Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received a PCN as keeper in mid 2017. Replied without disclosing driver and referred them to no liability for keeper as POFA did not apply due to byelaws. All I stated was my observation that 'Your PCN shows the vehicle registered to me stopped at a junction with an airport main road for a maximum of 5 seconds before turning right and being shown further down the road 3 seconds later. This was clearly a stop to turn manoeuvre.' I concluded by rejecting their PCN as invalid
VCS responded by stating 'my appeal' was rejected and 'in your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question you stopped your vehicle on the access road which is an area where stopping is not permitted'. They also stated 'byelaws are not currently in use as the last set of byelaws relate to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company'.

I sent a letter back refuting that it was 'an appeal' and that whilst they had tried to infer I was the driver, there was no basis for them to make this inference. I confirmed that I responded to them only as the keeper and that I would not release driver details. A Notice of Intended Court Proceedings was received in November 2017 and that was the last correspondence from them I ever received.

In early 2021 I moved house and did not use a mail redirection service, instead asking the postman to return the small amount of mail expected at the old address to alert people to the change of address wherever possible as I thought I had notified all relevant parties of the new address.

However this week I received a letter at my current address from a debt collection agency stating that VCS had actually obtained a CCJ for C £270 in December 2021 and I could either settle the debt at 45% of the amount by end Jan or they would arrange for bailiffs to recover the debt.

Very unhappy that VCS have sneaked this through by using my old address when i believe it would have been thrown out had I been informed and able to mount a defence. Would welcome any advice/guidance as to the best course of action. Contemplating an application to have the original judgement set aside via an N244 form. All views gratefully received. 
 

Yes they are the 2 choices. Was hoping I might be able to reclaim cost of N244 from VCS somehow. Would really rather VCS didn't profit from their deceit

There seems a disproportionate number of default CCJs issued to parking operators.

Makes you wonder if some of them check Zoopla (or even the electoral register) to see if addresses have changed hands since their previous contact with the defendant.


 

Appreciate the replies.My uncertainty about what to do was partly caused by whether it was definitive that POFA did not apply. Following a little research I have now obtained a definitive answer. VCS lost a court case where the judge was DDJ Wood in Manchester case ref H9QZ6P3R where the defendant provided a letter from VCS's solicitors in their bundle which stated 'We can confirm Liverpool John Lennon is covered by byelaws and therefore our client does not intend to pursue you under schedule 4 of POFA 2012' despite a barrister turning up for VCS arguing that the 1982 byelaws only applied to the old airport known as Speke Airfield (Aerodrome). I now have a copy of the 1982 byelaws and they actually state ' The Airport means the area of land including buildings and installations thereon, for the time being constituting the aerodrome known as Liverpool Airport'. The judge dismissed the case as 'POFA could not be relied upon because of the 1982 byelaws'

So POFA has never been relevant before 2022 under the 1982 byelaws and post 2022 under the new 2022 byelaws. In spite of this my PCN clearly stated that after a period of 28 days if the PCN had not been paid in full and they did not know the name of the driver and their address they had the right to recover  from me, The Keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge.

It seems to be that they try to infer that the keeper was the driver so that they can take court action against the driver not the keeper and whilst maintaining POFA did apply as the signs clearly state the roads are private property and byelaws were not currently in use as the last set of byelaws published related to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company

Advice was that a motion to set aside would be unlikely to be given purely on sending documents to an old address unless there were compelling reasons why I might have won the case. I am now beginning to think there is sufficient evidence that might meet that bar but would still welcome any advice. It isn't just about the money - its about trying to stop them doing this to people and I don't think they will do this if unchallenged

Quite a lot to chew over there - that is all really good info on VCS so thank you for bring that to the forum.

I go through VCS stuff with a fine-tooth comb.



In my opinion you have compelling evidence for a set-aside.

Your main focus would need to be the facts of the case (and that it would have been easily defended if you were offered the chance) - namely; that the alleged contravention occurred inside an area of statutory control which meant that the keeper could never be held liable as the claimant was unable to rely on PoFA and that the driver has never been revealed. Mention VCS v Edward.

On the procedural side, You could also mention Carr v VCS and question whether VCS made any genuine attempt to establish your current address for service. Draw attention to the fact that VCS and their associated legal representatives are 'serial litigators' and, as such, they pay little attention to the precise details and requirements of CPR etc. Also, why would someone who was so robustly refuting liability suddenly stop defending themselves?


In terms of VCS; they have changed their method of approach regarding these 'No Stopping' zones on many occasions - It is very likely that their legal approach now is very different to their approach in 2017 and in 2021 - in particular, the argument regarding 'obsolete byelaws' was consistently defeated both at POPLA and in court; they no longer raise this argument anymore.

Currently, VCS attempt to circumvent the requirements of PoFA by using the 'reasonable assumption' argument - namely, that in many cases the keeper is also the driver - although defeated (using that argument) in the Appeal Court (VCS v Edward) they continue to project that argument - they do this out of necessity since they would otherwise have no legal route to either claim keeper details from the DVLA or to pursue the keeper as the liable party.



You have clearly done a lot of research already - people who approach the matter in this way generally win in the end.