Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please see below my draft WS. Any comments/feedback appreciated. Many thanks.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WORCESTER
Claim No: xxx

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant

- and -

xxx
Defendant

________________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the defendant in this claim. I am making this witness statement in support of my defence.

2. Keeper liability is denied.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. In their communications VCS have consistently asserted their right to pursue the keeper on grounds of 'reasonable assumption' that the keeper was the driver.

6. 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.

7. VCS have already fully tested this legal argument in the Appeal Court and lost.

8. 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.

9. No such evidence has ever been provided.

10. Keeper liability is therefore denied.

11. No contract was formed with the vehicle driver and, as such, a driver cannot be held liable.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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'?
15. 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 'prospective clients' to 'contracted clients'. This is demonstrably a 'pressure sales technique', which is forbidden under consumer legislation.
16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Acceptance of contract is therefore categorically denied.


Unfair terms of alleged contract.

20. VCS claim that one of the key terms of the alleged contract is an agreement, by the driver, to the term, "NO STOPPING".

21. This is a clearly unfair term in a consumer contract.

22. The term is an unquantified blanket term which would be unreasonable and unfair to any vehicle driver.

23. There will be times when a vehicle has to stop for any number of reasons, including reasons which would be totally out of a driver’s control.

24. As this is contract law as opposed 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.

25. This therefore constitutes a term which creates a significant imbalance in any alleged contract.

26. 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.

27. There is seemingly no requirement to examine how the claimant is exercising this right.

28. Once again, this is consumer contract law and not traffic law.

29. 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.

30. This appears to be prohibited under consumer legislation.

31. Once again, VCS are simply creating a legal workaround which seeks to circumvent the protection afforded to consumers under relevant legislation.

32. The contract term on which they are seemingly reliant is therefore both unlawful and unfair and cannot make up part of any alleged contract.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: xxx


Date: 1st February 2026

I would assume not.

Honestly, too many people relied upon @b789 doing their work for them and giving them canned responses, rather than doing their own research and understanding what they were doing.

Not in your case, I should hasten to add.

There are further points which can be given if this ever gets to a hearing.

Their so called 'witness' rarely attends - this means that pretty much all their evidence will be hearsay evidence - normally third hand by that point.

Furthermore, there will be holes in their WS when examined closely.

For example, are the signs illuminated at night? Where on the plan did the alleged contraventions occur? The alleged signage is side-on to traffic - meaning that a driver must stop to read it.

I could go on...

Is the judge likely to ask me who the driver was?

In theory they shouldn't be doing the claimant's job for them. But, if they do ask, you must answer truthfully. Some people suggest various forms of wording about not being required to say etc. - in my view, the risk with such approaches is that you p*ss the judge off and come across as evasive, which isn't necessarily wise. Even less so when you have other valid defence points that don't rely on the driver's identity being unknown.

It would probably be procedurally incorrect for the Judge to ask that question.

If the Judge has read the case through then he will recognise that beforehand.

Remember that this is a contract law case and not a criminal case.

As DWMB2 has said, your case is much stronger than that single point but that single point has been sufficient to win in the Appeal Court case.

Does anyone know if member B789 is still active on this forum? He/she, amongst others, has been very helpful in my case (but appears not to have been active since 20/01/26) and I would appreciate an eye cast over my proposed WS before I submit it today if at all possible. Many thanks.

@b789 is subject to the same whims of life as the rest of us.

He/she may be in hospital with an illness, he/she might have just given up on the site, he/she might have passed on.....never rely on a single member (as wise as b789 was) as a guaranteed get out of jail card.

Re. Costs - you're not making a counterclaim, if you win, you are asking for your costs.

In the Small Claims track, costs are very limited* (this works both ways, and means that if you lose you also shouldn't be exposed to onerous costs above the claim value), but you can generally claim the cost of loss of earnings up to a maximum of £95 per day.

* the exception to this is that if one party is deemed to have behaved "unreasonably", a judge can decide to award additional costs above those normally allowed. You can take with you on the day a brief costs schedule and, if you win, ask for these - for those above the standard fixed amounts, you will need to explain why you believe the claimant has acted unreasonably. The bar for unreasonable conduct is high.