Author Topic: Yet another Airport CN NTK  (Read 163 times)

0 Members and 139 Guests are viewing this topic.

Yet another Airport CN NTK
« on: »
Afternoon all, I have read through quite a few of the posts on here and elsewhere. I am hoping for a bit of advice and hopefully someone experienced telling me I am on the right track.
I recently received A; Charge Notice, Notice to Keeper, as the registered owner of the vehicle.
It comprises of two A4 pages with still pictures of a vehicle and times, issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd VCS (pictures attached).
The letter was received 15 days after the alleged infraction, unaware if it is a requirement to be within 14 days of the alleged infraction, or 14days of issue date?
The driver, I am told, was unaware of any signs that were obvious as to not being able to stop, they are not saying there weren't any, but they didn't see any. The driver was relatively unfamiliar with the area, but a previous visit many years ago, allowed a drop off free at the terminal. Apparently there is a sign on a roundabout just before the terminal telling "only move beyond this point if you are paying to drop off", or words to that effect. So they avoided the roundabout and moved immediately to a side road that feeds businesses. No signs were seen, and no markings on the road were seen (red or yellow lines), other cars had stopped, so the driver assumed (I know..) that it was fine, as they were completely unaware they were in a possible restricted area.
Having read previous posts, I assume this situation is dealt with the appropriate "Relevant land" challenge and form?
Any help, advice, guidance or opinion will be gratefully received.
Thank you.


Free image hosting and sharing service, upload pictures, photo host. Offers integration solutions for uploading images to forums.
ImgBB · oldndaft.imgbb.com

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #1 on: »
Your attachment is not readable, please fix it.
More specific details, please.
Where and when.
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #2 on: »
Apologies, the details were on the pics, will try again to upload.
Date was 12th May this year at Norwich airport. Around 0730am.

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #3 on: »
If you could re-post the notice then we can advise.

Charging Notices from VCS are pretty much unenforceable since there is no viable contract between them and the driver.
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #4 on: »
In order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 has to be complied with. One of the requirements is for a notice to reach the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged infraction, and there may be a presumption of delivery two working days after the issue date; clearly if the issue date is too late there is definitely a failure to comply. However airport land is usually covered under byelaws which makes the land not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA 2012 anyway.

From
1 – Definitions 1.1 These terms and conditions (“Terms”) apply to all bookings for services made via www.Norwichairport.com and all URL’s operated by Norwich Airport Limited (together refer...
Norwich Airport · norwichairport.co.uk

Quote
2.5 The use of the car parks is regulated by Norwich Airport byelaws under which a penalty may be payable for failing to comply with these terms and conditions or the requirements of the relevant order or byelaw.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2026, 08:57:30 am by jfollows »
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #5 on: »
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HLTYHXj_md.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/hXV3LoG_md.jpg



Hopefully these links can show the pictures.
Have followed forum instructions for the earlier attempt to post the pics and tried another 3rd party photo app, please tell me you can see these ones?

And thank you all for the replies so far.

My understanding is the relevant land issue comes into play here. Do people think there is mileage in going to see about and photograph road markings and signage (or lack of)?
I probably feel not due to the relevant land by-law.


Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #6 on: »
No use of PoFA 2012, so dates and/or “relevant land” don’t apply.
“Charge notice” rather than “parking charge notice” or “penalty charge notice”.
Presumably both usual for VCS at airports?

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #7 on: »
In order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 has to be complied with. One of the requirements is for a notice to reach the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged infraction, and there may be a presumption of delivery two working days after the issue date; clearly if the issue date is too late there is definitely a failure to comply. However airport land is usually covered under byelaws which makes the land not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA 2012 anyway.

From https://www.norwichairport.co.uk/car-park-terms-conditions/
Quote
2.5 The use of the car parks is regulated by Norwich Airport byelaws under which a penalty may be payable for failing to comply with these terms and conditions or the requirements of the relevant order or byelaw.


