Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ Liverpool JLA Letter of Claim received

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #1331689

Hi, I was wondering if anyone can assist. I've had advice from the facebook Fight Your Private Parking Invoice Page but now I've received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal threatening to take me to the County Court for an alleged 'parking offence' stopping in a prohibited zone at JLA.
I've responded to all VCS letters, this has now been passed to BW Legal who are saying pay £160 to avoid us taking you to Court. Advice all the way has been no way will this get to Court, but here I am being threatened with County Court.
Any advice/assistance would be greatly appreciated. As you can imagine I'm worried about this and thinking should payment have been made when the first letter came through the door with the £60 fine.
Thanking you in advance!

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 01:40
Post #1331700

JL AIRPORT ?

if BW take you to court it will be a first for this site , and the court will be full

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 07:32
Post #1331714

Theres a fighting fun set up for these airport tickets.
Bylaws apply, VCS know this, the airport know this, but the parasites are more profitable to them than the bylaws.

Itll not make court. BW Legal dont have authority to issue papers that we are aware of.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 08:45
Post #1331721

Until an actual claim arrives there's not a lot you can do. Threats are quite common, even with the least litigious PPC's.

Although, one day they may start a flurry - who knows...

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 09:09
Post #1331722

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58) *
Hi, I was wondering if anyone can assist. I've had advice from the facebook Fight Your Private Parking Invoice Page but now I've received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal threatening to take me to the County Court for an alleged 'parking offence' stopping in a prohibited zone at JLA.


Would you upload the 'Letter of Claim' from BW so that we can understand whether it needs a reply. We can then advise further. As I said in my response to your PM some more information is also needed.

You say above that it was a 'parking' offence. any defence should one be necessary (and take heart since if it's a stopping offence none have yet come to court as far as is known),would be somewhat different to that needed for an alleged 'stopping' offence. Would you upload the original charge notice suitably redacted so that it doesn't contain any identifying details, (ref no, car reg, your name address ...etc).

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 10:05
Post #1331731

If the letter is headed ‘Letter of Claim’, as opposed to ‘Letter Before Claim’, then I think they are playing with words to disguise its real status.

If it is headed ‘Letter Before Claim’, the BWL are required to provide you with a plethora of information, as per the new Pre-action Protocol’ (PaP) - read this link so you know what you should have received with a formal LBC.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

When we see a scan of the letter, we can advise on what action, if any, you should take.

When did the ‘stopping contravention’ take place?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07
Post #1331762

Even i it does not say "letter before claim", if there is a threat to isssue proceedings without further notice, you are entitled to class it as a letter before claim, and accordingly it MUST comply with the new PAP for debt claims.

Posted by: bobthesod Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:34
Post #1331771

Webster

Just follow the advice of the guys on here

Lynnzer, Gan, hcanderson,Schoolrunmum.nosterferum DancingDad are among the ones who write a lot of sense

As has been said the court would be full


Posted by: Jlc Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:47
Post #1331777

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07) *
Even i it does not say "letter before claim", if there is a threat to isssue proceedings without further notice, you are entitled to class it as a letter before claim, and accordingly it MUST comply with the new PAP for debt claims.

I like that, I would treat the threat as 'real' and respond to them to request the necessary Pre-Action Protocol information to narrow the dispute. Read https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

Posted by: Spudandros Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 12:42
Post #1331794

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07) *
Even i it does not say "letter before claim", if there is a threat to isssue proceedings without further notice, you are entitled to class it as a letter before claim, and accordingly it MUST comply with the new PAP for debt claims.

I like that, I would treat the threat as 'real' and respond to them to request the necessary Pre-Action Protocol information to narrow the dispute. Read https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf


I'm on that Facebook page and have seen this post. It appears they have sent the full banana. It includes the Annexe 1 information and reply forms so seems to be compliant with new PAP. The OP has kept up a dialogue with VCS pointing out bylaws apply and no keeper liability. They responded with the usual Elliott vs Loake guff and now the LoC. The LoC also says if payment or a response is not received, they are instructed to issue CC claim without further reference. Maybe the OP should upload copies with his details redacted.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 13:38
Post #1331807

..and of course we still need to know whether we're discussing a parking or stopping offence....

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 14:05
Post #1331813

@OP - can you confirm that it was specifically LJLA and not the nearby Business Park where stopping cases have pursued through the court. Peel Holdings own both LJLA and the BP.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 17:27
Post #1331880

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 14:05) *
@OP - can you confirm that it was specifically LJLA and not the nearby Business Park where stopping cases have pursued through the court. Peel Holdings own both LJLA and the BP.


I've just re-read post #1 and it does appear it is indeed LJLA and that it's a stopping offence although the words "parking offence" are also used.
@webster. Please upload the charge notice and the BW legal letter. Redacted of course.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:48
Post #1331956

Hi all, thanks for your responses. I'm in the process of scanning the documents and I may have to post the letter of Claim tomorrow as I've left it at work! I'll attempt from the pictures I took on my mobile but they may not be too clear! I just wanted to respond as didn't want people to think I've posted and then just ignoring you all!!

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 22:14
Post #1331962

Umkomaas - stopping offence occurred on the 17th March 2017, also it was LJLA that the alleged offence took place. NTK states Stopping in a Zone where Stopping is Prohibited, and refers to the 'period of parking'.
I'm just trying to fathom out how to upload documents!! I'm not very savvy about what to do?!?! I'll sort asap, but may be after work tomorrow when I can just get them all posted up at the same time! thanks again

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:50
Post #1332007

How to post pictures:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=16

There's a massive popcorn factory in Lark Lane with hundreds of staff on standby waiting to swing into action and make a killing when the first actual VCS court claim happens in respect of JL Airport!

Posted by: Umkomaas Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 11:18
Post #1332027

I wonder if this is the start of a new BWL/SRS strategy of pushing people up to the wire, but never letting one case be actually defended in court - following the current CEL model? Just read a similar approach by BWL/VCS in Scotland!

Counterclaiming could be the way forward if this is to be the new modus op for LJLA (and elsewhere).

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 13:24
Post #1332066

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 11:18) *
I wonder if this is the start of a new BWL/SRS strategy of pushing people up to the wire, but never letting one case be actually defended in court - following the current CEL model? Just read a similar approach by BWL/VCS in Scotland!

Counterclaiming could be the way forward if this is to be the new modus op for LJLA (and elsewhere).


I was having a similar thought.
Is it possible to counterclaim before a court action is commenced by VCS and what would be the basis of the counterclaim?
Presumably any legal action made prior to an actual court action by VCS would have to be a completerly separate and independent claim in its own right?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 13:43
Post #1332072

It wouldnt be a counterclaim. It would be a claim
Harassment and DPA breach are the best ones.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 10:20
Post #1332255

@Webster
Have you worked out yet how to upload those documents. It's particularly important that you upload the last letter and the others stuff that spudandros mentioned so that we can comment.

If it is indeed a letter before action it is in your own interests to acknowledge it just in case this matter does indeed see the light of day in court. It's extremely unlikely but if it should happen then you don't want to give the judge any reason to find you have been unreasonable, and ignoring solicitors letters like this risks that.

Posted by: bama Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 13:25
Post #1332297

+1

An LBC for a (putative) Byelaw matter should be v.interesting

Posted by: webster1 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 22:19
Post #1332426

Hi, I'm just scanning the last letters now after a failed attempt last night. I received another letter today to the last one that I replied to that BW legal may not have seen before sending me the letter before claim. This letter worries me!! I've left my replies in work and didn't get chance to retrieve them today so Ii'll post the last couple of letters from BW and the NTK....hang fire (I'm honestly not as incompetent as I'm clearly making myself look on this site!!)

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 09:55
Post #1332465

Can anyone view the attachments I've put up, I'm not sure I've done it right and I can't see where there are? I'm very sorry i'm struggling with getting the documents up unsure.gif

Posted by: ostell Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 10:12
Post #1332471

Post your photos on a photo hosting site then post the link on here. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=16

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 10:16
Post #1332472

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 09:55) *
Can anyone view the attachments I've put up, I'm not sure I've done it right and I can't see where there are? I'm very sorry i'm struggling with getting the documents up unsure.gif



Or simply open a post, look immeditely underneath for the 'Attachment Editor' area (make sure it says you have sufficient space left to upload a picture) and navigate to the file with the Choose File button and then UPLOAD it.

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 10:32
Post #1332477

.......I'm sorry I know you must be rolling your eyes at me. Do you mean start a new post, cause I can't find anything that says attachment Editor on this post. I'm really sorry but the more I'm trying the more I seem to be getting no where with it. I'll have to get someone to help me with this a I'm getting more stressed with it than the actual threat of court at the min!! I'll have to do this tomorrow now once I've got some help! Thanks

Posted by: Umkomaas Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 11:14
Post #1332487

QUOTE
Do you mean start a new post, cause I can't find anything that says attachment Editor on this post.

No.

Just click on the button ‘Add Reply’ which is immediately below the last post on this thread. Below the box where you type your text you will find the ‘Attachment Editor’ (you may just have to scroll down the page a bit if you’re using a phone or a tablet to view in order to see it).

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 20:19
Post #1332595

I scan and use TinyPic, then copy and paste the [img] tag into a post.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 09:57
Post #1332877

I have uploaded the attachments! Could you let me know if you can view them. I have done this in Attachment Editor!
I need to send my reply off this week to the Letter Before Claim.
Thanks

Posted by: Umkomaas Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 11:40
Post #1332918

Well if they believe that to be a formal ‘Letter Before Claim’ (although perhaps misleadingly titled ‘Letter of Claim’), they are required to provide you with a whole raft of information as a result of the new Pre-action Protocol (PaP). As a legal firm they should know of its requirements and it should not be an individual who is not legally qualified or advised to be pointing this out to them - as I’m sure you will be once you’ve read the requirements of the PaP.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 11:59
Post #1332926

They have sent some forms I've just not been able to post everything up as I'm still struggling to sort it! There is a reply section indicating if I dispute the claim, Admit to the Claim and then a box to say I require further information. I'm sure that another member has said that it does comply with the Pre-action Protocol. I've had another letter, they must have rescieved my response from a previous letter, prior to them sending out the Letter of Claim, which I will just have to type up as i'll not get in on in time otherwise! I do apologise for this!


Another member stated "It appears they have sent the full banana. It includes the Annexe 1 information and reply forms so seems to be compliant with new PAP. The OP has kept up a dialogue with VCS pointing out bylaws apply and no keeper liability. They responded with the usual Elliott vs Loake guff and now the LoC. The LoC also says if payment or a response is not received, they are instructed to issue CC claim without further reference"


Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 12:47
Post #1332956

Assuming they have indeed sent ALL the stuff in the link to the PAP that Umkomaas mentioned in #30 then I'd be inclined to tick Box D and explain that the reasons for disputing the debt are

1. Bylaws are in existence at LJLA - as confirmed in written answers in the House of Lords and other correspondence from the Minister responsible (I have a copy should you ever need it)

2. Given the bylaws this is not a contractual matter. If anything it's a breach of trespass which should be prosecuted in a Magistrates Court and not the Civil Small Claims Court.

3. Notwithstanding 1 & 2 even if it was an alleged contractual matter the signs cannot possibly offer a contract since they are
a) Forbidding signs.
b) Incapable of being read and completely understood when driving past at the 30 mph (?) speed limit since the number and font size of the words make this impossible

4.... any other relevant points that others may come up with

What have you previously said in correspondence with VCS / BW legal? I don't think we've seen any of that.

As others have said, if this comes to court this will be a first, there is a fighting fund available and tickets are already being sold for the public gallery.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 13:04
Post #1332967

.....second letter received 16th Nov..

....We write in reference to the above matter and your correspondence dated 4.11.17.
Our Client's claim is for the Balance and is in relation to monies (and legal expenses) owed pursuant to the PCN.

The PCN contravention took place on the 17 March 2017 at Liverpool John Lennon Airport 92the Site" where the vehicle bearing the registration number **** *** (the Vehicle") stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

The prohibition was clearly detailed on the signs along the roadway and by stopping in a prohibited area, the vehicle has contravened the prohibition and therefore you are liable for the Balance.

The Site is privately owned and there is no public right of way. the Landowners of the Site are entitled to introduce Terms and Conditions at the Site, as the Landowners have unqualified private rights to determine who, and on what terms, motorist can access its land.

It is Our Client's position that the Byelaws are therefore arbitrary. Peel Holdings position as a private landowner permits such a right by regulating who, and on what terms, motorist can access its land.

In order to prevent further costs from being incurred, we would be grateful if you would contact us within 7 days from the date of this letter to pay the Balance.

In the event you are unable to pay the Balance in full, please contact our helpful team.

We look forward to your prompt payment upon return.

In all other correspondence it has been stated that there are byelaws etc (advice from the fb page). I will get everything posted up asap with responses.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 13:22
Post #1332980

Would you confirm (as spudandros seemed to imply in #10) that you have received all the PAP stuff umkomaas mentioned in #30.

Just confirm one way or the other. Yes or No.

If you have was the covering letter that enclosed them dated before or after the 16th November 2nd letter you mention?
If before then it's somewhat odd that they have sent you the 2nd letter given that they have effectively started a claim with the PAP. I'd take heart from that since they may be trying a last roll of the dice and hoping to frighten you into caving in.
Let's hope they are reading this and realise that this will be fought to the end.

Of course it's VCS's position that the bylaws are arbitrary - whatever that may mean. LJLA have said on a few occasions that the the bylaws are obsolete, that doesn't mean they are. The bylaws have never been rescinded by Liverpool Council which would be necessary for any new bylaws to come into. existence.

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 13:49
Post #1332992

QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 13:04) *
The prohibition was clearly detailed on the signs along the roadway and by stopping in a prohibited area, the vehicle has contravened the prohibition and therefore you are liable for the Balance.

Note how they change from inanimate object to animate one without any explanation as to how the liability accrues?

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 13:53
Post #1332994

Yes I have received all the PaP info!



I received a letter from BW Legal dated the 27th October, which I replied to. Then the letter of claim came dated 9th Nov. The letter after this (which I have just posted) is dated 14th Nov . So I'm wondering if they have responded to my letter that I replied to from their letter on the 27th with the above letter that I've just posted and if it has kind of crossed over without them seeing my response that they've then just sent the Letter of Claim.

I do apologise for my long winded responses. I'm not in work until Wed when I can print off all my reply letters. Once I've done this I'll get them all copied and get someone to put it in a JPEG format so I can get it on here (I know I sound completely incompetent on this site, but honestly I'm not that bad!!!

Posted by: unicorn47 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 14:08
Post #1333002

You only need to fill in box "D" - I dispute the debt, and give the reasons why.

Box "I" - I need more info, and requesting all the paperwork they are relying on.

You have 30 days to fill in and send the form back.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 16:14
Post #1333061

Nice of them to confirm it is a prohibition and, therefore, cannot possibly be contractual.

Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:00
Post #1333094

Massive popcorn order placed!

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 18:48
Post #1333142

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:00) *
Massive popcorn order placed!


...... I would really rather not be the first one with this, with everyone scoffing their popcorn!!! wacko.gif

Posted by: unicorn47 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 19:20
Post #1333146

I've just read the Byelaws dated 1982, not sure if they are the latest.

Everything was written when it was run by the council.

The Airport currently say the prohibition was clearly detailed on the signage. The only mention in the Byelaws on signage is that of "traffic sign erected and displayed by the council".

Also the max permitted fine for breaching Byelaws is £100.00

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:29
Post #1333210

QUOTE (unicorn47 @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 19:20) *
I've just read the Byelaws dated 1982, not sure if they are the latest.

Everything was written when it was run by the council.

The Airport currently say the prohibition was clearly detailed on the signage. The only mention in the Byelaws on signage is that of "traffic sign erected and displayed by the council".

Also the max permitted fine for breaching Byelaws is £100.00


Yes the 1982 bylaws arre the latest. They have never been rescinded and have been confirmed by the Government as being IN FORCE.

Almost correct re the original writing. They were originallly drawn up by the then Merseyside County Council in 1962. These were subsequently rescinded in 1982 and re-introduced with many of the same clauses by Merseyside CC. These 1982 bylaws were taken over by Liverpool Council on re-organisation in 1986 when Merseyside Co. Council ceased to exist.

As has been pointed out use of the word prohibition by LJLA gives the game away. You can't prohibit a contract.

Finally note post #200 in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109259&st=180 LJLA have been trying to get new bylaws written since 2010 and you can sense the frustration the DfT have with LJLA in the DfT's FoI response to my FoI request.

Posted by: Catz3005 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 20:50
Post #1334274

What's going on here? I'm finding it difficult to believe this one. You have received all the PaP info?


Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 21:27
Post #1334297

QUOTE
The Site is privately owned and there is no public right of way.


''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport?

They even say ''the byelaws are arbitrary''... you couldn't make it up!

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #1334324

QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 18:48) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:00) *
Massive popcorn order placed!


...... I would really rather not be the first one with this, with everyone scoffing their popcorn!!! wacko.gif


We promise not to make too much noise.

On a serious note perhaps Lynzzer would respond with some indication of the amount pledged for the first of these to reach court. Some of it may need to be called in.

Posted by: Dave65 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:17
Post #1334327

Lynzzer doesn't seem to have posted for a long time !

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:26
Post #1334332

QUOTE (Dave65 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:17) *
Lynzzer doesn't seem to have posted for a long time !


Yes, I was just thinking that myself.....!!

Just spotted this http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116603

We can only hope he's making a good recovery.

Posted by: Steofthedale Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 00:03
Post #1335216

Given the date of the alleged infringement (March), I believe that there was no planning approval for the "no stopping" signs at that time.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:16
Post #1335743

Hi all, so today I've received another Letter Before Claim from VCS. States that " We write regarding the outstanding liability. This matter has now been passed to our Legal Department in order to recover the sum of £160 in respect of a PCN for breaching the Terms and Conditions situate3d at LJLA on 17 March. The jum sought is inclusive of a dert collection charge of £60 in accordance with the T&C of parking.

it goes on to state " Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful and as such we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will seek to claim our court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. Estimated total £193.

it provides the Annex 1 forms as BW Legal did and the reply form.

Wondering why they have sent it when already passed over to BW Legal and they have already sent me a Letter of Claim. They have also refer to me as Dear Sirs....last time I checked I wasn't a Sir!! What do people think of this?!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:28
Post #1335744

Does this comply with the new pre action protocol fir debt claims?
It can’t because of the 14 days time limit, for example.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:44
Post #1335749

QUOTE (Catz3005 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 20:50) *
What's going on here? I'm finding it difficult to believe this one. You have received all the PaP info?




Yes I appear to have received all the Pap info (well I think so anyway!!)

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:06
Post #1335755

QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 00:03) *
Given the date of the alleged infringement (March), I believe that there was no planning approval for the "no stopping" signs at that time.


It's correct that there was no ADVERTISING Consent until May 2017. However past history seems to show that this doesn't seem to carry any weight when it comes to matters contractual - certainly not as far as the courts are concerned.

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:11
Post #1335758

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:06) *
QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 00:03) *
Given the date of the alleged infringement (March), I believe that there was no planning approval for the "no stopping" signs at that time.


It's correct that there was no ADVERTISING Consent until May 2017. However past history seems to show that this doesn't seem to carry any weight when it comes to matters contractual - certainly not as far as the courts are concerned.

Or the Council for that matter.

