What the hell is this? Pay or ignore?

[S11Steve]

The advantage you have here is that VCS will never take one of these "No stopping" charges to court, as they know they are on a sticky wicket. If/when the court finds in the motorists favour, every parking forum will be using it as an example for other similar cases.

The other advantage you have is that these tickets are not issued under POFA 2012 (do you see any mention of that on the document, and do you see any threat that the keeper "will" be held liable, or just a note that they "may" be pursued on the assumption that they are the driver?

I'd write back under the guise of keeper but stating that you need more proof that a valid contract was formed with the driver, before you consider your options.

VCS tend to pick the "low hanging fruit" - if you put up a valid argument, they habitually drop the charge and chase one of the other shmucks for their easy £100.

[Tom_C76]

RWD cossie wil said:

It's bloody dangerous IMHO, the amount of accidents caused by tired drivers is huge, there are Gov sponsored ad campaigns about not driving tired, the motorway matrix signs often say take a break, or don't drive tired etc, but if you dare to have a kip at a services, you get hit with a stupid "parking charge notice"

These things need banning ASAP much like clamping.

You can have a kip at the services. You just need to pay their (not unreasonable) parking charges.

There's an easy way to avoid having to charge over to Pepipoo every week. Don't ignore the rules on private land...

[S11Steve]

Tom_C76 said:

You can have a kip at the services. You just need to pay their (not unreasonable) parking charges.

There's an easy way to avoid having to charge over to Pepipoo every week. Don't ignore the rules on private land...

I personally don't tend to ignore the rules, but the drivers of the fleet I manage are not so considerate.

But what if the rules are contrary to consumer protection legislation? What if the rules are deliberately obtuse, or what if the rules are written in such a way that they are effectively entrapment?
The site where the OP received their ticket is notorious for issuing invoices to people who stop simply to read the "parking" rules, and move on. They still get an invoice for stopping to read the terms of the no stopping sign.

I could go on, but I've got a couple of POPLA appeals to submit today and I have my 100% record to maintain...

[carreauchompeur]

Tom_C76 said:

You can have a kip at the services. You just need to pay their (not unreasonable) parking charges.

There's an easy way to avoid having to charge over to Pepipoo every week. Don't ignore the rules on private land...

Parking I agree with, sometimes, but this is a bridge too far. Stopping fines? Oh do fk off.

[Boosted LS1]

spikyone said:

I would suggest a couple of things:
First up, remove anything that identifies the car from your picture - your registration and the photo of the car, and anything that suggests who may have been driving.
Secondly, get yourself over to the MSE forums for proper advice, however post #19 of this thread has several magic bullets to help you make this go away. In short, the letter VCS have sent is not compliant with POFA 2012 so they can only pursue the driver (hence the need to remove anything identifying the driver from the OP), and they can't issue a parking charge where parking was prohibited entirely, since it's trespass rather than a parking issue (no offer of contract = no breach of contract).

Some will suggest ignoring this, but whilst VCS don't currently do court, they have up to 6 years from the date of the event should they change their mind (or the law is "clarified" in their favour in future - the infamous Beavis case led to several companies dragging up old parking tickets), so it is far safer to kill it off properly now. You might have seen recent news of people ending up with CCJs for historic private parking issues that they knew nothing about until they couldn't get a mortgage. That would only happen under very specific circumstances but why take the risk?

Crikey, top marks to that judge.

[Fort Jefferson]

Quattromaster said:

speedyguy said:

http://moto-way.com/contact-us/
Why on earth would you stay over 4 hours?

He arrived around 1am and left just after 4am,

That's only 3 hours.

[BlueHave]

Even the reason reads like a jobsworth wrote it - Stopping on a roadway were stopping is prohibited.

[anonymous-user]

Fort Jefferson said:

Quattromaster said:

speedyguy said:

http://moto-way.com/contact-us/
Why on earth would you stay over 4 hours?

He arrived around 1am and left just after 4am,

That's only 3 hours.

Quattromaster said:

he stopped in services for just over four hrs

I just quoted Mr Quattro's post

The services all give 2 hours and maybe a 'bit of leeway' but they don't have to give anything over 2 hours what they do as private businesses is up to them.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 16th September 18:07

[TooMany2cvs]

carreauchompeur said:

Parking I agree with, sometimes, but this is a bridge too far. Stopping fines? Oh do fk off.

The concept of red routes is a new one? They've only been around for a quarter of a century. And that's before we consider clearways.

