This is the email response by vcs through ias appeals.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 03/07/2026 10:19:14.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 19/05/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 19/05/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
1. Norwich Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of use. The VCS signage onsite, at the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state ‘No Stopping, Picking Up or Dropping Off'. The signage clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100 if they contravene these Terms and Conditions.
2. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be observed and the entrances and throughout the site. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk security areas, which are always on a high level security alert status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the approach roads.
4. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport approach roads and, due to growing congestion caused by vehicles stopping and blocking lanes. The subsequent congestion has created safety risks for other motorists and potential costly delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the Airport. This CN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on a private road running alongside a busy international airport. Any vehicles obstructing the roads, no matter for how long can cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol, manage and enforce on the access roads where stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs.
5. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982, we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant, as registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and we support this by the knowledge the appellant has in relation to the circumstances ("events of the day") in relation to this Charge Notice. Furthermore, the appellant does not deny know who the driver is. Until and unless evidence to the contrary is presented, we will continue to hold the appellant liable for the charge as the driver at the time.
6. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver.
7. The CCTV footage we possess shows that the vehicle stopped on an access road which is designated by the landowner as a restricted area, where stopping is prohibited at all times.
8. A review of the footage shows the appellant's vehicle stopping to drop off a passenger.
9. This was not a suitable place to stop their vehicle to drop of a passenger and the motorist had no cause to believe they were authorised to do so without accepting liability for the charge. The airport has clearly signposted pick up and drop off facilities.
10. The appellant's position within the site can be observed in the supplied annotated overhead, which highlights the close proximity of the appellant's vehicle to VCS signage. Furthermore, to reach their stationary position the appellant would have driven past signs clearly advertising the No Stopping terms and conditions.
11. The contract between the motorist and VCS was formed upon entry to the site itself by the appellant. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of stopping a vehicle in a particular area, by implication a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop.
12. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of stopping a vehicle in a particular area, by implication a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to stop.
13. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land which they enter. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions.
14. A copy of our authority to enforce the no stopping terms and conditions on this site was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.
15. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given sufficient notice of the terms and conditions in place, the driver freely chose to stop their vehicle on a roadway where stopping is prohibited at all times, by doing so the appellant became liable for the charge which was lawfully issued.
16. By stopping in a zone where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