What’s the point of a law if it can be broken and the enforcing authority can turn a blind eye with no recourse?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:21
Post #1335764

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:16) *
Hi all, so today I've received another Letter Before Claim from VCS. States that " We write regarding the outstanding liability. This matter has now been passed to our Legal Department in order to recover the sum of £160 in respect of a PCN for breaching the Terms and Conditions situate3d at LJLA on 17 March. The jum sought is inclusive of a dert collection charge of £60 in accordance with the T&C of parking.

it goes on to state " Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful and as such we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will seek to claim our court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. Estimated total £193.

it provides the Annex 1 forms as BW Legal did and the reply form.

Wondering why they have sent it when already passed over to BW Legal and they have already sent me a Letter of Claim. They have also refer to me as Dear Sirs....last time I checked I wasn't a Sir!! What do people think of this?!



Reply to it, definitely follow reasonably and in a timely manner, your side of what is required of a potential defendant at this stage.

I would ask VCS:

- why you have received two different LBCs, one for BW Legal and one from them, both saying different things, so that not only are the reply dates ambiguous and compromised, but the so-called cause of action is different in BW Legal's version than in VCS' version.

- Why did BW Legal say there is ''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport? Do VCS have evidence that this is the case (ask for documentary proof, including maps dated & counter-signed by the Airport, showing designated roads, the boundaries marked out, and proof of private ownership of the roads).

- As for an explanation of BW Legal's response suggesting that ''the byelaws are arbitrary'' because that is clearly not the case according to this FOI request correspondence, and as such this is not 'relevant land' (as defined in the POFA 2012 Schedule 4) at all:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/liverpool_airport_byelaws_and_re

- A full copy (including any Annexes, Schedules or updates) of VCS' contract from the Airport, that they intend to rely upon at any hearing.

- Copies of all photographs taken and all letters issued (front and back).

- An explanation of whether they are pursuing you under the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and if not, on what basis are they alleging liability rests with you, the registered keeper?*


And anything else other posters suggest you ask for, that you haven't already got.





*assuming you've never said who was driving (I had not time to read the entire thread again).

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:28
Post #1335767

[quote name='nosferatu1001' date='Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:28' post='1335744']
Does this comply with the new pre action protocol fir debt claims?
It can’t because of the 14 days time limit, for example.
[/quote

It says 30 days to reply from the date at the top of the letter, which will take it to 28th December. however I have until around the 10th December for the reply to BW Legal. I've received two Letters of Claim now!! One from BW and the other from VCS! Confusing!!


Thanks SchoolRunMum!!

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:55
Post #1335780

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:16) *
Hi all, so today I've received another Letter Before Claim from VCS. States that " We write regarding the outstanding liability. This matter has now been passed to our Legal Department in order to recover the sum of £160 in respect of a PCN for breaching the Terms and Conditions situate3d at LJLA on 17 March. The jum sought is inclusive of a dert collection charge of £60 in accordance with the T&C of parking.

it goes on to state " Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful and as such we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will seek to claim our court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. Estimated total £193.

it provides the Annex 1 forms as BW Legal did and the reply form.

Wondering why they have sent it when already passed over to BW Legal and they have already sent me a Letter of Claim. They have also refer to me as Dear Sirs....last time I checked I wasn't a Sir!! What do people think of this?!


I wonder if the words
"we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings."
and
"Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings"
and
"If we are forced to issue court proceedings to"

Are a substantial letter before a (certain) claim, or just a last throw of the dice in an attempt to scare someone into paying.

...and TicketMaster seems to have sold out of seats for this one.

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:04
Post #1335784

Notice how the deadline period straddles Christmas. Typical PPC ploy to exert additional pressure at a time when most are stressed.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:17
Post #1335788

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:21) *
Reply to it, definitely follow reasonably and in a timely manner, your side of what is required of a potential defendant at this stage.

I would ask VCS:

- Why did BW Legal say there is ''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport? Do VCS have evidence that this is the case (ask for documentary proof, including maps dated & counter-signed by the Airport, showing designated roads, the boundaries marked out, and proof of private ownership of the roads).


I'd err with caution on that specific point. In granting Advertising Consent for the Red Rout signage leading to LJLA, Liverpool Council were keen to ensure that 10 metres of the approach road was clearly delineated from what they described as the Airport private roads' The official consent has as one of the conditions.

QUOTE
"The installation of the totems and tarmac road colouring hereby approved and detailed on drawing D161-100-001 Rev P6 shall be undertaken within 3 months from the date of this consent unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: These works are necessary to confirm to third parties that the signs to be retained are not Road Traffic signs and to avoid any confusion as such in the interests of Highway Safety


So LC cleary believe they ared private roads.

Not too sure about the statement that they are not Road Traffic signs since I've seen comments herabouts that the RT Regs. apply where the public are admitted.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:35
Post #1335791

Thanks SchoolRunMum!!

So I shouldn't raise that point then hexaflexagon?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:50
Post #1335796

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:35) *
Thanks SchoolRunMum!!

So I shouldn't raise that point then hexaflexagon?


Moot point. I don't see any problem with using SRM's first sentence. Although I'd probably ask that of BWL. In any case it sort of implies that you're wanting evidence anyway

But the last thing you want is for either BWL or VCS to go digging and find that Liverpool Council in particular regard them as private.

YMMV of course.

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 22:46
Post #1335826

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:55) *
...and TicketMaster seems to have sold out of seats for this one.


I got a ticket on Viagogo, but it cost me £3,500. huh.gif

I do agree that this smacks of desperation to me, I still don't think they have the bottle to attempt court. Their entire business plan could collapse and they probably make so much money from uneducated victims that its just not worth the risk to them.

Posted by: bama Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:43
Post #1335836

Any PPC who plays their hand such that the 'byelaw game' gets scrutinised in court surely risks a certain amount of errr, blowback from all the other PPCs who play the 'byelaw game'.

Posted by: Spudandros Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 09:17
Post #1339600

QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:43) *
Any PPC who plays their hand such that the 'byelaw game' gets scrutinised in court surely risks a certain amount of errr, blowback from all the other PPCs who play the 'byelaw game'.


Can someone explain this bylaw issue and why a PPC can't operate a private parking regime on land that is covered by bylaws?

I get the bit where it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, but what is it that stops the landowner leasing the land to a PPC to run a private parking over and above the bylaws that may be in place, given that its the landowners responsibilty to enforce the bylaws and, in other circumstances, landowners can authorise this? What is special about bylaws land that prevents this arrangement?

Posted by: kommando Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 09:28
Post #1339601

They could run it as a car park but there would be no keeper liability as it is not relevant land due to the bylaws so POFA 2012 does not apply, they would also need to form a contract with the driver for parking but signs cannot be read at speeds and stopping on a roadway is not parking, etc etc. There are other reasons but those are enough.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 09:33
Post #1339606

Because stopping isnt parking, and you cannot enter a contract when you cant even read the signs let alone decide to accept them without stopping the vehicle, the acct they claim means youve "agreed" to their bullshit contract.

The discussions on this go back a long way. go read up on them.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 11:02
Post #1339626

There's also the admittedly slightly more tortuous argument that one alleged offence could give rise to two punishments which would be inequitable.
A prosecution under the bylaws by Liverpool Council who are the 'owners of the by laws' and the PCN itself.

I realise that whilst all this may be largely theoretical and probably not much of an argument but in a court there'd be no harm in adding it as part of the defence.

Posted by: TheDisapprovingBrit Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:07
Post #1339705

QUOTE (Spudandros @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 09:17) *
QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:43) *
Any PPC who plays their hand such that the 'byelaw game' gets scrutinised in court surely risks a certain amount of errr, blowback from all the other PPCs who play the 'byelaw game'.


Can someone explain this bylaw issue and why a PPC can't operate a private parking regime on land that is covered by bylaws?

I get the bit where it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, but what is it that stops the landowner leasing the land to a PPC to run a private parking over and above the bylaws that may be in place, given that its the landowners responsibilty to enforce the bylaws and, in other circumstances, landowners can authorise this? What is special about bylaws land that prevents this arrangement?


As I understand it, there's nothing specifically preventing a landowner from operating a PPC arrangement when byelaws are in place, or even from running them both together. Your problem is that you can't offer a civil contract which allows people to commit a criminal offence. Since byelaws are criminal in nature, any behaviour which puts you in breach of them can't possibly be covered by a contract.

There's nothing particularly special about byelaws land in that regard, and it's entirely possible for them to be compatible - for example, if the byelaws say you can only park on designated land, then you can designate a car park as designated land and employ a PPC to operate on it. Anybody parking on it will be operating within the byelaws, but can still be subject to the PPC contract. However, byelaws will still apply, so keeper liability cannot be invoked.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:42
Post #1339717

QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:07) *
As I understand it, there's nothing specifically preventing a landowner from operating a PPC arrangement when byelaws are in place, or even from running them both together. Your problem is that you can't offer a civil contract which allows people to commit a criminal offence. Since byelaws are criminal in nature, any behaviour which puts you in breach of them can't possibly be covered by a contract.

There's nothing particularly special about byelaws land in that regard, and it's entirely possible for them to be compatible - for example, if the byelaws say you can only park on designated land, then you can designate a car park as designated land and employ a PPC to operate on it. Anybody parking on it will be operating within the byelaws, but can still be subject to the PPC contract. However, byelaws will still apply, so keeper liability cannot be invoked.


I like the school of thought.
We're drifiting a little away from the specifics of LJLA and the Stopping/Parking distinction, but nevertheless presumably if the bylaws were to say you can only park on designated land then the by laws would have to do the defining of what designated land means. And doesn't that then leave the conundrum that parking in contravention of both the bylaws and the PPC contract would mean potentially two actions, one a criminal bylaws offence and the other a civil conractual offence?

Just thinking out load really.....

Posted by: TheDisapprovingBrit Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 16:23
Post #1339760

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:42) *
QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:07) *
As I understand it, there's nothing specifically preventing a landowner from operating a PPC arrangement when byelaws are in place, or even from running them both together. Your problem is that you can't offer a civil contract which allows people to commit a criminal offence. Since byelaws are criminal in nature, any behaviour which puts you in breach of them can't possibly be covered by a contract.

There's nothing particularly special about byelaws land in that regard, and it's entirely possible for them to be compatible - for example, if the byelaws say you can only park on designated land, then you can designate a car park as designated land and employ a PPC to operate on it. Anybody parking on it will be operating within the byelaws, but can still be subject to the PPC contract. However, byelaws will still apply, so keeper liability cannot be invoked.


I like the school of thought.
We're drifiting a little away from the specifics of LJLA and the Stopping/Parking distinction, but nevertheless presumably if the bylaws were to say you can only park on designated land then the by laws would have to do the defining of what designated land means. And doesn't that then leave the conundrum that parking in contravention of both the bylaws and the PPC contract would mean potentially two actions, one a criminal bylaws offence and the other a civil conractual offence?

Just thinking out load really.....


Bear in mind that a contractual parking charge is always based on an invitation to do something. It doesn't really mean "No Parking - £100 charge", it actually means "Parking available here - £100".

It's like me telling you that if you pay me £100 you can shoot your wife. I have no authority to allow you to break the law, so my offer is meaningless. Same thing here. If the byelaws say "No stopping on this road" then a contract can't possibly offer you the right to stop on the road.

It might well be possible for there to be some overlap where both the byelaws and the contract are breached, but since VCS would much prefer to ignore the byelaws altogether, we're probably straying too far off topic to go into it here.

Posted by: Spudandros Mon, 18 Dec 2017 - 18:49
Post #1340662

QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:42) *
QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Thu, 14 Dec 2017 - 14:07) *
As I understand it, there's nothing specifically preventing a landowner from operating a PPC arrangement when byelaws are in place, or even from running them both together. Your problem is that you can't offer a civil contract which allows people to commit a criminal offence. Since byelaws are criminal in nature, any behaviour which puts you in breach of them can't possibly be covered by a contract.

There's nothing particularly special about byelaws land in that regard, and it's entirely possible for them to be compatible - for example, if the byelaws say you can only park on designated land, then you can designate a car park as designated land and employ a PPC to operate on it. Anybody parking on it will be operating within the byelaws, but can still be subject to the PPC contract. However, byelaws will still apply, so keeper liability cannot be invoked.


I like the school of thought.
We're drifiting a little away from the specifics of LJLA and the Stopping/Parking distinction, but nevertheless presumably if the bylaws were to say you can only park on designated land then the by laws would have to do the defining of what designated land means. And doesn't that then leave the conundrum that parking in contravention of both the bylaws and the PPC contract would mean potentially two actions, one a criminal bylaws offence and the other a civil conractual offence?

Just thinking out load really.....


Bear in mind that a contractual parking charge is always based on an invitation to do something. It doesn't really mean "No Parking - £100 charge", it actually means "Parking available here - £100".

It's like me telling you that if you pay me £100 you can shoot your wife. I have no authority to allow you to break the law, so my offer is meaningless. Same thing here. If the byelaws say "No stopping on this road" then a contract can't possibly offer you the right to stop on the road.

It might well be possible for there to be some overlap where both the byelaws and the contract are breached, but since VCS would much prefer to ignore the byelaws altogether, we're probably straying too far off topic to go into it here.


OK. Got it. Like your explanation - pay me £100 and you can shoot your wife.

Posted by: ThisIsFun Tue, 19 Dec 2017 - 11:21
Post #1340799

Hello All,

Just to say this seems to be the new tactic. I've received a "Letter of Claim" from bwl. Only difference is the airport.

I don't want to hijack this thread but to send support to the OP (who is a month ahead of me looking at the letter date) and my thanks for the information on what to ask for on the form. I will be sending back the reply form with information from this thread.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 19 Dec 2017 - 11:57
Post #1340803

QUOTE (ThisIsFun @ Tue, 19 Dec 2017 - 11:21) *
Hello All,

Just to say this seems to be the new tactic. I've received a "Letter of Claim" from bwl. Only difference is the airport.

I don't want to hijack this thread but to send support to the OP (who is a month ahead of me looking at the letter date) and my thanks for the information on what to ask for on the form. I will be sending back the reply form with information from this thread.


You might find it useful to start a new thread for your particular 'offence'. Where was it? Doncaster/Robbin Hood/Whatever it's called these days airport

Posted by: ThisIsFun Thu, 21 Dec 2017 - 17:55
Post #1341558

No I'm not sure what its proper name is. Not sure about “Robin Hood” as a name, “ King John” seems more appropriate!

I'll see how things progress at the start of next year and start my own thread if this new tactic does escalate.

At the moment I'm forgetting about this nonsense and will get on with Xmas / New Year.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:17
Post #1349934

Hi, I've received a letter from VCS today, hope you don't mind but i'll type it out as my uploading skills are atrocious! (I will try again to upload everything)

Dear.....

Outstanding Balance £160
Dates of Issue - 17/03/17 to 17/03/17

We write to you in relation to your correspondence dated 20.12.17

BW Legal was instructed to act on our behalf to recover the outstanding debt by way of debt recovery. However, as they have been unsuccessful, the matter has been transferred to ourselves in order to deal with the legal proceedings.

Your comments regarding byelaws do not apply to your case because the car park is privately owned. Further, terms and conditions were imposed on the land in order to control who can and cannot access the land and under what terms.

We trust that this clarifies matters.

Yours faithfully,


Name....
Paralegal
Vehicle Control Services
Litigation Department

Does anyone have any thoughts on this. I have to be honest I'm getting worried about it.

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:34
Post #1349942

Why should you be worried? So BWL have "transferred" the matter to ... VCS, who are the very people who issued the original charge. If they thought they had a case, would they really be bouncing it back and forth amongst themselves?

Also, as all the advice, and all other JLA threads, say, their excuses as to Byelaws are rubbish. They apply on the land in question, whether they are used or not. Therefore no POFA. And everyone says no JLA ticket has ever got anywhere near a court, as they know their whole house of cards will come crashing down if it's ever scrutinised by a judge.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:53
Post #1349948

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:17) *
Hi, I've received a letter from VCS today, hope you don't mind but i'll type it out as my uploading skills are atrocious! (I will try again to upload everything)

Dear.....

Outstanding Balance £160
Dates of Issue - 17/03/17 to 17/03/17

We write to you in relation to your correspondence dated 20.12.17

BW Legal was instructed to act on our behalf to recover the outstanding debt by way of debt recovery. However, as they have been unsuccessful, the matter has been transferred to ourselves in order to deal with the legal proceedings.

Your comments regarding byelaws do not apply to your case because the car park is privately owned. Further, terms and conditions were imposed on the land in order to control who can and cannot access the land and under what terms.

We trust that this clarifies matters.

Yours faithfully,


Name....
Paralegal
Vehicle Control Services
Litigation Department

Does anyone have any thoughts on this. I have to be honest I'm getting worried about it.


So in post #29 BW Legal said if you hadn't paid by...and then ommitted to insert a date they would commence legap proceedings without any further reference to you.

Now VCS are writing saying BWL were unsuccessful. Unsuccesful at what? Seemingly in the first instance unsuccesful at actually getting off their backsides and starting proceedings.

What do you think is happening? Does it look as though BWL and VCS are joined up and actually going to do anything. Of course not. This is all bluster. Whetever you say they'll ignore at best or just reject. You can't stop them switching on their word processor and churning out all sorts of standard paragraphs, (there's probably a random paragraph selector in operation).

Just reply saying their letter doesn't clarify anything at all and that you have nothing further to add to whatever you've said before and ileave it at that.

This is going nowhere near a court for all the reasons that have been explained here and elsewhere so sit back and relax.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:55
Post #1349950

QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 21:34) *
Why should you be worried? So BWL have "transferred" the matter to ... VCS, who are the very people who issued the original charge. If they thought they had a case, would they really be bouncing it back and forth amongst themselves?

Also, as all the advice, and all other JLA threads, say, their excuses as to Byelaws are rubbish. They apply on the land in question, whether they are used or not. Therefore no POFA. And everyone says no JLA ticket has ever got anywhere near a court, as they know their whole house of cards will come crashing down if it's ever scrutinised by a judge.


I'm just a bit of a worrier and the thought of costs escalating and having to go to Court over this makes me worry. I agree with you though about them sending it back to VCS and this gives some assurance. I think because not many had heard of the Letter of Claim being sent in relation to JLA before made me question as to whether they are feeling more confident about taking someone to Court. Thanks for your reply!

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:06
Post #1349958

Okay thanks for the advice Hexaflexagon! Much appreciated!

Posted by: Umkomaas Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:07
Post #1349963

QUOTE
I'm just a bit of a worrier and the thought of costs escalating and having to go to Court over this makes me worry.

Do you have a figure in mind, then we know how much it is that’s worrying you?

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:15
Post #1349965

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:07) *
QUOTE
I'm just a bit of a worrier and the thought of costs escalating and having to go to Court over this makes me worry.

Do you have a figure in mind, then we know how much it is that’s worrying you?


The current £160 is worrying me!!! Don't get me wrong I've stood up in Court on many occasions due to my job (unfortunately I'm not a solicitor!!), but being on the other side and just thinking that an initial £60 cost could escalate just makes me a little anxious! I'll keep the faith that I won't go to Court!

Posted by: Umkomaas Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:32
Post #1349981

You’d be the very first LJLA case ever to go to court from the thousands who are ignoring the bams - and there’s a substantial pledged fighting fund to provide legal support for the first cases - so the chances of you ‘being the one’ is as likely as you finding the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas jumping into bed with you on mid-Summer’s Day, or you winning tonight’s €77million Euro Million’s Lottery jackpot.

But if you do win €77m, you won’t be worrying too much ch about £160! smile.gif

Posted by: ostell Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:44
Post #1349992

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 22:15) *
The current £160 is worrying me!!! Don't get me wrong I've stood up in Court on many occasions due to my job (unfortunately I'm not a solicitor!!), but being on the other side and just thinking that an initial £60 cost could escalate just makes me a little anxious! I'll keep the faith that I won't go to Court!