I have absolutely no idea how well this is signed - and, yes, red lines would be a good idea if it really IS no stopping - but the concept's hardly alien.

[Mr Snrub]

Should have parked your car on the runway and unfurled a #blacklivesmatter banner, you would have gotten a lesser punishment

[jazzybee]

speedyguy said:

The services all give 2 hours and maybe a 'bit of leeway' but they don't have to give anything over 2 hours what they do as private businesses is up to them.

Usually also give you the option to pay a small fee for additional hours also.

[anonymous-user]

jazzybee said:

Usually also give you the option to pay a small fee for additional hours also.

Yeah but everyone wants everything for free and it's dangerous only allowing 2 hours according to many who drive 100's of miles before stopping a couple of miles from their house all 'tired' ffs

[caelite]

Out of curiosity how are 'NO STOPPING' signs enforcible on a moral/safety ground? As previous posters have pointed out with the ongoing campaigns about driving well tired you should be allowed to stop in areas like this for a short period of time, provided you are with the vehicle (i.e not parking). There is also a medical argument. I have one of many conditions which require me to potentially stop during a drive for 15 minutes or so to avoid passing out/being impaired (Diabetic guidelines for hypoglyceamia mandate you stop driving if you encounter low sugar to allow yourself to stabilise).

Honestly how could you argue against that in court?
Faceless company vs Young man who stopped safely on a piece of private land for 15 minutes to avoid passing out behind the wheel and killing himself/someone else.

st like this disgusts me.

[carreauchompeur]

TooMany2cvs said:

carreauchompeur said:

Parking I agree with, sometimes, but this is a bridge too far. Stopping fines? Oh do fk off.

The concept of red routes is a new one? They've only been around for a quarter of a century. And that's before we consider clearways.

I have absolutely no idea how well this is signed - and, yes, red lines would be a good idea if it really IS no stopping - but the concept's hardly alien.

You've missed the point. Red routes, clearways set up in areas of need by the ACTUAL GOVERNMENT?

Yes.

Dick Turpinesque private companies setting up their own rules on clearly deserted roads, completely misusing contract/trespass laws to 'enforce' them? Utter bullst. What's next, on the spot 'fines' for pedestrians crossing said roads?

[TooMany2cvs]

carreauchompeur said:

Dick Turpinesque private companies setting up their own rules on clearly deserted roads

You don't like the way they manage their land? Don't use their land.

[speedking31]

PurpleMoonlight said:

What is a layby thing?

The charge notice claims the road was private property. What signage is present when entering?

This.

[Rob-C]

speedking31 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

What is a layby thing?

The charge notice claims the road was private property. What signage is present when entering?

This.

OP's photo shows him parked in the unfinished side turning off De Havilland drive, in the gap between the two sets of double yellows,

here

Not on the airport site and not obviously in anything other than a currently disused space. If parking enforcement here is a contractual agreement that applies to every square inch of land on the whole industrial estate, then what exactly do the double yellows (and critically the unmarked spaces between them) indicate?

[ILoveMondeo]

PurpleMoonlight said:

What is a layby thing?

The charge notice claims the road was private property. What signage is present when entering?

None that I saw... but that's not to say there wasn't any.

"layby thing"...

It's an entrance road, to a bit of the business park that hasn't been build, essentially a "stub" of a junction, enough to fit 4-5 cars in easily, with a bunch of huge concrete blocks to stop caravans getting on the open ground I guess.

No double yellows where I was parked. no road markings at all.

[ILoveMondeo]

Rob-C said:

speedking31 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

What is a layby thing?

The charge notice claims the road was private property. What signage is present when entering?

This.

OP's photo shows him parked in the unfinished side turning off De Havilland drive, in the gap between the two sets of double yellows,

here

Not on the airport site and not obviously in anything other than a currently disused space. If parking enforcement here is a contractual agreement that applies to every square inch of land on the whole industrial estate, then what exactly do the double yellows (and critically the unmarked spaces between them) indicate?

Thank you, yes, that's exactly where I was.

[ILoveMondeo]

TooMany2cvs said:

You parked somewhere you shouldn't, on private land. Same as any other private parking "fine".

Not sure about it being a camera van, not with that bit of streetlight in the first pic - fixed camera on a building.

100% a van, taken from the middle of the road, and it says "mobile enforcement vehicle" in the letter!

The point is I had absolutely no idea it was somewhere I "shouldn't" park, I didn't park on double yellows and there were no other signs in the area.. perhaps there was one at the entrance to the park?