Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everybody!  I had a this occurrence at the petrol station at East Mids airport.  I received the customary PCN from a firm called VCS.  After researching websites for excellent information, this was my reply/appeal to them on their website....
( They have a drop down list for you to choose a reason for the appeal )
*  Despite the drop down reason given is ''there was no signage at the car park'', I cannot say for sure  if there was signage or not, I can only state that I DID NOT SEE any signage.
However, and more importantly, I am the registered keeper but VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control, which East Midlands Airport certainly is. As a matter of fact and law, VCS will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because East Midlands Airport is not 'relevant land'.
If East Midlands Airport 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 . Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. VCS  have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.  VCS has issued an invoice that, by law, can only hold the driver liable, not the keeper. Please note the Protection of Freedoms Act2012(Sch 4), confirmed in Appeal Court judgment VCS v Ian Edward.  I therefore, I require you to cancel the PCN and expunge my personal data from your records.

signed
*******

This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will *ever* be given. Please do not bother with your known fishing expedition in an attempt to get driver details.  It is known parking firms do this to try and get around the fact when there is no keeper liability in play. (and never can be under POFA)
Three weeks later the owner of the car received this:
We refer to correspondence received from you concerning the above numbered Charge Notice.
Please note that responsibility for this Charge lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention
was observed. However, we are unable to ascertain who the driver was on the date in questions from the information
given within your appeal.
In order for us to process your appeal correctly, please follow the instructions below:
1. If you were the driver on the day in question, please confirm this within your next correspondence.
2. Notify the driver of the vehicle that they will need to appeal to us directly, including their FULL NAME (Forename
and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS within 14 days.
3. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming
that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf; this needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a
stamp. The statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL
SERVICEABLE ADDRESS.
Please ensure that correspondence is submitted through the portal www.myparkingcharge.co.uk in order to correctly
adhere with the appeals process.

Is there a templet for a reply / another appeal, or do I just tell them to jog-on?
Thank you in anticipation for your help.

Thank you.  I did a fair bit of research and I am inclined to believe that the petrol station IS NOT 'relevant land' , but I will find out for sure. What will the 'more detailed appeal for the IAS ' consist of, please?  What is IAS? Thanks.

Thank you....but from what i have read, they are not that 'independent' are they? 

If the OP could post up the PCN then we could comment further.

But from the look of the VCS response, they do not look like they are relying on PoFA.

Readable, but not OK, please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and repost without dates obscured and other things as advised, these can be fundamental to formulating a winning defence.

3. Post the notice(s) you have received – as well as providing important context, the notices may contain/omit details that can be used to help you successfully fight the charge. Upload photos of any and all notices you have received from the parking company. You should show us all pages of the notice(s), remove personal details (name/address, PCN reference number, Vehicle Registration Mark), but show us all dates and times. Details that you think are trivial could help you win, so don’t leave anything out.

They're skating on thin ice, relying on most people not being informed and paying up.  The PCN is dressed up using the POFA wording, but it doesn't actually mention it. They are, I think, actually in breach of the KADOE contract with DVLA, since there is no actual route to keeper recovery, but which they are implying there is.

Unlike some other operators that roll over when presented with the not relevant land argument, VCS do tend to follow through to court and try it on via the 'reasonable assumption' that the keeper was the driver.

The OP needs to post up the NtK showing both sides but redacting ONLY personal data.

Keep all dates visible.

The Code of Practice does comment on the use of PoFA in circumstances where PoFA cannot be applied but the wording used is unintelligible;

The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its
website which in its design and/or language:
 
a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory authority where none
exists;

b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement penalty charge
notice;
 
c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
 
d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where
they cannot be held liable.


The lead-in states, "The parking operator must not serve a notice...which in its design and/or language:"

And then specifies, "state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where
they cannot be held liable."

So this doesn't read properly.

The lead-in suggests that a notice which in its design / language could suggest PoFA but then condition 'd' uses the word "state that the keeper is liable under PoFA"

So the paragraph uses contradictory rules.

In the case of VCS - their PCN clearly uses wording which mimics that of PoFA but doesn't state PoFA.

You’re over-analysing this.
Follow the advice and do what you think is right if you’re unsure.
If you obscure something we need, we’ll ask for it.