This would be the small claims track where costs are severely limited. £25 for the court fee, £50 for the solicitor, and even that can be talked down often.

Posted by: Catz3005 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 09:43
Post #1350070

If it makes you feel any better I know of a Letter of Claim received over a year ago for stopping at LJL. When pushed about whether or not it was a Letter Before Action bw legal said it was "to engage in pre-action communication" and if legal proceedings came about then a Letter Before Action would be sent.
No LBA has been received.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:10
Post #1350162

As an aside there are reports of actual claims arriving now. It doesn't surprise me as many will fold regardless.

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:23
Post #1350169

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:10) *
As an aside there are reports of actual claims arriving now. It doesn't surprise me as many will fold regardless.


If this is true then discontinuance notices will be in abundance I suspect. They really don't want a judge looking at this mucky scheme.

Will a counterclaim prevent them from discontinuing?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:30
Post #1350173

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:23) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:10) *
As an aside there are reports of actual claims arriving now. It doesn't surprise me as many will fold regardless.


If this is true then discontinuance notices will be in abundance I suspect. They really don't want a judge looking at this mucky scheme.

Will a counterclaim prevent them from discontinuing?


What would the counterclaim be for?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:45
Post #1350179

Breach of the DPA, harassment would be obvious ones (former where the DVLA gave a keepers address)

The D must pay for the hearing if a claim is discontinued and the laimant hadnt paid a hearing fee already.

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 14:55
Post #1350181

As nosferatu says, possible DPA (obtaining Keeper details using KADOE for a non-parking event, using RK details to pursue RK where no RK liability exists) and harassment?

The intention is to get them in front of a judge, whereas their intention is probably just to scare people into paying prior to discontinuing the claims which are properly defended.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 17:55
Post #1350242

Hi all, just an update. On the Facebook Page Fight your Private Parking Invoice someone has been issued with Court papers from VCS for stopping at JLA!
(Sorry I didn't see the above comments!!!)

Posted by: ostell Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:04
Post #1350245

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 17:55) *
Hi all, just an update. On the Facebook Page Fight your Private Parking Invoice someone has been issued with Court papers from VCS for stopping at JLA!


But did the defendant out themselves as a driver? Can you find out.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:12
Post #1350252

QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 17:55) *
Hi all, just an update. On the Facebook Page Fight your Private Parking Invoice someone has been issued with Court papers from VCS for stopping at JLA!


But did the defendant out themselves as a driver? Can you find out.


Apparently not. A lady posted and her elderly father is the Registered Keeper. They appealed in June, unsure of what letters were sent, but think they posted on the FB page when they received the PCN, so imagine it was the standard letters citing byelaws. I'm keeping an eye on the responses, but she is about to go into hospital to have a baby and is unsure if her father will want to fight it.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 19:25
Post #1350277

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:12) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 17:55) *
Hi all, just an update. On the Facebook Page Fight your Private Parking Invoice someone has been issued with Court papers from VCS for stopping at JLA!


But did the defendant out themselves as a driver? Can you find out.


Apparently not. A lady posted and her elderly father is the Registered Keeper. They appealed in June, unsure of what letters were sent, but think they posted on the FB page when they received the PCN, so imagine it was the standard letters citing byelaws. I'm keeping an eye on the responses, but she is about to go into hospital to have a baby and is unsure if her father will want to fight it.


Given the particular circumstances this may not be the case to use, but in principle should we be offering to fund the first one of these that comes to court assuming of course due diligence has taken place?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 22:05
Post #1350339

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 19:25) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:12) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 17:55) *
Hi all, just an update. On the Facebook Page Fight your Private Parking Invoice someone has been issued with Court papers from VCS for stopping at JLA!


But did the defendant out themselves as a driver? Can you find out.


Apparently not. A lady posted and her elderly father is the Registered Keeper. They appealed in June, unsure of what letters were sent, but think they posted on the FB page when they received the PCN, so imagine it was the standard letters citing byelaws. I'm keeping an eye on the responses, but she is about to go into hospital to have a baby and is unsure if her father will want to fight it.


Given the particular circumstances this may not be the case to use, but in principle should we be offering to fund the first one of these that comes to court assuming of course due diligence has taken place?


If you are on FB maybe it's worth you having a look at the post. Someone has made a good point about the Letter sent, that is worth looking at!

Posted by: ostell Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 08:49
Post #1350403

Looked on FB, there is no mention of what was said or by whom. I suspect that the driver has been admitted. It is for stopping to drop off on double red lines, which would appear to be a byelaw offence but they are not using the byelaws.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 11:18
Post #1350464

Its also a roadway accessible to the public, so the RTA would come into play and they cannot add their own "you can stop if you pay us £100" because unless marked otherwise, boarding and alighting, or just plain stopping, isnt an offence under the RTA and they cant just make one up

It should activate the fund.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 11:47
Post #1350476

QUOTE
so the RTA would come into play and they cannot add their own "you can stop if you pay us £100"


Not on FB but is the FB group aware of the case VCS won in the area - and the legal rationale applied. There is a transcript somewhere that someone may show or at least extract the relevant parts.

Posted by: Spudandros Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 12:38
Post #1350498

QUOTE (emanresu @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 11:47) *
QUOTE
so the RTA would come into play and they cannot add their own "you can stop if you pay us £100"


Not on FB but is the FB group aware of the case VCS won in the area - and the legal rationale applied. There is a transcript somewhere that someone may show or at least extract the relevant parts.


If you mean the business park , no stopping case where the judge ruled there were sufficient no stopping signs to make it clear what the terms were, yes they know about it.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 13:32
Post #1350516

QUOTE
so the RTA would come into play and they cannot add their own "you can stop if you pay us £100"


QUOTE
If you mean the business park , no stopping case where the judge ruled there were sufficient no stopping signs to make it clear what the terms were, yes they know about it.


I know they know but some people don't. There is a rationale here and it has been judged by a circuit judge so is slightly more than persuasive. Care should be taken when assessing "honey pots" as the amount in play would be sufficient for VCS to bring out the heavy guns.


Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 13:50
Post #1350523

buisness park , http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

Posted by: webster1 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 18:55
Post #1350630

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 08:49) *
Looked on FB, there is no mention of what was said or by whom. I suspect that the driver has been admitted. It is for stopping to drop off on double red lines, which would appear to be a byelaw offence but they are not using the byelaws.


Hi, i looked on facebook before and it seems that the post has been removed (???) from what I can gather though is that the driver wasn't named (4 family members received the fines as they all dropped someone off that works there, 3 paid and the other asked for advice on the group). I'll ask if the post has been deleted and why and see what is said.

Posted by: bobthesod Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 10:02
Post #1350771

Freddie.

Your post 99 re the court case

The devil in me says. lets get the Pepipoo members to do a drive to said location, and execute the same manoeurve at 10 min intervals

If they fall for it, we could bankrupt them!!

Posted by: narco1 Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 17:17
Post #1350924

You go first then bobthesod,will keep Dixie for ye.

Posted by: Spudandros Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 00:23
Post #1351031

QUOTE (webster1 @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 18:55) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 08:49) *
Looked on FB, there is no mention of what was said or by whom. I suspect that the driver has been admitted. It is for stopping to drop off on double red lines, which would appear to be a byelaw offence but they are not using the byelaws.


Hi, i looked on facebook before and it seems that the post has been removed (???) from what I can gather though is that the driver wasn't named (4 family members received the fines as they all dropped someone off that works there, 3 paid and the other asked for advice on the group). I'll ask if the post has been deleted and why and see what is said.


It was deleted because the MCOL code was showing and admin accidentally deleted the entire post. Nothing dubious.

Posted by: emanresu Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 09:56
Post #1351369

Perhaps they have gone off to look at s66 of the Airports Act 1986 as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It appears that Parliament's intention was that the RTA should apply to Airport Roads rather than contract.

The use of the RTA would allow removal of cars rather than ticketing but removal is instant - a useful legal point when dealing with cars that may have something more than luggage in them.

Posted by: 4101 Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 11:11
Post #1351393

QUOTE (emanresu @ Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 09:56) *
Perhaps they have gone off to look at s66 of the Airports Act 1986 as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It appears that Parliament's intention was that the RTA should apply to Airport Roads rather than contract.

The use of the RTA would allow removal of cars rather than ticketing but removal is instant - a useful legal point when dealing with cars that may have something more than luggage in them.



How does the Road Traffic Act 1991 "allow removal of cars"?

Posted by: emanresu Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 13:13
Post #1351440

It's the 1984 Act with respect to the removal and disposal of cars.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/31/section/66

Posted by: 4101 Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 15:47
Post #1351478

QUOTE (emanresu @ Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 13:13) *
It's the 1984 Act with respect to the removal and disposal of cars.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/31/section/66



I agree, not the RTA, then, its the RTRA 1984.

The power of removal for unabandoned vehicles stems from the Removal Regs. 1986.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:40
Post #1352559

H all, I've received a county court claim in the post today. VCS have also sent a separate letter stating the details of the claim and that it has been filed at Court.
Obviously feeling mighty anxious! Can anyone advise please?

Posted by: ostell Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:44
Post #1352566

What are the particulars of claim?

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:52
Post #1352574

Is anyone in contact with Lynnzer? Those pledges may be needed.

May ~I suggest posting the claim form and VCS letter, suitably redacted. Has the claim form got an official stamp on it?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:57
Post #1352578

I'm waiting to get these posted up, but the Claim form states that the Particulars of Claim are:
The Claim against the Defendant is for breach of contract in respect of breaching the Terms and Conditions set out on private land. The Defendant was issued with a Charge Notice (CN) and has failed to settle their outstanding liabilities.
At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle identified in the provided Particulars of Claim. it is alleged that the Defendant breached the Terms and Conditions of entering private land as detailed in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment.

I've just looked at the VCS letter again and this details all the Particulars of Claim so shouldn't have bothered typing that!!! I'll do my best to get this posted up tonight (apologies for the needless waffle I've just typed from the actual Claim form!

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:52) *
Is anyone in contact with Lynnzer? Those pledges may be needed.

May ~I suggest posting the claim form and VCS letter, suitably redacted. Has the claim form got an official stamp on it?


is that just a stamp with a crown on and The County Court on it? if so then yes it has an official stamp. I'm going to try to get the papers on soon, but I'm on my own at the min with a demanding 4 year old so it may be after 10pm that I get it on

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:03
Post #1352580

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:57) *
I'm waiting to get these posted up, but the Claim form states that the Particulars of Claim are:
The Claim against the Defendant is for breach of contract in respect of breaching the Terms and Conditions set out on private land. The Defendant was issued with a Charge Notice (CN) and has failed to settle their outstanding liabilities.
At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle identified in the provided Particulars of Claim. it is alleged that the Defendant breached the Terms and Conditions of entering private land as detailed in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment.

I've just looked at the VCS letter again and this details all the Particulars of Claim so shouldn't have bothered typing that!!! I'll do my best to get this posted up tonight (apologies for the needless waffle I've just typed from the actual Claim form!

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 17:52) *
Is anyone in contact with Lynnzer? Those pledges may be needed.

May ~I suggest posting the claim form and VCS letter, suitably redacted. Has the claim form got an official stamp on it?


is that just a stamp with a crown on and The County Court on it? if so then yes it has an official stamp. I'm going to try to get the papers on soon, but I'm on my own at the min with a demanding 4 year old so it may be after 10pm that I get it on


Yes, as soon as you can.

I'm curious about the claim being for "breach of contract" and later 'breaching the T&C's of entering private land' which seems to smack of a trespass claim.

As has been said we could do with Lynnzer's list of pledges. Does anyone (admin perhaps) have his private email address?

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:20
Post #1352589

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13944793.Man_s_shopping_trolley_gets___100_parking_fine/

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:56
Post #1352610

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 18:20) *
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13944793.Man_s_shopping_trolley_gets___100_parking_fine/


That is of course a report that's over two years old. Has anyone had any recent 'sighting' of Lynn?

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 19:01
Post #1352613

wasnt there reports of a car accident and recovering , bloody search no work for me , but I am sure of it

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 19:09
Post #1352618

@webster
In which court is this to be heard. It will be relevant for anyone who might be able to assist and support you?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 19:28
Post #1352631

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 19:09) *
@webster
In which court is this to be heard. It will be relevant for anyone who might be able to assist and support you?


My local County Court is St Helens.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:15
Post #1352721

AFAIK there is no-one near there worth considering for local help, and people just do NOT need lay reps who can do more damage than good. So we will assist you on the forum through all stages. No risk of a CCJ as long as you miss no deadlines & follow court Directions.

Have you acknowledged the claim? Do that first, online, following the example step-by-step guide in the NEWBIES thread on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

post #2 has the info about doing the AOS, then example defences and bargepole's summary of what to do when. Show us your draft and remind us whether you ever appealed and whether the driver was ever admitted? Thread's too long to look back (but don't start a new one!).

Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:26
Post #1352735

My pledge is there, it's getting them together.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:27
Post #1352737

Oh dear lord! I've just uploaded on TinyPic and just uploaded the link and a picture came up on here of a relic!!!

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:29
Post #1352742

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:15) *
AFAIK there is no-one near there worth considering for local help, and people just do NOT need lay reps who can do more damage than good. So we will assist you on the forum through all stages. No risk of a CCJ as long as you miss no deadlines & follow court Directions.

Have you acknowledged the claim? Do that first, online, following the example step-by-step guide in the NEWBIES thread on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

post #2 has the info about doing the AOS, then example defences and bargepole's summary of what to do when. Show us your draft and remind us whether you ever appealed and whether the driver was ever admitted? Thread's too long to look back (but don't start a new one!).


Wasn't the whole point of the pledges to ensure a suitable defendant could be helped by someone who is really on top of the subject in general and the particular case in detail? I had assumed it would be used to pay for travel expenses and any other costs incidental to a defence.

I assume we'd all agree that it's vital that the running sore that is the Liverpool Council/Peel Ports/LJLA/VCS cosy scam is defended to the best of our ability in order to bring the whole thing down. A badly defended case that wasn't succesful would be the worst of all outcomes.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:33
Post #1352745

I remember reading about the pledges but a lay rep can do more harm than good.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:38
Post #1352749

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:15) *
AFAIK there is no-one near there worth considering for local help, and people just do NOT need lay reps who can do more damage than good. So we will assist you on the forum through all stages. No risk of a CCJ as long as you miss no deadlines & follow court Directions.

Have you acknowledged the claim? Do that first, online, following the example step-by-step guide in the NEWBIES thread on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

post #2 has the info about doing the AOS, then example defences and bargepole's summary of what to do when. Show us your draft and remind us whether you ever appealed and whether the driver was ever admitted? Thread's too long to look back (but don't start a new one!).


Sorry what does AOS mean? No driver hasn't been identified, I appealed at the very beginning of this. I'm completely struggling with getting documents on here too. I've spent all evening uploading to TinyPic and the other site but have got absolutely nowhere with them! I need to find a family member that is more savvy than me on getting all the letters on here.
I'm sorry to frustrate everyone with my lack of IT skills!

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:40
Post #1352752

QUOTE
Sorry what does AOS mean?

I guess you haven't followed the link yet, then. Acronyms are all explained there, plus a simple guide to acknowledging.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:41
Post #1352754

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:33) *
I remember reading about the pledges but a lay rep can do more harm than good.


I wasn't referring to an amateur lay rep., rather someone who knew the subject.

What's the alternative? Letting the defendant go down bravely fighting and giving a precedent to VCS?
Surely there's someone hereabouts with sufficient knowledge to help out.


Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:43
Post #1352758

I agree with Hexaflexagon, I don't have any experience of CC process. But cannot a defendant have a legal adviser present ?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:43
Post #1352760

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:38) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:15) *
AFAIK there is no-one near there worth considering for local help, and people just do NOT need lay reps who can do more damage than good. So we will assist you on the forum through all stages. No risk of a CCJ as long as you miss no deadlines & follow court Directions.

Have you acknowledged the claim? Do that first, online, following the example step-by-step guide in the NEWBIES thread on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

post #2 has the info about doing the AOS, then example defences and bargepole's summary of what to do when. Show us your draft and remind us whether you ever appealed and whether the driver was ever admitted? Thread's too long to look back (but don't start a new one!).


Sorry what does AOS mean? No driver hasn't been identified, I appealed at the very beginning of this. I'm completely struggling with getting documents on here too. I've spent all evening uploading to TinyPic and the other site but have got absolutely nowhere with them! I need to find a family member that is more savvy than me on getting all the letters on here.
I'm sorry to frustrate everyone with my lack of IT skills!


What difficulty are you having? Are you looking directly under the posting area for the 'Manage Attachments dropdown? As far as I'm aware it's not necessary to use a remote file hosting site.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:45
Post #1352762








Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:46
Post #1352764

use imagebb , https://imgbb.com/ select full bb code and copy / paste , not as attachments etc , just paste the link

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:48
Post #1352766

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:46) *
use imagebb , https://imgbb.com/ select full bb code and copy / paste , not as attachments etc , just paste the link



Pasted the link and the pics have now come up!! Is that right?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:49
Post #1352768

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:41) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:33) *
I remember reading about the pledges but a lay rep can do more harm than good.


I wasn't referring to an amateur lay rep., rather someone who knew the subject.

What's the alternative? Letting the defendant go down bravely fighting and giving a precedent to VCS?
Surely there's someone hereabouts with sufficient knowledge to help out.


Who do you consider an amateur lay rep, or not?

e.g. bargepole is brilliant at it, lamilad too. But they might not be available.

The most harm is done by aggressive ones who 'know the subject'. I'm not pulling the thread off topic by spelling it out... just be careful what/who you wish for and throw money at.

On MSE there is a 99% win rate at court, and similar here (high nineties but never kept tabs like I did on 2017 on MSE). So what makes you think an OP will lose, without a lay rep, that they don't need?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:52
Post #1352771

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:40) *
QUOTE
Sorry what does AOS mean?

I guess you haven't followed the link yet, then. Acronyms are all explained there, plus a simple guide to acknowledging.



No not yet! Just been trying to sort the pics out! I'll look in a moment. I couldn't upload on the attachment on here as the files were too big to upload! Anyway I think I've managed it now. I just need to put the County Court Form on but that will have to wait until the morning sorry!

Posted by: ostell Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:55
Post #1352777

Don't mess about, Acknowledge now.

Put your photos on an external site and link them into here. Recommend NOT photobucket.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:58
Post #1352780

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:52) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:40) *
QUOTE
Sorry what does AOS mean?

I guess you haven't followed the link yet, then. Acronyms are all explained there, plus a simple guide to acknowledging.



No not yet! Just been trying to sort the pics out! I'll look in a moment. I couldn't upload on the attachment on here as the files were too big to upload! Anyway I think I've managed it now. I just need to put the County Court Form on but that will have to wait until the morning sorry!


OK, just don't reply if a poster here sends you a private message offering to 'help' off forum. Stay with the group here on this thread.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:06
Post #1352787

QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:55) *
Don't mess about, Acknowledge now.

Put your photos on an external site and link them into here. Recommend NOT photobucket.


Hi, sorry i'm on the MSE thread now and there is a lot of information. I don't want to get this wrong, I've got a young child who will wake up very soon so as frustrating as it is I'll have to acknowledge tomorrow now. Believe me I'm not messing around!

Also can you see the pics I've put on now? Post #128

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:09
Post #1352791

Calm down, the pictorial walk-through in post #2 of that MSE thread is a walk in the park, prepared by a decent ticket fighter.

