Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

In November, I received a pair of charge notices from VCS, which, as I'm sure you all know, enforces parking and traffic flow at Bristol Airport. These notices were issued on foot of my having stopped, on two separate occasions, in a prohibited area while returning a hire car.

There was no point in ignoring the notices on the assumption that VCS could not establish the identity of the driver. The hire company sold me out at the drop of a hat, providing my details to VCS and charging me £84 for the trouble.

I appealed to VCS initially, pointing out that these charges were not enforceable or properly served. That argument was based on the observations of Gary Rycroft, who was quoted in this article:

'Guardian Money also contacted the consumer lawyer Gary Rycroft, a partner at Lancaster-based Joseph A Jones & Co Solicitors... “The legal rule under common law is that bylaws are only enforceable through fines and prosecution in the magistrates court,” he said. “My view is that private parking invoices issued by VCS on behalf of Bristol airport are at odds with – and indeed in direct conflict with – the prosecution and enforcement regime set out in the Airports Act 1986, and for that reason I do not believe they are enforceable.” VCS, the parking contractor at the centre of dispute, has not responded to repeated requests for comment.'

In rejecting my appeal, VCS completely ignored the reference to airport bylaws (particularly section 64 of the Airports Act). Bristol Airport's bylaws are available on it website. Indeed, there is a specific bylaw (6.3) that restricts stopping in areas described by notices. VCS is issuing these charge notices to people who stop in areas described by notices. In short, VCS is collecting money for breaches of the airport's bylaws, claiming instead that the issue is one of contract.

I appealed the matter to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). The appeals process allows each party to submit evidence to and fro (the appellant submits representations, the operator responds to those representations, the appellant responds to that response and so on, until neither party has anything else to say and the appeal is then considered by adjudicator). In all the submissions back and forth, VCS simply would not engage with the bylaws issue. In the end, the IAS couldn't be bothered to do so either. My appeals were dismissed and I'm on the hook, in theory, for the original fines.

What are the chances that this is escalated to the county court? I live in Northern Ireland and, as such, VCS would have to take further steps to enforce any judgements in this jurisdiction. Could VCS get a county court judgement against me and simply not attempt to enforce it in Northern Ireland, punitively allowing it to fester on my credit file?

READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**, 

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

Thank you for this comprehensive reply. I repeated an argument advanced by an experienced consumer-rights lawyer in a national newspaper. Having examined the legislation cited, I thought this position had merit. I still do.

In addition, as the only person registered and insured to drive the vehicle, VCS would have had little trouble establishing the identity of the driver if, in the absence of any engagement on my end, it continued to press the registered keeper for details, something which may well have cost me more in related admin costs.

Surely the fact that I'm resident in Northern Ireland would have no actual bearing on the points I might make in defending any such claim? Is VCS likely to secure its CCJ and leave it there? They wouldn't try to enforce the judgement (assuming I didn't pay up in the wake of it) but they would damage my credit score.

I repeated an argument advanced by an experienced consumer-rights lawyer in a national newspaper. Having examined the legislation cited, I thought this position had merit. I still do.

It didn't do you any good though. Not that any other argument would have done any better. You are not dealing with a nice firm with a good customer service ethos. You are dealing with a bunch of ex-clampers who operate on the very edge of lawfulness and often beyond. Their only ethos is how much of your money can they scam you out of.

In addition, as the only person registered and insured to drive the vehicle, VCS would have had little trouble establishing the identity of the driver if, in the absence of any engagement on my end, it continued to press the registered keeper for details, something which may well have cost me more in related admin costs.

I disagree. The burden of proof is on the claimant (VCS) to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the Hirer (or registered keeper) was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. However, the following factors can complicate this:

If the Hirer permitted another person to drive the vehicle (e.g., a friend or family member), the hire agreement’s restrictions do not matter in this context. Provided that the third party had adequate insurance (e.g., “Driving Other Cars” cover under their own insurance policy), they could lawfully drive the vehicle with the Hirer’s permission. In such cases, the identity of the driver becomes ambiguous, which weakens the claimant’s case.

The hire agreement may be evidence that the Hirer was likely the driver, but it is not conclusive proof. The claimant would still need to provide additional evidence (e.g., witness statements, video footage, or admissions from the Hirer) to support their assertion.

Your reasoning is flawed for several reasons. Being the sole person "registered and insured" to drive the vehicle does not conclusively prove that the Hirer was driving at the time of the alleged contravention. As stated earlier, another person could have driven the vehicle with the Hirer’s permission, provided they held adequate insurance. This creates sufficient ambiguity to undermine the claimant’s case.

VCS cannot legally force the Hirer (or the registered keeper) to disclose the driver’s identity. The Hirer is under no obligation to respond, and silence does not constitute evidence. Civil law does not allow adverse inferences to be drawn from the Hirer’s refusal to name the driver.

