DVLA Stanstead Airport Relevant land enquiry

[nightnajjers]

 

As a result of my run in with VCS over the no stopping event at Southend Airport. I wrote to DVLA and asked them why they are giving out driver details to the likes of VCS when an alleged contravention took place on non relevant land. I was not happy with the answer provided, which was,  you won the case so what are you complaining about. They advised that VCS had reasonable cause to make a request for keeper details.

On 8^th Feb this year I replied and said they may have had reasonable cause but as I saw things they did not have authority to make that request, as Southend Airport is not relevant land. No answer came back until I chased them last week, the following is the reply received this week:
 

“It would seem that vehicle parking or waiting is no longer covered within the most recent published byelaws issued by London Southend Airport in 2021. This would therefore enable keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to be used by the car parking management company Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

The relevant section can be found in section 5 of the byelaws which provides information on prohibited acts on part of the airport to which the road traffic enactments do not apply. These can be accessed via the following link:- SLSA Airsid21042713230 (londonsouthendairport.com)

The DVLA cannot determine liability when dealing with requests for information. Under the regulations, the DVLA discloses keeper information as a first point of contact to help investigate where liability might lie”.

I would appreciate your thoughts before I reply.

As I see it what is in the byelaws is immaterial, the fact remains that Airport land is not relevant?

[lookinforinfo]

You are never going to get the DVLA to admit they are wrong.

With that being said your theory is incorrect since the land that the parking rogues monitor is controlled land rather than relevant land. Controlled land is private land that a contract has been established by the land owner  and one of the parking rogues. Then parking charge notices can be issued legally where motorists have breached the terms on that land regardless of the land being relevant land or not .

The difference is that with relevant land the keeper is never liable for the charge only the driver can be pursued. As the Law is that where a possible breach has occurred the DVLA are permitted to send the keepers details to the rogues even when the PCN was issued on relevant land. If the DVLA believe that there was reasonable cause for the ticket to be issued, then they have to send the keeper's details.

Even with the new Government Private Parking Code  S8.1.1 "If the notice of parking charge is not being issued under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it must not reference them."

Usually therefore when the rogues are asking the keeper for the driver's name instead of saying that if it is not provided within a certain time then they have the right to pursue the keeper, they say that they have the right to pursue the keeper on the grounds that the driver and the keeper are the same person.

Completely ignoring the fact that Courts do not accept the the driver and the keeper are the same person. But that has nothing to do with the DVLA as they were correct is sending out the keeper's details through the  reasonable cause assessment.

 

[nightnajjers]

Thanks for that which clears it up somewhat . In  my case it  was a no stopping incident on the Airport access road subject to the RTA  and apparently not controlled by VCS.

[lookinforinfo]

The DVLA have to take a certain amount on trust when the rogues are asking for motorists data.That trust is sometimes misplaced but here the DVLA do not know the area of land covered by VCS  and they would not be expected to look at every incoming enquiry to see if the road was covered by the RTA.

The Judge decided the signage wasn't good enough so the RTA question did not arise.Another Judge might not have agreed that the signage was poor and found another reason to cancel the ticket. If you want to pursue VCS one way would be to see if VCS have lost there because of the poor signage.

Another alternative is to write a letter to them pointing out the number of reasons why they hadn't a hope in hell of winning and say that you are minded to take them to Court. If you are sure that where you were parked was not covered by the landowners contract that would be a damning claim and would call into question their ability to get DVLA data as well as being possibly fraudulent.

A third way would be to write to Southend airport board asking them to kindly confirm if the road you parked on was covered by their contract with VCS. You never know how they will reply. Perhaps they are unhappy with VCS and the amount of publicity they are getting and people writing to them to complain. They are quite difficult to get rid of once they have a contract so your query might be a catalyst.

PS if you check Southend airport parking fines  you will find many cases including your own and one or two of those may have won on the signage too though it would need to be fairly recent cases as they might have changed their signs since then.

Edited July 5, 2023 by lookinforinfo

[nightnajjers]

Thank you for you advice. As I think you are correct the DVLA complaint is pretty much a done deal. I think that a few lines to the Airport would not go amiss. The area in question is definitley an area of road that the public have access to, the parking area is defin separate from the access road.

As you say It might stir up a bit of trouble for VCS which would be very much to my liking.