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:43
Post #1352805

there is so much wrong with that claim ,

charge notice ? did you ever recieve a "charge notice"


thought this came under bylaws or even RTA ?

I note they are going after the driver and or the keeper

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 00:06
Post #1352811

Paragraph two of POC from VCS:

'....setting out terms and conditions of entering its private land....'

Are VCS the land owner??

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 01:31
Post #1352826

no , and the one VCS are contracted , is that not the other way , vcs have a contract to pay JLA , bla bla bla

were the pap paper ever recieved , it says on

charge notice , who do they think they are , is it not copyright sand an offence to impersonate https://www.gov.uk/parking-tickets


https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-issue-warning-over-fake-penalty-charge-notices/

needs reporting to the police then

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 08:12
Post #1352836

QUOTE (Dave65 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:26) *
My pledge is there, it's getting them together.


+1

Posted by: Spudandros Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 10:26
Post #1352876

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:38) *
Sorry what does AOS mean?


Acknowledgement of Service. Once you acknowledge the claim you get an extra 14 days - 28 in total from issue date - to get an initial defence together filed.

Posted by: ostell Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 10:47
Post #1352880

33 days from date of issue

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 11:08
Post #1352884

To explain

It's 28 days from the date of service
The court assumes that it's served (delivered) five days after issue

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 15:02
Post #1352958

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 00:06) *
Paragraph two of POC from VCS:

'....setting out terms and conditions of entering its private land....'

Are VCS the land owner??


I realise that may be a rhetorical Q. but no. LJLA are the land owner.


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:49) *
Who do you consider an amateur lay rep, or not?

e.g. bargepole is brilliant at it, lamilad too. But they might not be available.

The most harm is done by aggressive ones who 'know the subject'. I'm not pulling the thread off topic by spelling it out... just be careful what/who you wish for and throw money at.

On MSE there is a 99% win rate at court, and similar here (high nineties but never kept tabs like I did on 2017 on MSE). So what makes you think an OP will lose, without a lay rep, that they don't need?


I agree and I have nothing but respect for the knowledgeable contributors here. And I'm sure that the forum will come to a well contructed defence for the defendant to use. But therein might lie the weakest point. I've no idea how webster might perform. s/he might be the most briliant advocate of our time. But equally if for all sorts of understandable reasons, not least this is a court albeit a fairly friendly small claims court, I can well understand that it may be daunting for some.

The pledge fund was created for the very purpose of getting some serious and well presented and argued case against one of these airport stopping offences. We can't afford for this to be lost since whilst it wouldn't necessarily create a precedent neither would it be helpful to future cases.

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 15:30
Post #1352966

I agree with hexaflexgon and my pledge is still there.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 15:31
Post #1352967

Lynnzer has the full list of pledges, but I was a pledgee (?) and would be willing to put to this defence if a decent rep is found to take it on to help cover costs.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 16:49
Post #1352990

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 15:31) *
Lynnzer has the full list of pledges, but I was a pledgee (?) and would be willing to put to this defence if a decent rep is found to take it on to help cover costs.


Looks like three of us so far then.

Why does this seem like the opening 20 minutes of the Magnificent Seven..... biggrin.gif

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:01
Post #1352991

Baggsy be Steve McQueen.

Posted by: instrumentsofjoy Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 17:48
Post #1353008

I seem to think I was one of the original pledgees. Happy to do so again.


Posted by: webster1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:48
Post #1353018

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:43) *
there is so much wrong with that claim ,

charge notice ? did you ever recieve a "charge notice"


thought this came under bylaws or even RTA ?

I note they are going after the driver and or the keeper


No not a charge notice!!! They've only just called it that!

I have completed the AOS now. It was after 4pm so the Court will only get this in the morning now. So what should I be doing in the meantime?


QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 15:02) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 00:06) *
Paragraph two of POC from VCS:

'....setting out terms and conditions of entering its private land....'

Are VCS the land owner??


I realise that may be a rhetorical Q. but no. LJLA are the land owner.


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:49) *
Who do you consider an amateur lay rep, or not?

e.g. bargepole is brilliant at it, lamilad too. But they might not be available.

The most harm is done by aggressive ones who 'know the subject'. I'm not pulling the thread off topic by spelling it out... just be careful what/who you wish for and throw money at.

On MSE there is a 99% win rate at court, and similar here (high nineties but never kept tabs like I did on 2017 on MSE). So what makes you think an OP will lose, without a lay rep, that they don't need?


I agree and I have nothing but respect for the knowledgeable contributors here. And I'm sure that the forum will come to a well contructed defence for the defendant to use. But therein might lie the weakest point. I've no idea how webster might perform. s/he might be the most briliant advocate of our time. But equally if for all sorts of understandable reasons, not least this is a court albeit a fairly friendly small claims court, I can well understand that it may be daunting for some.

The pledge fund was created for the very purpose of getting some serious and well presented and argued case against one of these airport stopping offences. We can't afford for this to be lost since whilst it wouldn't necessarily create a precedent neither would it be helpful to future cases.



Okay!! So just to let you know I'm a Probation Officer and up until 12 months ago worked in my local Court, I've experience standing up in Open Court addressing Magistrates in front of solicitors, CPS etc. Whilst it's a bit different being on the other side of the fence so to speak, and obviously having something to lose in this respect I feel that I would be fine with guidance and support. Hope this gives you some assurance!

Posted by: Catz3005 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:51
Post #1353020

I would donate to this.
I am annoyed with LJLA because of their lack of appreciation for passengers. The free pick-up and drop-off is about 15 minutes walk. BUT the pay to drop-off zone is about 200m from the terminal. YOU GET SOAKED AND FREEZING MOST DAYS EVEN IF YOU DO PAY. Manchester drop-off is FREE and 10m FROM THE ENTRANCE.
Anyway gripe over for now. I would happily donate to this worthy cause.
LJLA need to get a grip of reality.
And forgot to say you are under shelter for the 10m walk at Manchester!

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:07
Post #1353025

I still say VCS are trying to pull a fast one , the court papers say CHARGE NOTICE , not parking ticket or anything else

JLA = liverpool counsil

wonder how there parking dept , or liverpool police would react to someone trying to claim authority

the original charge was a PCN , for a stopping/parking offence , on land covered by bylaws/RTA

I hope they back down , but as this case could be the start of many , many , many thousands more it is imperative it is sorted and VCS kicked out

whatever way you choose to fight , I and I am sure many others are behind you

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:08
Post #1353026

QUOTE (webster1 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:48) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 23:43) *
there is so much wrong with that claim ,

charge notice ? did you ever recieve a "charge notice"


thought this came under bylaws or even RTA ?

I note they are going after the driver and or the keeper


No not a charge notice!!! They've only just called it that!

I have completed the AOS now. It was after 4pm so the Court will only get this in the morning now. So what should I be doing in the meantime?


QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 15:02) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 00:06) *
Paragraph two of POC from VCS:

'....setting out terms and conditions of entering its private land....'

Are VCS the land owner??


I realise that may be a rhetorical Q. but no. LJLA are the land owner.


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 22:49) *
Who do you consider an amateur lay rep, or not?

e.g. bargepole is brilliant at it, lamilad too. But they might not be available.

The most harm is done by aggressive ones who 'know the subject'. I'm not pulling the thread off topic by spelling it out... just be careful what/who you wish for and throw money at.

On MSE there is a 99% win rate at court, and similar here (high nineties but never kept tabs like I did on 2017 on MSE). So what makes you think an OP will lose, without a lay rep, that they don't need?


I agree and I have nothing but respect for the knowledgeable contributors here. And I'm sure that the forum will come to a well contructed defence for the defendant to use. But therein might lie the weakest point. I've no idea how webster might perform. s/he might be the most briliant advocate of our time. But equally if for all sorts of understandable reasons, not least this is a court albeit a fairly friendly small claims court, I can well understand that it may be daunting for some.

The pledge fund was created for the very purpose of getting some serious and well presented and argued case against one of these airport stopping offences. We can't afford for this to be lost since whilst it wouldn't necessarily create a precedent neither would it be helpful to future cases.



Okay!! So just to let you know I'm a Probation Officer and up until 12 months ago worked in my local Court, I've experience standing up in Open Court addressing Magistrates in front of solicitors, CPS etc. Whilst it's a bit different being on the other side of the fence so to speak, and obviously having something to lose in this respect I feel that I would be fine with guidance and support. Hope this gives you some assurance!


Small Claims is a bit more laid back than Magistrates, so someone with your experience should be quite at home.

You just need to become familiar with the arguments as they apply to this particular case. Are you able to list the arguments, as you understand them? This may be the best place to start and then everyone can add in comments and amendments as necessary.

Just one point, when you acknowledged service did you put anything in the defence box?

Posted by: Umkomaas Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:03
Post #1353044

QUOTE (Catz3005 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:51) *
I would donate to this.
I am annoyed with LJLA because of their lack of appreciation for passengers. The free pick-up and drop-off is about 15 minutes walk. BUT the pay to drop-off zone is about 200m from the terminal. YOU GET SOAKED AND FREEZING MOST DAYS EVEN IF YOU DO PAY. Manchester drop-off is FREE and 10m FROM THE ENTRANCE.
Anyway gripe over for now. I would happily donate to this worthy cause.
LJLA need to get a grip of reality.
And forgot to say you are under shelter for the 10m walk at Manchester!

And that’s 10 metres, not 10 minutes! Absolute model arrangement. We never have any MAN airport parking tickets here, or on MSE.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:22
Post #1353049

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:03) *
QUOTE (Catz3005 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:51) *
I would donate to this.
I am annoyed with LJLA because of their lack of appreciation for passengers. The free pick-up and drop-off is about 15 minutes walk. BUT the pay to drop-off zone is about 200m from the terminal. YOU GET SOAKED AND FREEZING MOST DAYS EVEN IF YOU DO PAY. Manchester drop-off is FREE and 10m FROM THE ENTRANCE.
Anyway gripe over for now. I would happily donate to this worthy cause.
LJLA need to get a grip of reality.
And forgot to say you are under shelter for the 10m walk at Manchester!

And that’s 10 metres, not 10 minutes! Absolute model arrangement. We never have any MAN airport parking tickets here, or on MSE.


Quite agree. MAN has a much more civilised approach to picking up / dropping off passengers. i.e. no cost at all. Difference is MAN is owned by the several LAs in and around the Manchester conurbation. LJLA is - well basically Peel Ports, "The biggest company you've never heard of" - The Independent. Nuff said.

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:24
Post #1353050

20% by liverpool counsil?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:44
Post #1353055

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:24) *
20% by liverpool counsil?


And of course the waters are muddied in that there are old well established and never rescinded council bylaws (denied by LJLA) which cover the "airport". The 'new' draft bylaws that LJLA have been seeking from the DfT since 2010 still seem as far away as ever.

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:48
Post #1353057

yes as I have stated , they are trying to fake a legal charge notice , when there are problems with the land


I suspect liverpool counsil (parking) and the police would not be amused with anyone trying to pretend to be "official"

Posted by: webster1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:08
Post #1353062



Small Claims is a bit more laid back than Magistrates, so someone with your experience should be quite at home.

You just need to become familiar with the arguments as they apply to this particular case. Are you able to list the arguments, as you understand them? This may be the best place to start and then everyone can add in comments and amendments as necessary.

Just one point, when you acknowledged service did you put anything in the defence box?
[/quote]

No I didn't put anything in the defence box. I wasn't meant to was I? I am off work tomorrow so I can sit down properly and look at my arguments and get them typed up and on here.

I'm sure I can list the arguments, these would have been in all my letter that I have sent to VCS and BW Legal and what I was advised to put. I'll mainly coming from the angle that there are the Bylaws in place that haven't been rescinded, there being no planning permission for the signs and that for the contact to be entered into, the driver would need to stop and read the signs?
Are there other points that I need to be looking at?




QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 20:48) *
yes as I have stated , they are trying to fake a legal charge notice , when there are problems with the land


I suspect liverpool counsil (parking) and the police would not be amused with anyone trying to pretend to be "official"


Can I just ask then a Charge Notice is not the same as a PCN? Surely they can't cite that this has been issued if that is not the case? They would be taking me to Court with some false information (or not?) I have a friend who works in a solicitors office (it's criminal law) but I could ask her to look over this? I can't guarantee that she will but there is no harm in me asking her.

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:13
Post #1353066

never seen a charge notice used in private psarking / court

due to bylaws/rta it looks like they think they have a new angle

criminal law may be to far off , but they can phone a friend

if they win this , then there will be many many thousands to follow

Posted by: webster1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:36
Post #1353077

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:13) *
never seen a charge notice used in private psarking / court

due to bylaws/rta it looks like they think they have a new angle

criminal law may be to far off , but they can phone a friend

if they win this , then there will be many many thousands to follow


Surely though even if they think that they have a new angle, they need to have issued me with a Charge Notice? They can't just say that they have in a Court when they clearly haven't!

I'll phone (well email my friend) first thing in the morning.

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 21:50
Post #1353080

whats a charge notice , see the words anywhere in either BPA or IPC code of practice , you see the words charge notice written in the kodoe agrement or in the POFa 2012 , NO


a charge notice is issued by "legitimate" parking , ie counsil /police


Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 01:10
Post #1353161

QUOTE (webster1 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:48) *
Okay!! So just to let you know I'm a Probation Officer and up until 12 months ago worked in my local Court, I've experience standing up in Open Court addressing Magistrates in front of solicitors, CPS etc. Whilst it's a bit different being on the other side of the fence so to speak, and obviously having something to lose in this respect I feel that I would be fine with guidance and support. Hope this gives you some assurance!

So as I suspected, and as hundreds of defendants on MSE and here have done before you, this case is perfectly winnable by you without someone rocking up to grab expenses and the glory, and quite possibly wreck the case (bargepole and lamilad excepted in that statement).

There is no need to throw money at these cases, people can defend if well coached, and they proved that on both forums in 2017 with high nineties success rate across here and MSE.

Now that we've got that uncomfortable issue out of the way and the OP knows not to respond to a pm offering to 'help', can we get on with it?

Posted by: Sheffield Dave Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:24
Post #1353218

I note in the PoC that the contract supposedly entered into and breached isn't for parking, but is rather for "entering private land". Presumably their theory will be that by entering the private land, you consented to the contract, and one of the T&Cs was not stopping. This would seem to be a end run around the usual "forbidding sign" defence. Have we seen such a claim before?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:34
Post #1353230

Not that I know of.

You cannot breach an "entering private land" contract. They had no consideration.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:55
Post #1353237

sort of makes a mockery of there signs then "welcome to liverpool airport"

Posted by: nigelbb Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 11:20
Post #1353246

VCS can only purchase registered keeper details from the DVLA for parking enforcement. This "contract to enter private land" is not parking.

Only the driver could possibly have entered into this alleged contract & VCS also face an uphill struggle in identifying the driver so do not do their work for them by naming the driver (no "I did this" instead "the driver did this"). VCS cannot hold the keeper responsible for unpaid parking charges incurred by the driver using POFA 2012 because 1) JLA is not relevant land 2) this is not parking (as admitted in their POC).

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 12:14
Post #1353267

as stated above , reason for gaining info from dvla

I think there is a direct email address , but perhaps a letter to the DVLA as well

[Your Address]

DVLA Vehicle Record Enquiries section

Longview Road

Morriston

Swansea

SA99 1AJ

Dear Sirs

Re: VRM AB12 XYZ

As the Registered Keeper of the above VRM could you advise who has accessed my personal details with regards to this marque, how often and when did the DVLA send the keeper details out. Please advise the information with regards to events between xx/xx/xx/ and xx/xx/xx.

I understand there is no charge for this information and look forward to your speedy reply.

Yours faithfully



Mr Registered Keeper


if it comes back referring to parking , then after showing your claim form to the DVLA , they must stop DVLA access at this site , as the claim form based on info on DVLA data is wrong

1: they have stated parking

2: they are using info in a manor not allowed , ie different reason

pushed hard enough , this could actually shut VCS down at this location

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 14:03
Post #1353314

Have we seen the original PCN or CN or whatever. If not which post, otherwise would you upload it please - suitably redacted of course.

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 16:50
Post #1353376

QUOTE
if it comes back referring to parking , then after showing your claim form to the DVLA , they must stop DVLA access at this site , as the claim form based on info on DVLA data is wrong

1: they have stated parking

2: they are using info in a manor not allowed , ie different reason

pushed hard enough , this could actually shut VCS down at this location


Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm but the Data Protection Act has an exemption which is the exercise or defence of legal claims. It only has to be a reasonable belief there is a legal claim and it does not need to be that specific.

The OP would be better looking at it in terms of the hierarchy of laws - secondary legislation such as byelaws takes precedence over contract. VCS have won at rail stations but only after convincing a judge that byelaws didn't apply. That is the route they are going - without stopping, of course.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 17:43
Post #1353395

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 16:50) *
Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm but the Data Protection Act has an exemption which is the exercise or defence of legal claims. It only has to be a reasonable belief there is a legal claim and it does not need to be that specific.

The OP would be better looking at it in terms of the hierarchy of laws - secondary legislation such as byelaws takes precedence over contract. VCS have won at rail stations but only after convincing a judge that byelaws didn't apply. That is the route they are going - without stopping, of course.


Which would be truly ironic given that LJLA have spent the last 5 years trying to get the DfT to approve the draft bylaws they have submitted.

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 18:24
Post #1353402

QUOTE
Which would be truly ironic given that LJLA have spent the last 5 years trying to get the DfT to approve the draft bylaws they have submitted.


There is no irony in court - only facts. Question is why do VCS think it is time to have a punt?

You've done a lot of running on this one Hex. Do you want to check your sources?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 23:41
Post #1353476

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 18:24) *
QUOTE
Which would be truly ironic given that LJLA have spent the last 5 years trying to get the DfT to approve the draft bylaws they have submitted.


There is no irony in court - only facts. Question is why do VCS think it is time to have a punt?

You've done a lot of running on this one Hex. Do you want to check your sources?


Hi,

Sorry if this is a daft question but can you clarify the 'check your sources' please. Cheers!

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 00:13
Post #1353481

I think the assumption is that because you have done pretty much all of the running in terms of research, could you please recheck what you have and come back to us to provide a reassurance that nothing has changed significantly in VCS's favour which might give rise to such new claims as we are beginning to see arise.......?

I have to say that I am not as confident as SRM seems to be about getting an easy victory over these new case models - VCS's balls need to be nailed to the wall once and for all on this one, otherwise there'll be carnage in the courts.
Every weakness needs to be explored and exploited, and as quickly as possible in order to nip these new claims 'initiatives' in the bud before they begin to do real financial damage to the poor individuals concerned.

The last thing we need is a repeat of the INDIGO South Wales Hospitals fiasco.

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:15
Post #1353586

QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:24) *
I note in the PoC that the contract supposedly entered into and breached isn't for parking, but is rather for "entering private land". Presumably their theory will be that by entering the private land, you consented to the contract, and one of the T&Cs was not stopping. This would seem to be a end run around the usual "forbidding sign" defence. Have we seen such a claim before?



However, as you enter LJLA are there signs saying you are entering private property? Other than the No Stopping Signs?

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:27
Post #1353593

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 01:10) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:48) *
Okay!! So just to let you know I'm a Probation Officer and up until 12 months ago worked in my local Court, I've experience standing up in Open Court addressing Magistrates in front of solicitors, CPS etc. Whilst it's a bit different being on the other side of the fence so to speak, and obviously having something to lose in this respect I feel that I would be fine with guidance and support. Hope this gives you some assurance!