Since the alleged contravention occurred on airport land, which is not considered "relevant land" under PoFA 2012, VCS cannot use the legislation to transfer liability to the Hirer if the driver’s identity is not known. Without this legal mechanism, VCS is wholly reliant on proving who the driver was, a significant burden when the Hirer does not engage or disclose.

If you had not engaged, VCS would have had no direct evidence of driver identity, leaving them to rely solely on circumstantial evidence such as "insurance or registration" details. This is insufficient to meet the burden of proof. In the absence of PoFA applicability, a claim would likely fail unless VCS could provide clear evidence.

Your concern about being liable for ‘additional admin costs’ if VCS pressed the hire company for the driver’s details is misplaced. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), once the hire company has complied with its obligations to transfer liability to the Hirer, VCS cannot pursue the hire company again or demand additional information. The liability is fully and permanently transferred to the Hirer, and the hire company is no longer involved. There is no provision in PoFA that allows VCS to revert to the hire company or ‘press’ them for further action.

Once VCS receives the Hirer’s details from the hire company, any further administrative costs related to this transfer are not the Hirer’s responsibility. Your assumption that VCS would continue pressing the hire company and somehow pass additional costs onto you, the Hirer, is not supported by how liability transfer works under PoFA.

The transfer of liability under PoFA allows VCS to pursue the Hirer only if the land qualifies as “relevant land” under PoFA. Since airport land is not relevant land, the transfer of liability does not enable VCS to hold the Hirer liable unless they can prove the Hirer was the driver. Therefore, even if the hire company transferred liability, VCS would still face the same evidentiary hurdle of proving who was driving the vehicle.

Your belief that engagement was necessary to avoid further admin costs is based on a misunderstanding of how PoFA works. Once liability was transferred, the hire company was entirely out of the process, and VCS could not pursue them again. Your engagement provided VCS with direct evidence of driver identity, strengthening their case. By remaining silent and allowing VCS to rely on their own limited evidence, you would have had a much stronger defence.

Surely the fact that I'm resident in Northern Ireland would have no actual bearing on the points I might make in defending any such claim? Is VCS likely to secure its CCJ and leave it there? They wouldn't try to enforce the judgement (assuming I didn't pay up in the wake of it) but they would damage my credit score.

Your residency in Northern Ireland does not affect the substance of the legal points you can make in your defence—those remain grounded in the facts of the case, the applicable law (e.g., the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, contract law, signage compliance), and procedural fairness. However, your location could impact procedural aspects of how VCS pursues the claim and enforces any resulting judgment.

The legal arguments you make (e.g., PoFA does not apply on airport land, VCS cannot prove driver identity, unclear signage) are not affected by your residency. These points apply regardless of where you live because the alleged contravention occurred in England. If VCS pursues a claim, they must:


Residency only complicates matters for VCS logistically, not legally, when they attempt to pursue a claim.

If VCS files a claim and you do not defend or fail to respond, they will obtain a default judgment against you. However, if you defend the claim robustly, VCS would need to:

There is no legal obligation on the Hirer to identify the driver. This is not a criminal matter that is subject to forensic examination.

Have a read of this persuasive appeal court decision that is often used to explain why the defendant is not under any obligation and the burden of proof is on the claimant:

VCS v Edward (2023)

The only relationship to bylaws is that because of them, the location is under statutory control and therefore, not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

All that article reiterates is that as long as the Keeper or Hirer does not blab the drivers identity, VCS cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.

Unfortunately for you, you mistakenly assumed that the hire company named you, the known Hirer as the unknown driver. They didn’t. All they did was name you as the known Hirer and it was you who then appealed incorrectly and revealed yourself, the known Hirer to also be the, up until then, the unknown driver.

That was you mistake because you assumed that you had been revealed as the driver of the hire vehicle. The hire company does not know who the driver is and all they can do is tell VCS that you are the Hirer

There is a legal distinction between the driver and the Hirer/Keeper. There can be no inference that the Hirer/Keeper must also be the driver. They may be, but the burden of proof is on the parking operator. There is no legal obligation on the Hirer/Keeper to do their job for them. It is not for the Hirer/Keeper to disprove anything.

However, having blown away the “golden ticket” element of any appeal/defence, you still have another point you can rely on. However, it will come down to persuading a District Judge that, as the driver, you did not enter into any contractual agreement with VCS. Why? Have a read of the PCN and see what it is alleged the driver has done and what the PCN actually is.

The PCN is nothing more than a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. What are the main elements of a contractual agreement?

1. An Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

For a contract to be formed there must first be an ‘offer’ of something. Whatever is being ‘offered’ then has to be ‘accepted’ by the other party. ‘Consideration’ is a form of payment or other benefit, and both parties must give consideration to form a legally binding contract.

