control (airport byelaws) and is is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA 2012 and so, the Registered keeper (RK) cannot be liable for the charge. However, what's done is done and next time you will know better than to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company when there is absolutely no legal obligation to do so.
So, what is your other defence? As I mentioned, you have received an invoice from VCS for an alleged "breach of contract". What contract you may ask? Well, read the wording in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) (invoice):
The charge has been incurred for the reason stated and liability brought to the attention of the driver by the Terms and Conditions displayed on signage placed at the entrance to the controlled area (site) and in prominent places throughout.
So, "terms & conditions mean that they are chasing you for an alleged debt because the driver as breached those Ts&Cs (the contract). The supposed contract was allegedly entered into by the conduct of the driver, whether they read the signs or not.
I suggest you do a GSV run through LJLA and show us any sign that is capable of forming a contract. A prohibitory sign, such as "No Stopping," fails to form a contract with a driver because it lacks the fundamental elements necessary to create a legally binding agreement.
A contractual sign requires a clear offer. A prohibitory sign does not constitute an offer to do something in exchange for consideration; instead, it dictates prohibited behaviour. For example, "No Stopping" is not inviting the driver to accept an offer but simply forbidding an action.
A contract also requires consideration—something of value exchanged between the parties. A sign prohibiting stopping does not offer anything of value to the driver in exchange for compliance. Without mutual consideration, there can be no valid contract.
For a contract to be enforceable, its terms must be clear and specific. A "No Stopping" sign is a regulatory or instructional notice, not a contractual term offering terms for stopping or parking. It does not outline the obligations, rights, or penalties in a way that would form a mutual agreement.
In contract law, acceptance is a conscious agreement to the terms of an offer. Drivers cannot "accept" a prohibition because it does not invite or permit acceptance. A prohibition is a directive, not a negotiable term.
A "No Stopping" sign is typically interpreted as a rule or regulation rather than an offer to enter into a private agreement. Such signs are designed to enforce behaviour, not to create a contractual relationship.
Both parties must intend to create legal relations for a contract to be valid. A prohibitory sign does not demonstrate an intention to form a contract; it indicates a prohibition enforced by penalty, typically through statutory or administrative mechanisms, not contract law.
In
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasised that signage must clearly set out terms and conditions for a contract to be valid. A prohibitory sign such as "No Stopping" does not set terms or conditions; it simply prohibits an action, meaning no contract is formed.
This distinction is critical in cases involving unregulated private parking companies, as they often attempt to enforce penalties on the basis of implied contracts. A prohibitory sign undermines such claims because it lacks the legal framework to establish a contractual agreement.
The signage at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (JLLA) uses prohibitory language, stating "No Stopping" and "£100 Charge if you Stop." Such language cannot form the basis of a contractual offer, as it does not permit or offer terms capable of acceptance.
Even if the sign could be interpreted as offering terms it is ambiguous. It does not specify how long a vehicle must stop to incur the charge or whether stopping momentarily for safety would constitute a breach. Ambiguity in purported terms renders them unenforceable.
The £100 charge is clearly punitive, arising from a prohibition, and does not represent a contractual term. Penalty charges in civil contract law are unenforceable unless they reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which VCS has not demonstrated.
So, no enforceable contract was entered into or breached. Easily defended if they were to allow this to go all the way to a hearing n the small claims track of the county court.
Paying £60 to VCS is simply funding the scammers and so you become part of the problem, not the solution.