So as I suspected, and as hundreds of defendants on MSE and here have done before you, this case is perfectly winnable by you without someone rocking up to grab expenses and the glory, and quite possibly wreck the case (bargepole and lamilad excepted in that statement).

There is no need to throw money at these cases, people can defend if well coached, and they proved that on both forums in 2017 with high nineties success rate across here and MSE.

Now that we've got that uncomfortable issue out of the way and the OP knows not to respond to a pm offering to 'help', can we get on with it?



.....So no one will be with me then?! With all the facts before me I do feel that I can hold my own, however I'm not legally trained and don't want to mess this up by being blind sided by some legal eagle. From experience in Court it's sometimes easy to miss something being said when you're also trying to take notes and just feel two pairs of ears are better than just my one! If this is the first one, I just don't want to get it wrong for the countless others behind me!

Posted by: dramaqueen Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:31
Post #1353628

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons: this may be a case for asking the judge to hear it on the papers.

VCS are not trying to go for keeper liability – very wise, they can’t. So they’ve got to prove who was driving. No admissions will be made about that, and Elliott v Loake won’t (shouldn’t) get them anywhere. So it might be sensible not to give the judge a chance to ask the defendant directly.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Cuthbert Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:38
Post #1353632

Thats a good idea not, so gives BW a chance to add things at the last minute! The answer to the Judge would be "It is up to the claimant to prove their case"
As this is not parking VCS will have broken their contract with the DVLA to get keepers details, forward a copy to the DVLA asking what action they are going to take.

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:59
Post #1353643

QUOTE (Cuthbert @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 14:38) *
Thats a good idea not, so gives BW a chance to add things at the last minute! The answer to the Judge would be "It is up to the claimant to prove their case"
As this is not parking VCS will have broken their contract with the DVLA to get keepers details, forward a copy to the DVLA asking what action they are going to take.



thought that had been kicked out at post#170

I did suggest getting info from the DVLA , then asking them WHY vcs were using the data for another cause


Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 15:14
Post #1353650

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 13:15) *
QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 10:24) *
I note in the PoC that the contract supposedly entered into and breached isn't for parking, but is rather for "entering private land". Presumably their theory will be that by entering the private land, you consented to the contract, and one of the T&Cs was not stopping. This would seem to be a end run around the usual "forbidding sign" defence. Have we seen such a claim before?



However, as you enter LJLA are there signs saying you are entering private property? Other than the No Stopping Signs?


There are no signs AFAIAA that say you are entering private property.
A condition of the new signs was

QUOTE
The installation of the totems and tarmac road colouring hereby approved and detailed on drawing D161-100-001 Rev P6 shall be undertaken within 3 months from the date of this consent unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: These works are necessary to confirm to third parties that the signs to be retained are not Road Traffic signs and to avoid any confusion as such in the interests of Highway Safety


An email between LJLA's commercial manager and Liverpool Council's planning department in May 2016 effectively confirms that LJLA had to withdraw the original application seeking advertising consent that LC had said were not DfT compliant.

Following this rejection of consent the subject of delineating the public highway from the airport private roads became a major condition of the new consent that was sought. i.e. the requirement to paint the road blue mentioned in the conditions. This was so that the public would 'know' that they were leaving the public highway and entering a private road.

Must admit I wouldn't know that a blue section of road meant I was leaving the public highway. Is this a recognised 'sign' in any RTRs?
Otherwise without any explicit sign with words saying "You are entering a private road" how would anyone know?

In summary
- both LC & LJLA both regard it as private land.
- The original LC bylaws have never been rescinded AFAIAA but LC regard them as only applicable to the 'original' airport ( before it was enlarged), however the bylaws simply use the term 'airport' without any definition of a boundary.
But if the bylaws do apply to the whole airport then it seems that LC have a contradictory position. They both believe the roads are private but still have ownership of the public bylaws!



Posted by: emanresu Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 15:37
Post #1353664

QUOTE
both LC & LJLA both regard it as private land.

It is.

VCS may be road testing Jones v First Greater Western so any loss may be taken further. That's their usual method e.g. VCS v HMRC though they pushed it too far when they went to the Upper Tier. HMRC had bigger [legal] pockets.

With regards to Byelaws, these are legal mechanisms that allow private companies on private land to issue [statutory] penalties. Beavis can viewed in the same manner but rather than having every Tom, Dick or Simon dragging people off to the Mags (Bawtry etc), Parliament opted for the civil route.

The full extent of the Beavis decision has not percolated into other areas of business - yet.

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:42
Post #1353686

I'm just thinking out loud here....Could the judge hearing this case just say, there are red lines, the driver should not have stopped and therefore the driver is in the wrong. The driver informs that the driving conditions on the night were not good in that it was raining and looking for a vulnerable friend that had left the airport and therefore did not notice the signs or lines on entering the area.

In it's simplified format is it just the case that VCS have no authority to obtain the keepers details and no authority to issue a fine due to this not being private land?
I just feel that by putting the simple bones of this together and then adding the meat to it will help me (I apologise if this infuriating) it's just when you start to research and read what's on-line it becomes information overload!

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:52
Post #1353688

which court is this in?

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:56
Post #1353689

correct wording of a letter to the DVLA could stop any further DVLA access for this site ,

you have the "charge sheet" AKA the court papers and admittance by VCS that your data was sought , but is being used for a completely matter than stated by them to the DVLA

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:00
Post #1353691

QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:52) *
which court is this in?


My local County Court is St Helens.


QUOTE (freddy1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:56) *
correct wording of a letter to the DVLA could stop any further DVLA access for this site ,

you have the "charge sheet" AKA the court papers and admittance by VCS that your data was sought , but is being used for a completely matter than stated by them to the DVLA


Are members suggesting or not that I should send a letter to the DVLA asking for what purpose my data was sourced?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:02
Post #1353698

QUOTE (emanresu @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 15:37) *
QUOTE
both LC & LJLA both regard it as private land.

It is.
[snipped]

With regards to Byelaws, these are legal mechanisms that allow private companies on private land to issue [statutory] penalties. Beavis can viewed in the same manner but rather than having every Tom, Dick or Simon dragging people off to the Mags (Bawtry etc), Parliament opted for the civil route.

The full extent of the Beavis decision has not percolated into other areas of business - yet.


Must admit the relative status of public/private bylaws has always puzzled me.

I'm still awaiting to hear from the DfT to confirm or otherwise that the new bylaws that LJLA have been seeking since 2009 have been approved. They hadn't as of last August and as far as I'm aware they still haven't.

I'm also still awaiting a response from the ICO about a complaint I made about the refusal of the DfT to let me have a copy of the draft bylaws under discussion.

So assuming that LJLA don't have any private by laws we are surely left with the original Liverpool Council bylaws which of course are public bylaws, infringements of which are prosecuted in a magistrates court.

And hence it woud seem the only route available to VCS is an attempt to bring a case under Contract Law, there being no privste bylaws. Or am I missing some subtlety here?

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:10
Post #1353706

Even if they do now have some new by-laws surely you can't implement retrospectively if they weren't in place in March 2017? In my experience when new Criminal Acts come into place we can only apply it to new cases/offences from the date that the Act came into place? if it takes place before that date, then the Act in place at that time is applied.

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:13
Post #1353709

I suggest you move ALL documents to post no. 1 so they are in the same place.

Have you asked BMPA for help?

http://www.bmpa.eu/


Only criminal courts hand out fines after conviction. You have been sent a request for payment for stopping, this is a charge - an invoice.

Airport byelaws are prosecuted in as Mags Ct after service of a summons.

Where are the airport byelaws?

Ask the DVLA who sourced your keeper details, when, and the reasons why given.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16/pd_part16#I

Other matters to be included in particulars of claim
7.1 Where a claim is made for an injunction or declaration in respect of or relating to any land or the possession, occupation, use or enjoyment of any land the particulars of claim must:

(1) state whether or not the injunction or declaration relates to residential premises, and

(2) identify the land (by reference to a plan where necessary).

7.2 Where a claim is brought to enforce a right to recover possession of goods the particulars of claim must contain a statement showing the value of the goods.

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and


If this is a contract breach claim where is the contract?

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:14
Post #1353711

please write that letter to the DVLA , add a couple of extras , what method was used to gain access and reason for it

I have a funny feeling that they will drop this one as soon as they have finished reading this thread

it would cost you the price of a stamp to possably get access revoked on this site

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:16
Post #1353713

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:42) *
I'm just thinking out loud here....Could the judge hearing this case just say, there are red lines, the driver should not have stopped and therefore the driver is in the wrong. The driver informs that the driving conditions on the night were not good in that it was raining and looking for a vulnerable friend that had left the airport and therefore did not notice the signs or lines on entering the area.

In it's simplified format is it just the case that VCS have no authority to obtain the keepers details and no authority to issue a fine due to this not being private land?
I just feel that by putting the simple bones of this together and then adding the meat to it will help me (I apologise if this infuriating) it's just when you start to research and read what's on-line it becomes information overload!


I think we've established it's private land. It seems to me that we're bcak to the usual defence arguments here
1. No Stopping sign is prohibitive and can't offer a contract.

In any case even if a judge decides contract law is nevertheless appropriate...

2. The signs have too many words and can't be read and absorbed in the time available whilst driving past at 30 mph. The pranksters old sight lines and 'x' height for the font calculations may need to be revisited but I believe even though the numbers of words have been reduced they are still outside the 'readability test. And furthermore the Introduction of the new "Welcome" signs which I think hide the signs until a driver is much nearer only make the signs less readable. And hence it's not possible to Accept a contract.

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:25
Post #1353717

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:14) *
please write that letter to the DVLA , add a couple of extras , what method was used to gain access and reason for it

I have a funny feeling that they will drop this one as soon as they have finished reading this thread

it would cost you the price of a stamp to possably get access revoked on this site


I'll get a letter written up, I'll post a draft on here. It will be later or tomorrow now as I've got a little one to see to at the minute. I will spend some time tomorrow picturing all the letters that have been sent back and forth to VCS and BW Legal and getting them posted up.


QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:16) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 16:42) *
I'm just thinking out loud here....Could the judge hearing this case just say, there are red lines, the driver should not have stopped and therefore the driver is in the wrong. The driver informs that the driving conditions on the night were not good in that it was raining and looking for a vulnerable friend that had left the airport and therefore did not notice the signs or lines on entering the area.

In it's simplified format is it just the case that VCS have no authority to obtain the keepers details and no authority to issue a fine due to this not being private land?
I just feel that by putting the simple bones of this together and then adding the meat to it will help me (I apologise if this infuriating) it's just when you start to research and read what's on-line it becomes information overload!


I think we've established it's private land. It seems to me that we're bcak to the usual defence arguments here
1. No Stopping sign is prohibitive and can't offer a contract.

In any case even if a judge decides contract law is nevertheless appropriate...

2. The signs have too many words and can't be read and absorbed in the time available whilst driving past at 30 mph. The pranksters old sight lines and 'x' height for the font calculations may need to be revisited but I believe even though the numbers of words have been reduced they are still outside the 'readability test. And furthermore the Introduction of the new "Welcome" signs which I think hide the signs until a driver is much nearer only make the signs less readable. And hence it's not possible to Accept a contract.



Can I ask am I going to be on my own in Court here? I've always assumed that the first case taken to Court there would be someone with me?? Like I've said I can speak up in Court, but this is far bigger than it just being me and I don't want to balls this up!

Would it be useful for me to go to the airport at all and take pictures of the signs?

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:28
Post #1353721

Why is it private land?:

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:35
Post #1353729

QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:28) *
Why is it private land?:


Largely because if asked both Liverpool Council and LJLA will say it is - (although note LC's contradictory position re bylaws I made earlier)

Posted by: bama Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:40
Post #1353735

QUOTE
Could the judge hearing this case just say, there are red lines,..


you don't know how to shoot that (rubbish) down ? ? ?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:41
Post #1353736

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:25) *
Can I ask am I going to be on my own in Court here? I've always assumed that the first case taken to Court there would be someone with me?? Like I've said I can speak up in Court, but this is far bigger than it just being me and I don't want to balls this up!

Would it be useful for me to go to the airport at all and take pictures of the signs?


I sincerely hope not.

I respect SRMs different view on this matter and you will of course end up with as good a defence as possible from m'learned friends here. No question.
I also accept that you are confident and capable of delivering a case in court.

Nevertheless since a fighting fund of pledges was set up precisely for this very purpose I really can't see what is to be lost by ensuring someone who has succesfully presented this sort of thing in court is involved with helping you.

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:45
Post #1353740

[quote name='4101' date='Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:13' post='1353709']
I suggest you move ALL documents to post no. 1 so they are in the same place.

Have you asked BMPA for help?

http://www.bmpa.eu/

No I've never heard of them or been directed to them? Should I be asking them too for help?

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:51
Post #1353743

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:35) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:28) *
Why is it private land?:


Largely because if asked both Liverpool Council and LJLA will say it is - (although note LC's contradictory position re bylaws I made earlier)



Are you saying that there are no court decisions on this?

Have you asked BMPA for help?



No I've never heard of them or been directed to them? Should I be asking them too for help?



David Carrod at bmpa is very good, you could contact them and see if they will help. They may charge, they may help you with a claim under
the Data Protection Act for accessing your details unlawfully.

Have you filed the AoS?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:00
Post #1353748

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 17:25) *
Would it be useful for me to go to the airport at all and take pictures of the signs?


What was the date of the offence? An earlier picture seems to indicate March 2017 which makes this slightly tricky since I don't think the signs that are there now were there then.
So normally I'd have said yes it would be extremely beneficial to take pictures as well as a tape measure to measure distances between signs and the junction of Speke Hall Drive with Dunlop road, but there seems little point in doing that.

The Parking Prankster has an article on the old signs and calculations of the 'readability' of them (sometime in early 2015 from memory) so it would be useful if you were to download those and study them so that you get a feel for a succesful rejection of the signage being capable of offering a contract.

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:06
Post #1353752

bit old but readable http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=jla

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:11
Post #1353756



Have you asked BMPA for help?



No I've never heard of them or been directed to them? Should I be asking them too for help?



David Carrod at bmpa is very good, you could contact them and see if they will help. They may charge, they may help you with a claim under
the Data Protection Act for accessing your details unlawfully.

Have you filed the AoS?
[/quote]

Yes filed the AoS
I'll contact BMPA then too!

Posted by: ostell Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:16
Post #1353760

Google maps has views for different dates if that is any help. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3399243,-2.8582893,3a,75y,164.58h,84.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAVhkuck3JpyC6jbhHlKEsQ!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:36
Post #1353770

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:06) *
bit old but readable http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=jla


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:51
Post #1353772

I've sent a message to BMPA. I'll let you know once I get a response. If we win can I claim compensation for us for all the time and effort?!

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:55
Post #1353773

limited costs , say £19 per hour , and about £90 for a days wage however if they are going out to win , they will be multi armed with people making more per hr than we make in a week

so I do suggest getting help on this

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 20:15
Post #1353788

IF it is certain that the driver's identity hasn't been disclosed, a big point will be the bye laws argument. PoFA only applies to 'relevant land.' Land covered by bye laws is not relevant land and the keeper cannot be held liable.

PoFA 2012 sched 4 para 3:

3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
©any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
“parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
“traffic authority” means each of the following—
(a)the Secretary of State;
(b)the Welsh Ministers;
©Transport for London;
(d)the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)a parish or community council;
(g)the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)© the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.
(4)In sub-paragraph (3) “statutory provision” means any provision (apart from this Schedule) contained in—
(a)any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or
(b)any subordinate legislation, whenever made,and for this purpose “subordinate legislation” means an Order in Council or any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument.


Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 20:32
Post #1353790

it sounds like they are forgetting about pofa , and going from a different angle , ie not a normal parking ticket/charge

hence me suggesting to get info from DVLA

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 21:03
Post #1353801

We need to cover all the bases and get all the possible points aired.

I agree that information from DVLA will play a part, however I don't think it's the strongest point.

Incidentally, the E mail address is:

SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 21:09
Post #1353803

agreed

I was hoping that the sight of the claim form to the DVLA might just stop there access for this site immediatly

wont help the OP (as such) but would be loved by 100s of people per day

if VCS have no income from this site , and a bill of £25,000 per yr , they may bail out


and hopefully the airport will sue them!



PS:

David dunsford is no longer working in this role

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 21:55
Post #1353812

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:51) *
I've sent a message to BMPA. I'll let you know once I get a response. If we win can I claim compensation for us for all the time and effort?!



Excellent, David Carrod is a smart fella.

Posted by: dramaqueen Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 23:17
Post #1353823

QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 21:55) *
Excellent, David Carrod is a smart fella.


Yes I really hope he can help as this is turning out to be not a straightforward parking ticket case at all. VCS have launched their attack from a different angle.
For now, I thought it might be useful to try and narrow down the issues a bit – specially since the following usual arguments won’t help any more:

1. Stopping isn't the same as parking. No need to waste time on this as VCS don't claim it's a parking contract anyway. They' re saying it's a contractual licence to enter private land.

2. There is no keeper liability because the land is subject to byelaws. Again, not relevant because VCS aren't going for keeper liability anyway. From the beginning they said they were only pursuing the keeper on the presumption he was the driver (see post 29). They can't go after the keeper per se because this isn't a “relevant contract” (ie a parking contract) for the purposes of keeper liability under POFA. I don’t think there is any dispute about this: both sides agree that if there was a contract, then only the driver could be liable for its breach. It would be sensible to get confirmation in writing from VCS, before the hearing, that this is agreed.

3. The No Stopping signs are forbidding and therefore cannot form a contract. But they are not intended to form a contract in this case. They are merely conditions attached to the licence: “you can drive through this private piece of land provided you don't stop.”

4. The licence could not have been contractual because there was no consideration, and therefore breach of the conditions was no more than an act of trespass. Sadly, their Lordships in Parking Eye v Beavis - in a magnificent display of gymnastic logic – seem to have put the kybosh on this one. They held that Mr. Beavis, by agreeing to comply with PE's conditions, provided PE with the right to enforce such conditions against him in contract. This was a right that PE would not otherwise have had. And that amounted to consideration. See paragraph 190 here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.
It’s hard to distinguish Beavis on this specific point: like PE, VCS wouldn't have the right to sue in trespass, not being the landholder; so agreeing to abide by the conditions of the licence would be valuable consideration because it gives VCS the right to enforce in contract. Something horribly circular about this argument, but it looks like we are stuck with it. It'd be great if someone can find a solvent.


So..... maybe the better points to focus on are:

1. Was the land private? Was the lease to Peel Holdings free of encumbrances such as a public right of access? It seems like the answers are yes, but we need to be sure. VCS will be put to strict proof. It's a factual issue which they should sort out before the final hearing. Black mark to them if they don't.

2. On the basis the licence was capable of being contractual (ie the potential for consideration was there) did the driver in fact agree to be so bound? This is really the core issue. The OP is not in a position to say what the driver was thinking. But on a balance of probabilities, there can surely have been no meeting of minds between the driver and VCS because:-
a) the driver's mind would have been directed towards controlling the car;
b) it would have been impossible for the driver to read, absorb, and agree to all the claimant's terms and conditions of the contract. Hexaflagon has already referred to the Prankster’s blog which is full of useful stuff: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html. Eg it shows you can’t be nearer than 20 meters to the sign when you read it – otherwise you have to move your head to an angle that's unsafe for driving.
c) If, which is denied, the driver had been able to read and absorb the terms and conditions on the signage, would he have understood that the words “no stopping” were to be strictly interpreted – particularly bearing in mind that on urban clearways drivers are normally permitted to stop briefly to off-load or pick up passengers. Just thinking of the contra preferentum rule. Additionally, was the “no stopping” zone sufficiently marked out so as to be reasonably identifiable from a moving car?