For example, if a VCS sign said “Parking available for £2 per hour. By parking, you agree to our terms.”, that is an ‘offer’. If the driver parks their car in the car park, they are indicating their agreement to the terms displayed, and that is the ‘acceptance’. The driver pays £2 for one hour of parking, and VCS provides the space and associated services, which is the ‘consideration.

So, a ‘contractual agreement’ was formed between the driver and VCS. Now, if one of the terms was that the vehicle must be parked in a marked bay but the driver parked on the line dividing two bays, that is a breach of the terms of the contract and so VCS can invoice the the driver by way of a PCN for the breach of contract.

Now consider what contract was formed by the signage for the alleged contravention you have been accused of. If a sign says “No stopping or picking up or dropping off”, what is being ‘offered’?

A prohibitive sign cannot form a contractual agreement. VCS cannot simply put up a sign that says “Stopping Prohibited. Breaching this term will incur a charge of £100” and expect that it forms a contractual agreement with the driver if they do stop.

That would be one of your remaining defence arguments. That and the fact that no one has seen an up to date, valid contract between Bristol Airport and VCS that permits them to issue PCNs in their own name or that they even have any right to do so outside of the car parks.

that is one element of the available defences.
for that to be successful you would have to check the area of the alleged contravention is indeed within the airport land boundary for bylaws to be applicable.

then you need to consider if the scammers parking Co are claiming under bylaw contravention or private parking contract.

the response will be different for each.

as b789 has detailed for you there also is the issue of signage and whether or not a contract has even been offered.

You are absolutely correct to raise the question of whether Vehicle Control Services (VCS) can lawfully issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or similar demand based on an assumed contract when the land is explicitly subject to statutory byelaws. This is a fundamental issue when dealing with land governed by specific public law instruments, such as airport byelaws.

Land explicitly covered by byelaws, such as Bristol Airport, operates under public law. This means any conduct regulated under the byelaws (e.g., stopping restrictions, driving offences, or parking) is enforceable only through the mechanisms provided within the byelaws. Since stopping restrictions are governed by the byelaws (e.g., sections 6.13, 6.5), such acts would fall under public law and would need to be prosecuted through a magistrates' court as a byelaw breach. A private company such as VCS cannot bypass this by framing the same conduct as a contractual issue.

When byelaws regulate specific behavior, such as driving or stopping, these regulations displace any implied contractual framework. This principle arises from the fact that byelaws are statutory instruments intended to regulate the land, overriding private arrangements. If VCS attempts to enforce stopping restrictions using a contractual framework, they are effectively circumventing the byelaws, which is unlawful.

For VCS to enforce a contractual claim, they must demonstrate the formation of a valid contract with the driver. However, most airport signage for stopping restrictions is prohibitive (e.g., "No Stopping at Any Time"). Courts have consistently ruled that prohibitive signage cannot create a contractual relationship because it does not offer any terms for a driver to accept. Instead, it communicates a prohibition. If the signage specifies penalties for breaching byelaws, this would further reinforce that the matter is a statutory issue, not a contractual one.

VCS may argue that by entering the airport's private roads, the driver agreed to a set of terms and conditions displayed on signage, forming a contract. They might then issue a PCN under contract law for breaching those terms (e.g., stopping in a restricted area).

However, on land governed by byelaws, VCS cannot establish a contractual framework for conduct already regulated by statutory law. If stopping restrictions are enforceable only as byelaw breaches, VCS cannot claim a financial penalty as damages under contract law because the statutory framework preempts such claims. Any signage referencing "fines" or penalties under byelaws may misrepresent the nature of the charge, further invalidating their claim.

VCS’s claim based on an assumed contract is certainly invalid on land covered by statutory byelaws. The regulation of stopping restrictions is exclusively within the scope of the byelaws, which can only be enforced via the mechanisms provided—typically through magistrates' court for criminal proceedings.

If VCS attempts to enforce their claim through contract law, you should challenge:


However, just so you are aware, VCS will claim that the airport bylaws are obsolete, proving their mendacious behaviour. Their argument that the byelaws are obsolete is an attempt to justify their reliance on assumed contracts to issue PCNs.

The byelaws governing Bristol Airport were made under the Airports Act 1986 and approved by the Secretary of State for Transport. This gives them statutory authority. Byelaws cannot simply become obsolete; they remain enforceable until formally revoked, replaced, or invalidated by a court ruling or updated legislation.

VCSs claim the byelaws are obsolete to justify enforcement under contract law, amounts to misrepresentation and an unfair business practice, as it falsely implies that byelaw restrictions do not apply. Such a claim should be challenged under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs), especially as VCS misleads drivers about the legal framework governing the land.

I have not even covered how VCS can or cannot issue and prosecute a Penalty Notice even they had statutory authority to do so. They do not!