Some points for starters.
I'll probably come up with more in due course.
VCS Bristol Airport Defence / WS Pointers
Keeper liability denied.
The land at Bristol Airport is land under statutory control and as such the parking operator is unable to rely on the benefits of the Protection of Freedoms Act to establish keeper liability in this case.
The driver has never been identified and there is no legal obligation for the vehicle keeper to identify the driver to a private parking operator.
In their communications VCS have consistently asserted their right to pursue the keeper on grounds of 'reasonable assumption' that the keeper was the driver.
VCS are seeking to circumvent legislation (Protection of Freedoms Act) in order hold the keeper liable in a scenario where the driver is not known to them.
VCS have already fully tested this legal argument in the Appeal Court and lost.
The defendant therefore presents the persuasive authority of VCS Ltd v Edward (2023)[HOKF6C9C] where HHJ Gargan held at para. 35.3 that no inference can be drawn from keeper status alone and that the claimant must prove that the Defendant was the driver.
No such evidence has ever been provided.
Keeper liability is therefore denied.
No contract was formed with the vehicle driver and as such a driver cannot be held liable.
VCS claim that a driver simply driving past a sign at the airport entrance is sufficient for VCS to 'instantaneously' form a legally binding contract with that particular driver.
This appears to be a claim made by VCS out of 'necessity' rather than any legally recognised contract formation methods based on the firmly established 'offer-acceptance' process.
When challenged, VCS claim that they see the formation of an implied contract occurring on the basis of 'acceptance through conduct' namely; driving past the entrance sign.
In the case of this particular sign the driver has no choice but to drive past the sign as it is positioned in such a location as to afford the driver no alternative route.
The driver is already committed to entering the airport as they are already on the busy access road.
As such, there can be no 'alterative conduct' which would allow a driver to avoid becoming contracted.
So how do VCS determine the difference between drivers who agree to contract from those drivers who are not agreeing since all drivers are made to file past the same sign and therefore all drivers seemingly demonstrate the same 'conduct'?
VCS are therefore claiming that every driver entering the airport becomes a contracted party.
In other words, this amounts to a 100% conversion rate from 'perspective clients' to 'contracted clients'.
This is demonstrably a 'pressure sales technique' which is forbidden under consumer legislation.
The vast majority of drivers passing the entrance sign would never even realise that the signage constituted an 'offer of contract' since the sign would flash past in just a second or two and would simply look like a normal traffic sign.
It is extremely unusual for a vehicle driver to receive such a hurried 'contract offer' in that manner whilst driving along a road.
How can any contract be formed if the vehicle drivers never legally recognise that the sign is offering contract in the first instance?
Additionally, the signage makes no valid offer of contract.
It does not offer anything and the wording is purely prohibitive in nature.
The High Court in Ransomes v Anderson [2011] EWHC 1127(QB) established that no contract can be formed from such prohibitive signage as the signage does not actually offer anything.
Acceptance of contract is therefore categorically denied.
Unfair terms of alleged contract.
VCS claim that one of the key terms of the alleged contract is an agreement, by the driver, to the term, "NO STOPPING".
This is a clearly unfair term in a consumer contract.
The term is an unquantified blanket term which would be unreasonable and unfair to any vehicle driver.
There will be times when a vehicle has to stop for any number of reasons including reasons which would be totally out of a drivers control.
As this is contract law as apposed to traffic law, VSC have asserted that, "any reason for stopping is legally irrelevant", and as such VCS are demonstrating that they are prepared to enforce their unfair term in any manner they see fit and regardless of circumstance.
This therefore constitutes a term which creates a significant imbalance in any alleged contract.
Notwithstanding my previous points, any consumer contract term must be judged on the exact wording used and the entitlement which that term or condition would potentially give the claimant.
There is seemingly no requirement to examine how the claimant is exercising this right.
Once again, this is consumer contract law and not traffic law.
The consumer receives nothing in return for their '£100 charge' and as such it appears clear that the £100 charge is therefore a contractual penalty.
This appears to be prohibited under consumer legislation.
Once again, VCS are simply creating a legal workaround which seeks to circumvent the protection afforded to consumers under relevant legislation.
The contract term on which they are seemingly reliant is therefore both unlawful and unfair and cannot make up part of any alleged contract.