3. Finally: if there were a contract, only the driver can have been a party to it. There are no admissions as to who was driving and there can be no presumption it was the keeper.


Phew. That's enough housekeeping for a Saturday night.






Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 23:24
Post #1353825

absorbed it , but it brings us back to the dvla and release or data

1. Stopping isn't the same as parking. No need to waste time on this as VCS don't claim it's a parking contract anyway. They' re saying it's a contractual licence to enter private land.

v888/3 / kodoe is for PARKING offences , not other civil charges

v888/2 is the form used by businesses to chase a trespass etc

a parking co can only use v888/3 or kodoe ,

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 23:28
Post #1353827

Isn't there also the matter that the signs require advertising consent and don't have it ?

I don’t think there is any dispute about this: both sides agree that if there was a contract, then only the driver could be liable for its breach.
The signs say that the info is requested from the DVLA in order to trace the responsible driver

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 23:33
Post #1353829

and they have not got the driver , they have got details of the keeper

unless they have DNA evidence ?

Posted by: dramaqueen Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 09:27
Post #1353876

And another thing: in the Particulars of Claim (post 128) the Claimants say at para 1 that they "provide car par management on behalf of clients ...."; and at para 2: "the Claimant's role is to erect warning notices....." ; and at para3 "the Claimant is contracted to provide management and enforcement...."

These words sound like VCS are mere servants and JLA are the real creditors. Nowhere do VCS claim that they themselves have the standing to bring a claim against the OP.

Potential for a strike out?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 23:32
Post #1354141

QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 22:55) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:51) *
I've sent a message to BMPA. I'll let you know once I get a response. If we win can I claim compensation for us for all the time and effort?!


Excellent, David Carrod is a smart fella.


Agreed.

As I said, if bargepole or lamilad were available then great! The big concern was any repeat of the awful mess made of the Cardiff nurses case.

Posted by: bama Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 10:30
Post #1354182

Isn't there also the matter that the signs require advertising consent and don't have it ?

QUOTE


No, that is irrelevant to the case (albeit a true fact)

BMPA and DC is the way to go.

Posted by: Steofthedale Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 10:47
Post #1354185

Without any contact from Lyzzner, is there mileage in collating pledges anew to properly and effectively support the OP in resisting this action?

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 14:58
Post #1354296

Wasn't Lynnzer involved in a bridal shop in Peterlee?

Here you go; this may find him:

http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/contact.htm

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:14
Post #1354300

QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 10:47) *
Without any contact from Lyzzner, is there mileage in collating pledges anew to properly and effectively support the OP in resisting this action?


I agree. If Lynnzer subsequently turns up with the old list then great. Otherwise let's get on with a new set of pledges.
What's the best way to handle this? Does this forum have a facility for recording interest in pledging and ultimately how would they be collected.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:33
Post #1354310

I think Lynzer would be on here if he felt up to it and was able.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:47
Post #1354318

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 23:17) *
4. The licence could not have been contractual because there was no consideration, and therefore breach of the conditions was no more than an act of trespass. Sadly, their Lordships in Parking Eye v Beavis - in a magnificent display of gymnastic logic – seem to have put the kybosh on this one. They held that Mr. Beavis, by agreeing to comply with PE's conditions, provided PE with the right to enforce such conditions against him in contract. This was a right that PE would not otherwise have had. And that amounted to consideration. See paragraph 190 here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf.
It’s hard to distinguish Beavis on this specific point: like PE, VCS wouldn't have the right to sue in trespass, not being the landholder; so agreeing to abide by the conditions of the licence would be valuable consideration because it gives VCS the right to enforce in contract. Something horribly circular about this argument, but it looks like we are stuck with it. It'd be great if someone can find a solvent.


Phew. That's enough housekeeping for a Saturday night.


Can I just clarify this. I think the relevant bit in Para 190 of the Beavis judgment is this:
QUOTE
By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other
conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have
had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract. Even if no Parking Charge
had been stipulated, enforcement would still have been possible in law, even if a
claim for damages or for an injunction might not in practice have been likely. With
the stipulated Parking Charge, the nature of the intended contract is even clearer,
although the question arises whether the Parking Charge is an unenforceable
penalty. The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis’s promise
was the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free of
charge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration.


Is there in fact a direct parallel here? It seems to me that the only promise that can be implied the driver has accepted is that of not stopping. But what's the consideration from VCS? Unlike PE in Beavis they are not offering permission to stop. Or looking at this the other way round if it is claimed that the driver is making the offer by driving past, what is the consideration VCS are giving in accepting? By their own rules they are saying the driver can't stop which hardly seems like consideration.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:56
Post #1354331

It’s forbidding, by definition. There is no offer
In addition it’s impossible to read at driving speeds. This is where the pranksters research is golden.

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:57
Post #1354332

QUOTE
But what's the consideration from VCS? Unlike PE in Beavis they are not offering permission to stop. Or looking at this the other way round if it is claimed that the driver is making the offer by driving past, what is the consideration VCS are giving in accepting?


Excellent point. The consideration they could argue is "access" and you need to follow the rules if you want access - but there is an implied right of way a.k.a access.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 16:41
Post #1354374

QUOTE (emanresu @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 15:57) *
QUOTE
But what's the consideration from VCS? Unlike PE in Beavis they are not offering permission to stop. Or looking at this the other way round if it is claimed that the driver is making the offer by driving past, what is the consideration VCS are giving in accepting?


Excellent point. The consideration they could argue is "access" and you need to follow the rules if you want access - but there is an implied right of way a.k.a access.


That's an even better point and way of putting it.

I hope someone is collating all this stuff in a readily accessible place.

Posted by: dramaqueen Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 16:50
Post #1354381

The offer by JLA/VCS is to allow you to drive through their private land. They do not charge a toll for this. They could, but they don't. Supposing, though, they did: "Drive through £2; no stopping." That would be a contract wouldn't it? You wouldn't say it was forbidding, or that there was no offer.

It would be different if they'd said "No Lorries". Then, yes, you could say there is no offer to lorry drivers. But No Stopping is just a condition of the licence. Same as if they'd said "Speed limit 10mph". It's just a licence with conditions.

If there is already a public right of access, then they might not be offering anything of value. Which is why I suggested (post 210) that this is the first point to clarify.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:36
Post #1354403

Hi, I've contacted BMPA and had a reply. At the moment no one has got back to them. however, they have asked me to confirm who was driving and if that information has been made available to the other side? I've not replied yet and am apprehensive about naming the driving, as I've always been told never to name the driver. What do you all suggest here? I need to email all documents over too.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:48
Post #1354407

did you send your email to contact@bmpa.eu and was the return email from that address

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:57
Post #1354410

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 20:32) *
it sounds like they are forgetting about pofa , and going from a different angle , ie not a normal parking ticket/charge

hence me suggesting to get info from DVLA


Could someone just confirm what I need to ask of DVLA please? I can send an email now. Thanks


QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:48) *
did you send your email to contact@bmpa.eu and was the return email from that address



Hi yes I sent an email to that address from their website. The reply is from bmpa support.
They are asking me to reply and send documents to defence@bmpa.ea

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 18:04
Post #1354413

I'd just ignore them and you'll get your help from here. Better to have many eyes than just a few.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 18:05
Post #1354414

suggested letter was

Example Letter

[Your Address]

DVLA Vehicle Record Enquiries section

Longview Road

Morriston

Swansea

SA99 1AJ

Dear Sirs

Re: VRM AB12 XYZ

As the Registered Keeper of the above VRM could you advise who has accessed my personal details with regards to this marque, how often and when did the DVLA send the keeper details out. Please advise the information with regards to events between xx/xx/xx/ and xx/xx/xx.

I understand there is no charge for this information and look forward to your speedy reply.

Yours faithfully



Mr Registered Keeper


but in your case In would also ask by what method they used AND the reason for requesting info


although a email address was listed , I was under the impression they required a signature for DPA reasons


SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 18:08
Post #1354418

Thanks freddy1. I'll do both. I'll send an email now and then get a letter sent off tomorrow.
Thanks everyone for all your help, but I have to say my head is slightly spinning reading all the above information!!

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 18:12
Post #1354420

what method they used AND the reason for requesting info

will be handy because the reason they havce given the DVLA may well be different than the actions they are taking

if this is the case then the DVLA need to see sight of your court claim with the reason for it , they may just revoke DVLA access for this site , and would be a good point to add in your fight

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 18:35
Post #1354431

Email sent to the DVLA, informed that a signed letter will also be sent. Auto response email is that they'll get back to me within 40 working days!!!

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:03
Post #1354455

I only did it by E mail.

I had the same 40 day response but the answer came back quicker, IIRC.

EDIT: My answer came in 12 days.

Posted by: 4101 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:35
Post #1354470

I would like to see the signs and the size. Reading signs at 30mph is not easy, this is why the DfT sets standards for their signs in the Regs.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:50
Post #1354477

do dfT rules apply on private land ?

Posted by: bama Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:12
Post #1354483

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:50) *
do dfT rules apply on private land ?

RTAs apply to the public roads in the airport


QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:36) *
Hi, I've contacted BMPA and had a reply. At the moment no one has got back to them. however, they have asked me to confirm who was driving and if that information has been made available to the other side? I've not replied yet and am apprehensive about naming the driving, as I've always been told never to name the driver. What do you all suggest here? I need to email all documents over too.

Tell bmpa everything, you hold any facts back and they can bite you in the ar$e should it get as far as court. you can and should tell bmpa everything they want - they are not 'PPCs in disguise' nor 'out to do you'.
As PPCs hang around on here never discuss who was driving on the open forum - or via PM with posters you do have no reason to trust. PPCs have been known to hang out on and via PM to mess people's cases up.
DC has an impressive record in PPC cases and a lot of experience. His paperwork gets compliments from the bench.
As I said previously bmpa and DC are the way to go.
Doubly so as VCS are chancing their arm (and much more besides) with a byelaw case.



Posted by: whjohnson Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:28
Post #1354492

Since this could be a pivitol 'test case', has the prankster been copied into events thus far?

Could be useful, and I'm sure he'd be very interested.

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:36
Post #1354497

Tell bmpa everything, you hold any facts back and they can bite you in the ar$e should it get as far as court. you can and should tell bmpa everything they want - they are not 'PPCs in disguise' nor 'out to do you'.
As PPCs hang around on here never discuss who was driving on the open forum - or via PM with posters you do have no reason to trust. PPCs have been known to hang out on and via PM to mess people's cases up.
DC has an impressive record in PPC cases and a lot of experience. His paperwork gets compliments from the bench.
As I said previously bmpa and DC are the way to go.


Few things upset DC more than clients that have left out part of the story or correspondence, leaving him frantically trying to recover his trousers in court

Posted by: 4101 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:46
Post #1354503

QUOTE (bama @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:12) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 20:50) *
do dfT rules apply on private land ?

RTAs apply to the public roads in the airport


QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 17:36) *
Hi, I've contacted BMPA and had a reply. At the moment no one has got back to them. however, they have asked me to confirm who was driving and if that information has been made available to the other side? I've not replied yet and am apprehensive about naming the driving, as I've always been told never to name the driver. What do you all suggest here? I need to email all documents over too.

Tell bmpa everything, you hold any facts back and they can bite you in the ar$e should it get as far as court. you can and should tell bmpa everything they want - they are not 'PPCs in disguise' nor 'out to do you'.
As PPCs hang around on here never discuss who was driving on the open forum - or via PM with posters you do have no reason to trust. PPCs have been known to hang out on and via PM to mess people's cases up.
DC has an impressive record in PPC cases and a lot of experience. His paperwork gets compliments from the bench.
As I said previously bmpa and DC are the way to go.
Doubly so as VCS are chancing their arm (and much more besides) with a byelaw case.



Agreed, I suggest BMPA does the written defence but the OP reps him/herself in court. Having a professional lay rep can attract cost order it seems?????????

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:56
Post #1354509

Okay I'll reply to the email.

Also a point was made on the FB page in relation to the other claim (that got paid). Someone stated that he noticed that VCS are administering the claim themselves as there are no legal representative costs and service of documents is to the registered company address. He states that the rules are quite clear on who can sign the statement of truth and that in the case of a registered company only a registered officer of the said company or a legal rep, solicitor etc, under authority and instruction of a register officer. He states that VCS have two registered officer, Karen Gillott and Simon Robert Renshaw Smith, so who is Jake Burgess who has signed the claim form? He then states that unless he is a legal professional, ie a solicitor employed by VCS, then Jake Burgess would have no authority to issue a claim on behalf of the company.
He goes on to say that if this is the case then The defendant can ask the Court to strike out the claim as the claim form is defective, it is not signed by an officer of the company or legal professional acting under the authority of a registered officer but by an individual who has no authority to do so.

I've no idea whether this is a valid point or not, but thought that it was worth putting on here.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:03
Post #1354510

the name seem new , all cases on mse search are 2017

might be worth reading thu a few of them http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.php?searchid=175743677

he seems to cock up a lot http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Jake+Burgess



Prankster Note

VCS have a new litigation manager called Jake Burgess. Jake does not appear to be any more successful than his predecessors at filing credible evidence. Previously The Prankster caught out Joel Douglas filing a parking charge notice for a parking event in 2012 which has a format which Excel only started to use in 2014. In this claim, Jake Burgess filed evidence claiming to support his claim, but which actually seemed to suggest the car was in two different car parks at the same time.

It does seem from this that VCS's internal systems are not to be trusted and may well be issuing parking charges where none actually exist.

Jake Burgess also filed photographs of signage which he claimed were present at the time, but which were dated 2021 and in the middle of the night. It does seem that parking companies have a little trouble with their timestamps.


https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jake-burgess-34a714a6 also does Gas Injunctions and Mortgage Applications on his days off

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:34
Post #1354522

If Jake Burgess issued the claim instead of BW Legal, it should not include £50 Legal Representative charge

He isn't listed on the Law Society register so he can't justify it as an in-house legal representative

The BW Legal additional charge can be attacked from several angles

The reasonable belief that it hasn't been incurred
The reasonable belief that it's really a contingency charge that VCS has failed to disclose

Legal costs cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court (CPR 27.14)
Even if they could, contingency charges can only be recovered in the case is particularly unusual

BWL justifies them as a normal rate for professional services and displayed on the signs
Assert that the signs lack any detail of additional charges and are insufficient to create a contract
Also point out that the only examples of such charges in The White Book are mortgages where the charges are clearly explained

Wait for other views but could question if Jake Burgess is actually employed by VCS at all if it's on record that he has appeared in court as a representative of Excel

Posted by: Steofthedale Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:35
Post #1354523

The original "Parking Charge Notice" (post 29) and subsequent letters threatening Court action were based on an alleged debt incurred by "stopping in a zone where stopping is not permitted."

Are VCS permitted to suddenly change the grounds upon which they are pursuing the registered keeper now claiming a breach due to accessing private land?

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:38
Post #1354528

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:34) *
If Jake Burgess issued the claim instead of BW Legal, it should not include £50 Legal Representative charge

He isn't listed on the Law Society register so he can't justify it as an in-house legal representative

The BW Legal additional charge can be attacked from several angles

The reasonable belief that it hasn't been incurred
The reasonable belief that it's really a contingency charge that VCS has failed to disclose

Legal costs cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court (CPR 27.14)
Even if they could, contingency charges can only be recovered in the case is particularly unusual

BWL justifies them as a normal rate for professional services and displayed on the signs
Assert that the signs lack any detail of additional charges and are insufficient to create a contract
Also point out that the only examples of such charges in The White Book are mortgages where the charges are clearly explained

Wait for other views but could question if Jake Burgess is actually employed by VCS at all if it's on record that he has appeared in court as a representative of Excel



he is employed by VCS (see lindadin link) and the vcs/excel connection is mentioned by the pranksrter

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:47
Post #1354532

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:34) *
If Jake Burgess issued the claim instead of BW Legal, it should not include £50 Legal Representative charge


There's no legal representative charge. They have left the box blank

Posted by: 4101 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:25
Post #1354552

IMO they cant charge sols fee for an in-house solicitor. I dont know if there is any case law on that yet.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:30
Post #1354553

QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:25) *
IMO they cant charge sols fee for an in-house solicitor. I dont know if there is any case law on that yet.


pe do , dont they?

Posted by: 4101 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:37
Post #1354554

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:30) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:25) *
IMO they cant charge sols fee for an in-house solicitor. I dont know if there is any case law on that yet.


pe do , dont they?



I think they do, yes. But I think that the CPR was not designed for this. If PE issues 1000 pcns per day has it cost them £50k? No.

anyway a HC decision is needed on that point I think

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:38
Post #1354555

this was the punchline on the crapita sale post , ratcheal could buy PE from crapita from loose change

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:51
Post #1354561

Not particularly relevant I guess for this thread but may be useful at some time.

I note that VCS carry the BPA logo on their web page as well as the IPC. I understand they moved away from BPA a few years ago. Don't remember seeing the BPA logo a year or two ago, anyone know when this crept back?

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 00:00
Post #1354563

only the oblong one , ie "boys club" the round logo is the ata

Posted by: dramaqueen Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 08:14
Post #1354578

QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:35) *
The original "Parking Charge Notice" (post 29) and subsequent letters threatening Court action were based on an alleged debt incurred by "stopping in a zone where stopping is not permitted."

Are VCS permitted to suddenly change the grounds upon which they are pursuing the registered keeper now claiming a breach due to accessing private land?


I think they'd argue they're not claiming the breach was due to accessing private land (which would be a trespass, so nothing in it for them). They'd argue that the driver, having accepted the offer to access private land, breached one of the conditions of that licence.

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:28
Post #1354595

yes but £100 or whatever is completely different to the tokan £1 for trespass

no damage was done to the property


Posted by: Redivi Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 09:36
Post #1354598

QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:37) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:30) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:25) *
IMO they cant charge sols fee for an in-house solicitor. I dont know if there is any case law on that yet.


pe do , dont they?



I think they do, yes. But I think that the CPR was not designed for this. If PE issues 1000 pcns per day has it cost them £50k? No.

anyway a HC decision is needed on that point I think

IIRC an employment tribunal case, Ladak v DRC Locums, didn't allow an in-house solicitor to be claimed
I have, however, read elsewhere but can't pin down the source that in-house solicitors are treated no differently with regard to the legal representative filing charge
It might have been the Sweet & Maxwell Civil Procedure White Book that sits on every judge's desk

It's been a very significant income for ParkingEye
I calculated once that it amounted to a third of their profits

Not relevant to this thread but can argue that the Supreme Court has decided the issue
ParkingEye v Beavis, the perverse and widely misunderstood decision that's caused the continuing claims blizzard, didn't allow ParkingEye to recover this charge

Posted by: Steofthedale Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:46
Post #1354858

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 08:14) *
I think they'd argue they're not claiming the breach was due to accessing private land (which would be a trespass, so nothing in it for them). They'd argue that the driver, having accepted the offer to access private land, breached one of the conditions of that licence.


But that isn't the basis for their initial invoice ("Parking charge Notice") or the letters theeatening court action if payment of £160 is not paid. Are they permitted to pursue an alleged debt attributed as a "parking" infringement by changing the basis upon which they now argue the debt accrued?

Furthermore, they are pursuing the registered keeper with no evidence that they were also the driver.