The signage for the carpark and the threat of action if proceeded to the carpark were on the approach roundabout, they didn't want to go through there, so they took the next turning near the hotel and McDonald's. They didn't see any signage or road markings on this road.

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #8 on: »
No use of PoFA 2012, so dates and/or “relevant land” don’t apply.
“Charge notice” rather than “parking charge notice” or “penalty charge notice”.
Presumably both usual for VCS at airports?

I don't have a clue, as this is the first that's ever come through my door.

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #9 on: »
Yes - this is normal VCS cow poo for airport areas / access roads etc.

There is no legal basis for claiming a contract between any driver and VCS as the driver was likely unaware that any 'contract' was ever being offered in the first instance - a contract cannot be formed unless there is clear intent on the part of both parties to form that contract.

As a result this Charging Notice is virtually unenforceable but this will not stop VCS from trying so you'll probably have to jump through the hoops.


In your initial post you imply that you were not the driver - this means that you can simply write and tell them that you refute the charge since you were not the driver.

Additionally, there is no requirement in law for you to identify the driver to a private parking contractor.

You could simply reply with the following;


Charging Notice Number -

To whom it may concern,

I write in relation to the above Charging Notice which I recently received.

Unfortunately, I was not the driver at the material time.

I understand that there is no legal requirement for me to provide further information to you and I will not be doing so.

After taking advice, and not withstanding the above, it's my understanding that there is no viable contract between VCS and the vehicle driver which would allow you to send a speculative invoice.

I am sorry that I am unable to help you further.


Best wishes,

xxxxx xxxxxxxx



Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #10 on: »
Brilliant and thank you for all the time and replies you have all put in. It is appreciated.

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #11 on: »
Yes - this is normal VCS cow poo for airport areas / access roads etc.

There is no legal basis for claiming a contract between any driver and VCS as the driver was likely unaware that any 'contract' was ever being offered in the first instance - a contract cannot be formed unless there is clear intent on the part of both parties to form that contract.

As a result this Charging Notice is virtually unenforceable but this will not stop VCS from trying so you'll probably have to jump through the hoops.


In your initial post you imply that you were not the driver - this means that you can simply write and tell them that you refute the charge since you were not the driver.

Additionally, there is no requirement in law for you to identify the driver to a private parking contractor.



Template used and appeal lodged, will keep you in the loop.
For note, there is a "reasons" drop box that is mandatory, unfortunately, the reason for my appeal is not facilitated in the available reasons within the drop box, so I chose an appropriate one (lack of signage) and then filled in the appeal blank space with template above and reason for choosing that drop down within reasons box.
Hope that makes sense?

You could simply reply with the following;


Charging Notice Number -

To whom it may concern,

I write in relation to the above Charging Notice which I recently received.

Unfortunately, I was not the driver at the material time.

I understand that there is no legal requirement for me to provide further information to you and I will not be doing so.

After taking advice, and not withstanding the above, it's my understanding that there is no viable contract between VCS and the vehicle driver which would allow you to send a speculative invoice.

I am sorry that I am unable to help you further.


Best wishes,

xxxxx xxxxxxxx





Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #12 on: »
So I have received their response to my appeal.
No surprises, rejected.
They are pushing that i need to disclose who the driver was.
I believe it am not legally obliged to do so.
Do I continue the appeal through IAS, or directly to the chasing company and reiterate under relevant land/bylaws, as the owner, but not the driver, I am not required to provide the driver's details, nor do I have to prove i wasnt the driver??

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #13 on: »
VCS is tenatious so you need to follow the process, including the irrelevant appeal to the IAS. You need to be seen to do the right thing by the courts, should it come to that. You have no obligation to identify the driver.

Re: Yet another Airport CN NTK
« Reply #14 on: »

Image Screenshot 20260618 000030 Outlook 5 in the Oldndaft's images album
ImgBB · ibb.co

https://i.ibb.co/BK7c0bMh/Screenshot-20260626-124700-Outlook-6.jpg

Hopefully you can access the response emails attached
« Last Edit: Today at 01:23:26 pm by OldNDaft »