Aren't the Byelaws available here? https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/corporate/about-us/our-policies/

Congratulations! Another VCS spanking. Loved the write up of the hearing

Congratulations on your victory! Feels good I'm sure. Simon gets another spanking

The Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022 could be relevant here. It says: "Where land is governed by byelaws, those byelaws cannot legally be set aside unless specific provision is made to do so, hence it is important that parking operators do not confuse the enforcement of byelaws with the contractual application of parking charges." Ambreen can be put to strict proof that such specific provisions had been made to legally set the Byelaws aside. Of course, Ambreen won't be in court and there will be no such proof. She tried the same arguments in a case I was involved in but VCS were so confident of their case that no one even dialled in for the remote hearing. Case dismissed!!

Well done! Great result. Showed them up for the clowns they are. No surprise that the judge focussed on the signage at that site even though you also had plenty of other winning arguments.

Well the sign in scan 8 is almost certainly not there. So they can be put to strict proof on that. The others nicely show how they can't be read by a driver without stopping as they are low and perpendicular to the road.

If you could also upload the beginning of the witness statement that would be helpful. Also, what they show in terms of signs in the exhibits can also be useful. VCS are not always accurate/truthful. I am very familiar with the signs at the airport site and their inadequacy. They sometimes claim signs that were not actually there or that the signs say something they clearly don't.

Is there a beginning to the WS? Were exhibits provided? What is shown is clearly focussing on only one aspect of the defence i.e. the claimed contract, so evidence of adequate signage is key. It is interesting to note what they omit to address in this statement. Byelaws being one along with lack of standing I would not call this an ambush. A skeleton argument sent the evening before the case would be an ambush. Happened in my case but they still lost.

Thanks BN. Interesting pre-POFA background. I can assure you that, in the fairly recent VCS case I am familiar with, they asserted that their PCN was POFA compliant (it wasn't). However, they did hedge their bets and also tried to assert that the keeper was probably the driver. I do note that the notice in PersonS's case the notice wording is varied from what I have seen before. Firstly, the notice is just a Charge Notice rather than Parking Charge Notice. All references to Contravention Event/Time/Reason have been replaced. Furthermore, VCS don't refer to being able to pursue the keeper. VCS have also increased their unicorn food tax from £60 to £70.

In addition to what LFI has said, I think that VCS themselves are ruling out using POFA to transfer liability to the keeper. In their Important Information section VCS state that they "may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption that you were the driver". There are plenty of defences against this assumption. Including the new Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022 "Operators must not when pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge."

A word salad indeed BN. No judge should fall for this. The previous case I referred to had a witness statement written more than a year ago. These same old cases and arguments about hotel porters etc appeared there. Unconvincing then and still unconvincing now.

These cut and paste arguments from Ambreen also appeared in a case I was involved in (and won!). I barely bothered to address them in the defence as I could not see how the points being made were that relevant to the defence case. In 6, Ambreen just seems to be claiming this is private land. I don't think this is contended. In 7, she seems to be arguing that there is no automatic right of access. This is also not really a point of contention. In 8, she is claiming that the claimant is within their rights to devise a scheme that determines who can access their property and on what basis. This also does not seem to be contentious. In 10, it is then a great leap to claim that the above then means that byelaws are arbitrary. From the Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022: "where land is governed by byelaws, those byelaws cannot legally be set aside unless specific provision is made to do so, hence it is important that parking operators do not confuse the enforcement of byelaws with the contractual application of parking charges." Ambreen seems to be deliberately and disingenuously conflating these two things. In 11, there seems to be a repeat of 8 i.e. the landowner can determine who enters their land and introduce T&Cs. Whether the T&Cs have been accepted, whether there is a contract, if the charges are fair etc are all valid points of contention for the defendant though. As for 12, Ambreen seems to be arguing that the defendant is claiming that the byelaws somehow negate the rights of a landowner to control access to private land. I am sure that claim in not being made. Whether the landowner imposes other terms and conditions is not relevant to the defence that POFA does not apply as the land is not relevant as Byelaws are in place.

This story is interesting but does not seem to have been picked up by many news outlets. Maybe because the ICO had not publicised the outcome of its DVLA investigation? Parking fines: DVLA breached law over sharing drivers’ details | DVLA | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Agency could face compensation claims after data watchdog rules it... It looks like there are mixed views as to whether any drivers affected will be able to benefit from this.

On your point 5, this seems to give credence to the claimant using POFA for Stopping Events. POFA only relates to Parking and Stopping is not Parking. As the new Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022 makes clear, POFA envisaged circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. Further, from Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022: parked/parking = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle) stopped = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain at rest whilst in the course of driving

They may try to address those 4 points through skeleton arguments to be sent much closer to the court date. Be aware that VCS have also been known to try and introduce new "evidence" along with these skeletons. Any judge should see through this.