Posted by: Spudandros Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 19:53
Post #1354866

QUOTE (bama @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 21:12) *
DC has an impressive record in PPC cases and a lot of experience. His paperwork gets compliments from the bench.
As I said previously bmpa and DC are the way to go.
Doubly so as VCS are chancing their arm (and much more besides) with a byelaw case.


I'd second that

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 21:40
Post #1354903

But that isn't the basis for their initial invoice ("Parking charge Notice") or the letters theeatening court action if payment of £160 is not paid.
Are they permitted to pursue an alleged debt attributed as a "parking" infringement by changing the basis upon which they now argue the debt accrued?


How can this be worded as a defence point that VCS has been issuing identical charges at the location for many years but has only now discovered what it believes to be a legal basis and one that has never been previously mentioned in any document ?


Posted by: dramaqueen Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:05
Post #1354969

QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 6 Feb 2018 - 21:40) *
But that isn't the basis for their initial invoice ("Parking charge Notice") or the letters theeatening court action if payment of £160 is not paid.


How can this be worded as a defence point that VCS has been issuing identical charges at the location for many years but has only now discovered what it believes to be a legal basis and one that has never been previously mentioned in any document ?


I guess it would have to be along the lines that on their own evidence VCS intended at the time to enter into a parking contract, and since no parking was permitted there was no contract.

The trouble is, the signage says, in so many words: "This is private land. You may drive through for free, but you may not stop. £100 liquidated damages for breach of this condition". It's pretty hard to argue this isn't what the signs intend to say.

If VCS can establish that the driver read, understood and agreed to what was written on the signs, then that was the contract was made at that time. The language used in PCNs or NTKs after the event will not negate it. Perhaps it would have been better if they’d called it a Stopping Charge Notice – but that’s not a legal argument.

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:12
Post #1354978

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:05) *
The trouble is, the signage says, in so many words: "This is private land. You may drive through for free, but you may not stop. £100 liquidated damages for breach of this condition". It's pretty hard to argue this isn't what the signs intend to say.


I know those are your words as an interpretation of the signage language, but that is what they are saying. I cannot imagine that Beavis could possibly apply here, so we're back to GPEOL aren't we? In which case, where do they get £100 from? They certainly haven't incurred any liquidated damages of £100 so why are they backing off this loss to the driver?

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:28
Post #1354990

if this is private land , and you have been given a licence to enter , but broke that licence , is this not a case that you have trespassed?

probably so far off the mark , but just a thought https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php

I note there are some case referances listed ,

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:44
Post #1354996

Indeed, they would struggle claiming any actual "loss" here, they also have no chance of showing anyone entered a contract while travelling AT SPEED, so there is no possibility of a meeting of minds, no intention to enter into a contract. At best theyre offering a licence, however it is one you have rights to ANYWAY - this is a publicly accessible road, NOT a carpark, and so the RTA *and* airport byelaws, AS WELL AS the massive "welcome to JLA" signs, already invite you onto the land without any such condition

They can try for damages, buyt they have to actually prove this los s- and that they cannot do. it is a penalty, plain and simple.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:51
Post #1354999

The three images in post#29 are said to be from a selection of still images from CCTV footage.

I suggest that webster should immediately write requesting copies of all of them.
Its clearly dark and impossible to confirm from those three that there is a red line there.

If it is parked as alleged then it seems to be before what are presumably the no stopping signs which are a few yards in front of the driver who may have stopped to read them. The brake lights are on so that might suggest the driver is considering what to do rather than parking. Obviously to be more certain we need to see all the evidential pictures.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:55
Post #1355003

If the stopping amounts to trespass isn't it only LJLA as land-holder that has the legal capacity to bring the claim ?

Damages are also limited to the actual loss or, if none, the benefit gained by trespasser

If a stop is for the purpose of picking up or dropping off a passenger, the benefit is the minimum charge to use a car park or set-down area

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:58
Post #1355006

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:44) *
[snipped]
AS WELL AS the massive "welcome to JLA" signs, already invite you onto the land without any such condition

They can try for damages, buyt they have to actually prove this los s- and that they cannot do. it is a penalty, plain and simple.


I don't beieve the Welcome signs were there at the time of the offence. Nevertheless it's still interesting background information to confirm that LJLA now want people to enter and it would be difficult to argue that their view was any different before the signs were erected - sometime in April/May 2017 I believe.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:59
Post #1355007

At the time of the apparent contravention of a contract noone can have entered into wink.gif

Posted by: dramaqueen Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:36
Post #1355022

Freddie: yes, if you breach the conditions of the licence you commit a trespass. But as Redivi says, trespass leaves VCS without an effective remedy, since only the landholder can sue (and for very limited damages). That is why VCS will be arguing it was a contractual licence: breach of contract gives them an effective means of enforcement through the courts - provided the landholder has given them the authority to do so.

So the core issue is: was this a bare licence or a contractual licence? It's no good just saying there was no contract. We have pick up on VCS's arguments as to how a contract could have been formed, and then squash them.

So how could a contract have been formed? If the driver had had the opportunity to stop and read the signs, what would he have understood by them? This has to be an objective assessment since the driver himself has not been identified. A reasonable man would surely say to himself: "Ah. This is private land. I would like to drive through it to get from A to B. This sign permits me to do so provided I do not stop. If I stop I will be liable for a £100 charge." What else could the sign reasonably mean?

If he then gets back in his car and drives on, he will have entered into the contract in the same way as Beavis. The consideration point has already been looked at (posts 210 onwards).

Since the driver did not stop to read the signs, the whole thing hinges on whether he could have read, understood and accepted the words on the signs whilst driving past them. This is what we should be concentrating on. As Hexaflagon says, photos are vital. If the Court gives leave, it might be a good idea to club together to get an expert witness who can tell the Court whether it's possible to drive safely and digest the words on those signs at the same time.

As for quantum of damages: surely at this stage just put them to strict proof as to the commercial justification which permits a deterrent element.

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:41
Post #1355023

ok , is the full licence that VCS are relying on published , or is it just on the sign that you pass at 30mph , often in heavy rain/traffic

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:43
Post #1355026

A video might be a good idea. Safely recorded by a passenger obviously!

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:45
Post #1355028

PS: I thought the only valid "licence" on this land was the bylaws , which as been discussed before , cannot be simply over road /amended or forgotten about

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:45
Post #1355053

Its more than that - they are publickly accessible roadways, and as such the RTA applies. STOPPING is a normal part of the function of a roadway, and in fact as they have pedstrian crossings around that site, from memory, required.

It is an absurdity to suggest a "you cannot stop here" contract can exist. It offers nothing you dont already have, which is a right of access along a publicly accessible roadway.

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 13:11
Post #1355065

it does not exist , they are making it up !

bylaws and RTA cannot have Addons , by a private company

i,m going to ban anyone with a red suitcase from boarding a plane at heathrow , on wednesdays

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 14:29
Post #1355102

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:36) *
Since the driver did not stop to read the signs,


But do we know the driver didn't stop to read the signs?
As I said earlier if you look at the three images on the PCN the car is stationary over the duration of the three images. Not only that the brakes lights are on which rather suggests the driver is still in the car. Doing what? A reasonable assumption is that they're reading what appears to be the No Stopping signs a few yards further on.

Posted by: dramaqueen Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 14:49
Post #1355107

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 11:36) *
Since the driver did not stop to read the signs,


But do we know the driver didn't stop to read the signs?
As I said earlier if you look at the three images on the PCN the car is stationary over the duration of the three images. Not only that the brakes lights are on which rather suggests the driver is still in the car. Doing what? A reasonable assumption is that they're reading what appears to be the No Stopping signs a few yards further on.

Sorry, I should have said: "If the driver was not permitted to stop and read the signs......."

For the contract to be formed, either he must be given the chance to stop and read (a grace period); or it must be possible to read and digest whilst driving.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 17:04
Post #1355162

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:58) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:44) *
[snipped]
AS WELL AS the massive "welcome to JLA" signs, already invite you onto the land without any such condition

They can try for damages, buyt they have to actually prove this los s- and that they cannot do. it is a penalty, plain and simple.


I don't beieve the Welcome signs were there at the time of the offence. Nevertheless it's still interesting background information to confirm that LJLA now want people to enter and it would be difficult to argue that their view was any different before the signs were erected - sometime in April/May 2017 I believe.


Hexaflexagon, I have attempted to message you but your inbox is full and it won't send. I need to send something away from a public forum that anyone can see. I'm not being suspicious or withholding info others cannot know I'm just cautious of VCS being on here.

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 10:51) *
The three images in post#29 are said to be from a selection of still images from CCTV footage.

I suggest that webster should immediately write requesting copies of all of them.
Its clearly dark and impossible to confirm from those three that there is a red line there.

If it is parked as alleged then it seems to be before what are presumably the no stopping signs which are a few yards in front of the driver who may have stopped to read them. The brake lights are on so that might suggest the driver is considering what to do rather than parking. Obviously to be more certain we need to see all the evidential pictures.


i'll send an email now and a letter in the morning to request any other images that they have.

Posted by: Catz3005 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 17:16
Post #1355165

I have read this thread with interest. And I am sure vcs, bwl and ljla are doing the same. Are they gaining too much information? Maybe some of you who have good legal brains should contact Webster privately to discuss battle plans without giving vcs etc too much to go on. Just a thought.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 17:58
Post #1355175

It's a balancing act

The strength of the Forum is that members can look at the issues from many different angles - not just the legal ones
Taking it off Forum removes the opportunity for constructive criticism

I agree that this case is getting to a stage where it may be better to go private but it needs a consensus that the OP is in safe hands

The OP should also be wary of private messages from members that don't have at least 1000 posts to their credit and a good reputation

Posted by: dramaqueen Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 18:26
Post #1355183

You're right - sorry!
I don't think we've said more than has already been aired in Hexaflagon's old thread, but yes, time for a bit more discretion now.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 20:54
Post #1355239

Images and CCTV footage have been requested by email, automatic response received. I will get the letter sent off in the morning with proof of postage.
DVLA responded to email (I forgot to put my address on, I thought they would have it to be fair given that they gave my details to VCS on the registration only) reply sent and I noted that I need the info asap, so hopefully this should arrive through the post soon.
Info also being sent to BMPA.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 10:38
Post #1356772

Hi, I've had a response from BMPA and the reply is that I need to decide with of the arguments do a0 want to run with or b) feel confident defending in Court.

They have stated that it is important to realise that I now have to choose a track, either County Court or Magistrates Court. That I can't mix mhy arguments so it's either "contact" (not sure if they meant "contract" which is County Court and what they are arguing or is "byelaws" which is what some of the earlier comments seem to suggest 9I'm assuming this is in relation to the letters that I have sent).

htps://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11

Any thoughts/advice on this

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 11:22
Post #1356785

QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 10:38) *
Hi, I've had a response from BMPA and the reply is that I need to decide with of the arguments do a0 want to run with or b) feel confident defending in Court.

They have stated that it is important to realise that I now have to choose a track, either County Court or Magistrates Court. That I can't mix mhy arguments so it's either "contact" (not sure if they meant "contract" which is County Court and what they are arguing or is "byelaws" which is what some of the earlier comments seem to suggest 9I'm assuming this is in relation to the letters that I have sent).

htps://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11

Any thoughts/advice on this


Must admit I'm somewhat surprised by this apparent choice of track of the defendaant.
I'm hoping my more learned friends here will comment.

My natural assumption was that it is the appellant who starts the ball rolling by issuing a claim in whatever track they feel is appropriate for the offence they are seeking compensation for. Only then when that's decided can the defendant decide on what basis to defend.

And then surely it would be sensible to mention both in any defence. If it's in the Small Claims County Court then defend on the 'contract' arguments but say that if the judge is mindful not to hear arguments on that, then the logical conclusion is that this is a bylaws offence and offer a defence on the bylaws arguments.

In any case there appear to be no private company bylaws since the DfT havd not as far as I know yet approved those that are being sought by LJLA. The only bylaws that are in existence are the Liverpool Council bylaws. LJLA regard these as 'obsolete' but the Minister of State in a letter to me confirms they are still 'in force'.

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 11:29
Post #1356792

I'm guessing that the immediate issue isn't the defence but whether to contest the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:09
Post #1356816

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 11:29) *
I'm guessing that the immediate issue isn't the defence but whether to contest the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court


OK Redivi, I now understand that. Thanks

@Webster
Have you yet had Court Papers?
It goes without saying that until you know which court VCS intend using there is nothing to contest.

We need to marshall the defence points for either a defence on contract law arguments, or a defence on bylaws.

Then when those are clear the decision then is

A
If a claim is in the small claims court (presumably implying a contract law defence) is it
1 better to contest the court on the basis that there are bylaws for LJLA and you/we feel the bylaws defence is stronger,OR
2. Carry on with the small claims court

B
If a claim is in the magistrates court (presumably implying a bylaws offence) is it
1 Better to contest the court on the basis that LJLA are on record as saying the bylaws are obsolete, and indeed Liverpool Council have told me that the bylaws don't cover the Speke Hall Drive part of the airport (which was apparently extended after the original bylaws) - I have evidence for both should it be needed and you/we feel the contract law defence is felt to be stronger, OR
2. Carry on with the Magistrates court




Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:15
Post #1356819

WHich you would surely do. APplication costing £100 would be needed, however, as I understand it.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #1356827

after reading thru the 3 cases on here , I think:

BW legal final swan song before getting out of private parking

there have been thousands upon thousands of VCS/JLA cases over the last 6 yrs (and more) , so if BW send out 10,000 claims @£25 a time , a lot of people will have moved house of the others 60-70% will pay up and 30% will fight


BW get 5,000 defaults (not bad for £25) , and get the full inflated sum from 60-70% of all that get papers and they simply drop the rest

this could be the biggest case of defaults seen so far , causing financial and personal grief on thousands of people


and BW can simply send another mail shot the next week , and the week after

and a note on the last post (but one) , CAN BW/VCS bring a private prosecution (or many) in the magistrates court?

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:47
Post #1356837

In looking at the link which is incorrect (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11) the relevant parts are

QUOTE
(3) A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not, by doing so, lose any right that he may have to dispute the court’s jurisdiction.

(4) An application under this rule must –

(a) be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service; and

(b) be supported by evidence.

(5) If the defendant –

(a) files an acknowledgment of service; and

(b) does not make such an application within the period specified in paragraph (4),

he is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim.


So it seems clear that if the defence goes in and there is no challenge to the jurisdiction then the byelaws argument need not be considered. Not that it is not relevant, just that the judge need not consider it.

AFAIR There was an earlier VCS case for a rail station where byelaws were argued in the County court and the OP was told that boat had sailed - though I can't find the case now.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:54
Post #1356840

QUOTE (emanresu @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:47) *
In looking at the link which is incorrect (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11) the relevant parts are

QUOTE
(3) A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not, by doing so, lose any right that he may have to dispute the court’s jurisdiction.

(4) An application under this rule must –

(a) be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service; and

(b) be supported by evidence.

(5) If the defendant –

(a) files an acknowledgment of service; and

(b) does not make such an application within the period specified in paragraph (4),

he is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim.


So it seems clear that if the defence goes in and there is no challenge to the jurisdiction then the byelaws argument need not be considered. Not that it is not relevant, just that the judge need not consider it.

AFAIR There was an earlier VCS case for a rail station where byelaws were argued in the County court and the OP was told that boat had sailed - though I can't find the case now.




then search parties should be sent to not bonly search , but search thru public records and put the judge straight

it also seems that this has been going on since late last yr http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/court-claims-and-issues/100063-bw-legal-vcs-liverpool-airport oct 2017


just wonder how many have paid up and how many defaults have been issued

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:16
Post #1356849

just been looking thru this old post http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98959

note the Doc letter states "RED ROUTE (N.B. INERNAL NOTE: agreement ends July 2015"


was there anything after this?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=35269

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:04
Post #1356880

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:16) *
just been looking thru this old post http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98959

note the Doc letter states "RED ROUTE (N.B. INERNAL NOTE: agreement ends July 2015"


was there anything after this?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=35269


Thanks Freddy, I'd forgotten all about that one.
I suspect it was probably just a normal contractual arrangement which for commercial reasons had a sunset date and that a new contrac was probably signed. It's worth asking the question though which I'll do.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:18
Post #1356892

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:15) *
WHich you would surely do. APplication costing £100 would be needed, however, as I understand it.


Are you saying that it would cost £100 just to contest the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court if that is where it starts?

Otherwise it would surely be a no brainer and should be contested since any award made in a magistrates court would go to the national exchequer and VCS would get nowt.

And presumably if it were a magistrates court it would have to be a breach of bylaws which LJLA themselves admit are obsolete and Liverpool Council regard as only applying to what they say is the old airport site and not the Speke Hall Drive land.

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:21
Post #1356897

Cant see the need for a £100 to change prior to allocation. Perhaps after allocation but it hasn't been allocated to track yet.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:21
Post #1356898

in a slightly different (but bylaw case) a comment on another forum

"Re your question about prosecuting the owner: for a person to be prosecuted he must have done something that is prohibited by law, or omitted to do something that is required by law. The act or omission must constitute an offence.

Byelaw 14/4/I is not a directive which can be disobeyed . It’s just a statement which describes a possible state of affairs: “the owner may be liable”. You cannot breach a state of affairs - what conduct on the part of the owner could possibly constitute an offence?

A County Court might be able to decide whether the owner is liable or not liable, but that’s not what the Magistrates are being asked. They’re being asked if he’s guilty or not guilty."


Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:37
Post #1356905

QUOTE (emanresu @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:21) *
Cant see the need for a £100 to change prior to allocation. Perhaps after allocation but it hasn't been allocated to track yet.


"(4) An application under this rule must –"

Applications cost £100 unless they have another fee. (£255 if a hearing is needed)

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:43
Post #1356906

QUOTE
"(4) An application under this rule must –"

Applications cost £100 unless they have another fee. (£255 if a hearing is needed)


Are we reading the same page?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11

Do you have a link to your (4)?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:49
Post #1356907

I am looking at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11

ANd what I posted is indeed number 4

You are told, repeartedly, that you have to *apply* to contest jurisdiction. Applications cost £100 (papers only) / £255 (hearing) unless youre told otherwise. I could not find anywhere that said that contesting jurisdiction was free.

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 15:43
Post #1356924

QUOTE
You are told, repeartedly, that you have to *apply* to contest jurisdiction.


I see your point now. Brings up a number of issues such as

* if the jurisdiction is not challenged then the court need not consider it.

* if the question of "relevant land" is raised, the Claimant may indicate that this is a jurisdictional issue and as such if not challenged earlier, the court need not consider it.

* Has POFA been badly drafted?

* Will those arguing Byelaws now switch to contract as it is easier(?) to get into court.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 15:52
Post #1356929

Wel it isnt jurisdictional at that point - it is a matter of fact whether the land is relevant land or not.

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 15:55
Post #1356931

have the bylaws been overturned / replaced , if so where is the legal document?

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:10
Post #1356939

QUOTE
Wel it isnt jurisdictional at that point - it is a matter of fact whether the land is relevant land or not.


I'll step aside then. Perhaps you'll aid the OP with this one.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:25
Post #1356946

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:09) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 11:29) *
I'm guessing that the immediate issue isn't the defence but whether to contest the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court


OK Redivi, I now understand that. Thanks

@Webster
Have you yet had Court Papers?
It goes without saying that until you know which court VCS intend using there is nothing to contest.

We need to marshall the defence points for either a defence on contract law arguments, or a defence on bylaws.

Then when those are clear the decision then is

A
If a claim is in the small claims court (presumably implying a contract law defence) is it
1 better to contest the court on the basis that there are bylaws for LJLA and you/we feel the bylaws defence is stronger,OR
2. Carry on with the small claims court

B
If a claim is in the magistrates court (presumably implying a bylaws offence) is it
1 Better to contest the court on the basis that LJLA are on record as saying the bylaws are obsolete, and indeed Liverpool Council have told me that the bylaws don't cover the Speke Hall Drive part of the airport (which was apparently extended after the original bylaws) - I have evidence for both should it be needed and you/we feel the contract law defence is felt to be stronger, OR
2. Carry on with the Magistrates court


Hi, no I've not heard anything since I did the AoS online. No post or emails. Do I not stipulate which Court when I do hear or do they tell me? I've had an email from the DVLA informing me that my info request has been posted out, I've not received it yet so hopefully I will get this in the next few days. I replied to BMPA asking their thoughts but the reply is that I "need to make a decision as I will have to argue the points in Court and therefore which would I feel more confident arguing? This will decide which of the defences suggested would be relevant".
Given that throughout this process I have been completely guided by others with more knowledge/experience so I'm unsure and obviously looking for guidance of which way to go?! If it's the Mags Court then my concern is the costs involved. Also if this is the way to go, does this need to be sorted asap?.....also has it been decided who's going to be with me?!

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:47
Post #1356955

see post #285

Posted by: Umkomaas Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:50
Post #1356959

If the stopping occurred on 17 March 2017, then the 6 months for the referral to the Mags Court have now expired?

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:52
Post #1356960

like,,,,,,,,,,,,

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 17:13
Post #1356967

Doesn't this go the normal small claims route in the defendants local court?

Part of the defence will be that the RK can't be held liable because it is not relevant land due to the existence of byelaws. Another defence point will be to defeat Elliott v Loake and failure to comply with PoFA. Add in signs, no contract, no standing and all the usual points and the basis of the defence is done.

Yes, it's a 'test' case but all the tried and tested arguments still apply, don't they???? sad.gif

Are we trying to complicate this too much, folks?


Posted by: whjohnson Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 17:49
Post #1356985

Nothing wrong with throwing the kitchen sink at it though!

Now I am wholly confused.
The o/p has already acknowledged service of the claim - so does this not mean that the small claims track is now the default one?

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 17:57
Post #1356992

see post #285

Posted by: bobthesod Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:05
Post #1356999

I am ready with my £10.00 if reqd

Go get 'em Floyd

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:17
Post #1357005

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 17:13) *
Doesn't this go the normal small claims route in the defendants local court?

Part of the defence will be that the RK can't be held liable because it is not relevant land due to the existence of byelaws. Another defence point will be to defeat Elliott v Loake and failure to comply with PoFA. Add in signs, no contract, no standing and all the usual points and the basis of the defence is done.

Yes, it's a 'test' case but all the tried and tested arguments still apply, don't they???? sad.gif

Are we trying to complicate this too much, folks?


I think the answer to the last Q is Yes.
So are you saying that even though VCS aren't using POFA and holding the RK liable, the defendant in the small claims court can nevertheless still make use of the fact that bylaws exist? What would be the argument? That this purports to be a breach of traffic signs/regulations is being heard in the wrong court and should be dismissed?





Posted by: whjohnson Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:24
Post #1357009

Yep - having nearly been a 'victim' of VCS myself, albeit having had the ticket neatly batted away by John Wilkie I'll chuck a few quid in too - just let us know the method of doing so.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:32
Post #1357012

In order to hold RK liable, they must comply with PoFA.

List all the reasons they don't comply with PoFA, including the fact that as byelaws exist, this is not relevant land and is, therefore, outside the scope of PoFA. Therefore, in absence of the evidence of the driver, the claim must fail.

The likely reliance upon Elliott v Loake to infer the RK is the driver, to get round the problems with PoFA, has previously been defeated on numerous occasions.

Hexaflexagon, I believe that these points, supported, as appropriate, by any evidence of byelaws that you can provide, should be the major planks of the appeal.

By all means, throw in the kitchen sink, as well, but we need to focus on compiling a watertight defence with the 'usual' arguments, rather than wandering all over the place with irrelevant discussions.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:40
Post #1357018

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:24) *
Yep - having nearly been a 'victim' of VCS myself, albeit having had the ticket neatly batted away by John Wilkie I'll chuck a few quid in too - just let us know the method of doing so.


Was this an LJLA 'stopping' PCN or something else?
If so would you outline what the defence was and which elements were particulary successful?

Posted by: whjohnson Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:52
Post #1357116

No, this was a different issue altogether - nowhere near JLA.

Posted by: 4101 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 23:57
Post #1357130

Are the PoC anywhere?

Posted by: dramaqueen Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 05:12
Post #1357149

QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 23:57) *
Are the PoC anywhere?


Post 128

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 10:34
Post #1357205

OK so picking out the relevant bits from the POC (post 128) which is essentially based on contract.

1. Any vehicles in breach of the T&Cs will be issued with a CN
2. T& C's displayed in prominent locations..ought to have been known to motorist or objective observer
3. Defendant in breach of contract by failing to adhere to T&Cs
4. Contractual license to enter private land which the motorist accepted by entering onto private land, i.e. conduct

Presumably each of these need to be succesfully rejected. Here's my starter for 10 which need working up into legal language.

1. Is it a semantic point to argue that the vehicle was not issued with a CN

2. Use the Pranksters calculations based on RTR for signs which demonstrate that the T&C signs can't be read whilst driving past at 30 mph

3. Since the signs can't be read (2 above) there has been no acceptance of any contract. Furthermore no 'meeting of minds'.

4. The first indication that the land is private land is when the driver passes Dunlop Road and sees a sign. By that stage and at 30 mph even if the whole sign had been read and understood it would be impossible to stop before the Red Route markings start. Hence there is no way to avoid entering private land. This can't possibly be regarded as acceptance of a contractual license.




Posted by: Redivi Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 11:09
Post #1357216

Don't the Particulars of Claim contradict the Charge Notice ?

This was issued for a "Contravention" and makes no mention of any contract or breach of one

"Contravention" implies the breach of legislation such as the Byelaws that BWL claim not to exist

Posted by: 4101 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 11:44
Post #1357233

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 05:12) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 23:57) *
Are the PoC anywhere?


Post 128



The PoC have been drafted by a barrister IMO.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:11
Post #1357255

I've had a response from the DVLA the Enquiry Reason is as follows;

"Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park"

The DVLA does not record the location of the alleged contravention.

"The data is given Under Regulation 27.1 (e) of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2002, whereby if the landowner or their Agent are able to demonstrate reasonable cause the DVLA may release keeper details from the record. The DVLA considers the allegation that the terms and conditions of private parking as reasonable cause and has provided the data to allow the landowner and their agent to pursue their legal rights"

Whether a private road or not, a road is not a private car park. Is this therefore a breach of obtaining my data for the incorrect use of it?

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:20
Post #1357259

thats just the point , they are not claiming for a car park , they are claiming that you stopped on JLA land "hereafter called red route"

the DVLA SHOULD know the location , as written on the request , the fact that they have not "recorded it" has not made it disappear its on the request !

kodoe contract , https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:27
Post #1357263

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:20) *
thats just the point , they are not claiming for a car park , they are claiming that you stopped on JLA land "hereafter called red route"

the DVLA SHOULD know the location , as written on the request , the fact that they have not "recorded it" has not made it disappear its on the request !

kodoe contract , https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf


The letter goes on to state that "As the request was made electronically this would have generated an automatic response which would have been sent electronically to the company the following day. The DVLA does not record the location of the alleged contravention. The notice issued should provide the full location details".

Whilst they are not claiming for a car park, they have requested my details for Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park, so in essence is that not requesting them under false information?

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:32
Post #1357265

it also says there should be a site audit , do VCS actually do any car parks at this location?

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:46
Post #1357271

https://www.liverpoolairport.com/parking/terms-and-conditions-car-parks

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE OF CAR PARKS

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Entry to or use of the car parks at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (“the Airport”) is subject to these terms and conditions of use (as varied, updated or amended from time to time) of Liverpool Airport Limited (“the Company”) and any airport byelaws in use from time to time. These conditions contain limited exemption clauses affecting all persons who enter or use the car parks.
Entry to and use of this car park is entirely at your own risk. Customers are requested to read carefully the terms and conditions of entry to and the use of the car parks and to follow the procedures recommended in those terms and conditions which are for their benefit. Should you wish to make a complaint, you are requested to follow the complaints procedure set out in Condition No 6 which will ensure that your complaint is brought promptly to the attention of Company staff.

I've had a quick look at LJLA car park website and can't see anything related to VCS running it. I have got a 4 year old demanding my attention though so not had chance to look thouroughly. I did notice that they use airport bylaws! Not sure if that has any relevance to this case regarding byelaws in use?!

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:56
Post #1357274

love the "and any airport byelaws in use from time to time" as if they can choose to use them or not

VCS do not have a say in this , actually JLA dont either


they exist or they do NOT


we know they exist , but yet they say they are old and un used


clear DOC showing suspension of bylaws should be asked for

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 16:59
Post #1357373

I asked BMPA the same question regarding the release of my information. the response is as follows;

Hi

Thanks for the question. The information is made available under Regulation 27.1.e (See https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202373941-Regulation-27-release-of-personal-information) If it has been released the burden of proof is on you to explain why the Secretary of State is not "satisfied".

Why the information was released is not really relevant to whether there was a breach of contract or a breach of Byelaws. It may have an influence on who is liable depending on which route is chosen.

We can see from Pepipoo that you are getting extensive help so we'll duck out now and leave you with the helpers there.




Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:08
Post #1357383

right , so no help from the BMPA

I would of thought THIS was the sort of case they would have been interested in , considering that BW have got access to many many thousands of VCS /JLA cases on tap

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:21
Post #1357393

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:08) *
right , so no help from the BMPA

I would of thought THIS was the sort of case they would have been interested in , considering that BW have got access to many many thousands of VCS /JLA cases on tap


it appeared that they were going to but have sidestepped it now due to the advice I'm also getting on here!

So, it has been nearly two weeks now since I got the Court Claim forms, do I need to get my defence in soon?

What is the way forward now with this and the defence? Is anyone coming with me as it has been said all along? If so who?

Do we need to take this off the forum now and communicate privately regarding the defence?

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:32
Post #1357400

I think you ought to take it off Forum to write your defence with the help of two or three members with high post counts and a good reputation

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:35
Post #1357401

Request for information for those who issue a parking/trespass charge V888/3 - So I've checked this form and on it, it states that the company must give the details of why do you want the info, how you are going to use it and details to support the request which includes the location of the incident.
Am I pursuing the wrong thread here or should I look more into this as clearly the DVLA should (as stated in their own form) have to know why the information has been requested other than just a breach of a private parking incident. If I'm going completely off track please say!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/558620/V888X3-Request-for-information-for-those-who-issue-parking-trespass-charge-notice.pdf

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:53
Post #1357408

vcs use the electronic link


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

Posted by: kommando Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 18:08
Post #1357409

QUOTE
Customers are requested to read carefully the terms and conditions of entry to and the use of the car parks and to follow the procedures recommended in those terms and conditions which are for their benefit.


Read carefully at 30 mph ?

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 19:16
Post #1357452

I think it's time to get a draft defence going. I won't get involved in the argument about whether it should appear on here or not. It may be good to perfect it under peer review but you don't necessarily want to let them know the detail until you are ready. Having said that, they get a copy of your defence almost immediately anyway.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 21:35
Post #1357497

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 19:16) *
I think it's time to get a draft defence going. I won't get involved in the argument about whether it should appear on here or not. It may be good to perfect it under peer review but you don't necessarily want to let them know the detail until you are ready. Having said that, they get a copy of your defence almost immediately anyway.


Either way I need some help/guidance to get a structured defence in.....and importantly for me is anyone actually coming to Court with me?!?!

Posted by: 4101 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 21:44
Post #1357503

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 21:35) *
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 19:16) *
I think it's time to get a draft defence going. I won't get involved in the argument about whether it should appear on here or not. It may be good to perfect it under peer review but you don't necessarily want to let them know the detail until you are ready. Having said that, they get a copy of your defence almost immediately anyway.


Either way I need some help/guidance to get a structured defence in.....and importantly for me is anyone actually coming to Court with me?!?!



Which court was it again?

Please do what I suggested and put the PoC and all others paper in post #1 so they can be easily referenced.

I suggest you go and get your photos or better still take a dashcam video at 30mph.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 23:51
Post #1357589

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:21) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:08) *
right , so no help from the BMPA

I would of thought THIS was the sort of case they would have been interested in , considering that BW have got access to many many thousands of VCS /JLA cases on tap


it appeared that they were going to but have sidestepped it now due to the advice I'm also getting on here!

So, it has been nearly two weeks now since I got the Court Claim forms, do I need to get my defence in soon?

What is the way forward now with this and the defence? Is anyone coming with me as it has been said all along? If so who?

Do we need to take this off the forum now and communicate privately regarding the defence?


I think that looks as though it might be the only way of moving forward. I think that was the way Lamilad's case progressed last year.
I think we've all agreed that this case needs to be succesfully dealt in order that these stopping matters are dealt with once and for all.
Even though we can't seem to find Lynnzer's list of pledges several have been repeated here so I would have thought we could raise enough to cover the expenses of helping out as a lay representative in court. St. Helens isn't the back of beyond (no jokes please :-) )

Are there no senior and knowledgeable members here who can put all this together?

Personally I think the DVLA stuff is just a distraction at the moment.
It's going to go ahead as a contractual matter. Even though the terminology on the PCN and POC is different I believe as far as the court are concerned the PCN 'Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited' and the POC "breaching a contract's T&Cs' for entering private land' are essentially the same.

Seems to me the first thing on the crtical path is to meet the timetable for returning the court papers. What do the cort papers say with respect to return dates.


Posted by: 4101 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 23:56
Post #1357593

We can certainly knock up a defence.

The OP does not have to attend, he can tell the court he wants a paper hearing.

St Helens Courthouse
Corporation Street
St. Helens
Merseyside
WA10 1SZ

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 00:03
Post #1357598

however they will sneak in late and false evidence , if this happens there will be a flood

it needs defending the best that is possible

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:21) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 17:08) *
right , so no help from the BMPA

I would of thought THIS was the sort of case they would have been interested in , considering that BW have got access to many many thousands of VCS /JLA cases on tap


it appeared that they were going to but have sidestepped it now due to the advice I'm also getting on here!

So, it has been nearly two weeks now since I got the Court Claim forms, do I need to get my defence in soon?

What is the way forward now with this and the defence? Is anyone coming with me as it has been said all along? If so who?

Do we need to take this off the forum now and communicate privately regarding the defence?


I think that looks as though it might be the only way of moving forward. I think that was the way Lamilad's case progressed last year.
I think we've all agreed that this case needs to be succesfully dealt in order that these stopping matters are dealt with once and for all.
Even though we can't seem to find Lynnzer's list of pledges several have been repeated here so I would have thought we could raise enough to cover the expenses of helping out as a lay representative in court. St. Helens isn't the back of beyond (no jokes please :-) )

Are there no senior and knowledgeable members here who can put all this together?

Personally I think the DVLA stuff is just a distraction at the moment.
It's going to go ahead as a contractual matter. Even though the terminology on the PCN and POC is different I believe as far as the court are concerned the PCN 'Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited' and the POC "breaching a contract's T&Cs' for entering private land' are essentially the same.

Seems to me the first thing on the crtical path is to meet the timetable for returning the court papers. What do the cort papers say with respect to return dates.



as this is a critical case , count me in for a £10 or so to help the fund

Posted by: bearclaw Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 01:01
Post #1357602

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 23:51) *
Even though we can't seem to find Lynnzer's list of pledges several have been repeated here so I would have thought we could raise enough to cover the expenses of helping out as a lay representative in court. St. Helens isn't the back of beyond (no jokes please :-) )


I might not have the highest post count but I'd love to stick it to these people. I'll pony up £20 towards a lay reps costs if that helps since you appear to be taking over the List smile.gif

Posted by: 4101 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 01:41
Post #1357604

I would start by emailing them (dont forget time limit for filing defence if you have not yet done so):

"Dear Sir,

In the County Court Business Centre, Claim No. xxxxxxxx

Preliminary Request for further information or clarification,CPR, Part 18


before I can file my defence I need you to please clarify the following:

1). Are you bringing this claim pursuant to schedule 4 of PoFA by claiming that vehicle in question was parked (rather than merely stopped)?

2). Please explain and quantify your claim for 'contractual costs' which appear to be £60.

3). Please confirm if parking or stopping of a vehicle is subject to any statutory control, including, but not limited to, bylaws?

4). Why have you failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rules PD 16, 7.1(1) by not serving a copy of the agreement:-

"Other matters to be included in particulars of claim
xxxx

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and
"

A copy of this letter is being filed with the court and I reserve the right to bring it to the attention of the court at future date.

Please reply by email to xxxxxxx within 7 days and serve all future documents etc. by email.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 08:36
Post #1357617

QUOTE
I've had advice from the facebook Fight Your Private Parking Invoice


QUOTE
right , so no help from the BMPA


You're not having much luck if both sites have walked away.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:02
Post #1357623

If the BMPA doesn't want to be involved, it either knows something or has learnt something from the OP that changes the odds

VCS is sitting on a perverse appeal decision VCS v Crutchley involving the access roads for the adjacent Liverpool Business Park, also owned by Peel and managed by VCS.

It was held that :

Stopping is the same as parking
VCS had "a legitimate interest in preventing obstruction on the narrow access roads of this private business park when heavy goods vehicles, buses and other vehicles needed to proceed unimpeded, by imposing a charge to be paid in such circumstances" although the issue of obstruction hadn't been raised and was the invention of the judge
The driver should have stopped outside the business park and inspected the signs

If this case will be heard by the same court, the OP's chances are slim

It might be safer to apply for the hearing on the papers and save a full hearing for a court that's more favourable for the motorist

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:31
Post #1357638

QUOTE (4101 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 23:56) *
We can certainly knock up a defence.

The OP does not have to attend, he can tell the court he wants a paper hearing.

St Helens Courthouse
Corporation Street
St. Helens
Merseyside
WA10 1SZ


Hi,

I'm by no means the best qualified here, far from it, but I'm not a million miles away from St. H and would be happy to go along and lend whatever support I can - subject of course to the date not clashing with any forthcoming holiday.



Posted by: 4101 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Post #1357663

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:02) *
If the BMPA doesn't want to be involved, it either knows something or has learnt something from the OP that changes the odds

VCS is sitting on a perverse appeal decision VCS v Crutchley involving the access roads for the adjacent Liverpool Business Park, also owned by Peel and managed by VCS.

It was held that :

Stopping is the same as parking
VCS had "a legitimate interest in preventing obstruction on the narrow access roads of this private business park when heavy goods vehicles, buses and other vehicles needed to proceed unimpeded, by imposing a charge to be paid in such circumstances" although the issue of obstruction hadn't been raised and was the invention of the judge
The driver should have stopped outside the business park and inspected the signs

If this case will be heard by the same court, the OP's chances are slim

It might be safer to apply for the hearing on the papers and save a full hearing for a court that's more favourable for the motorist



We had better see Crutchley

Posted by: bearclaw Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 10:47
Post #1357668

This looks interesting and perhaps of relevance...

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vehicle-control-services-and-bw-legal#/

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:05
Post #1357679

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:02) *
If the BMPA doesn't want to be involved, it either knows something or has learnt something from the OP that changes the odds

VCS is sitting on a perverse appeal decision VCS v Crutchley involving the access roads for the adjacent Liverpool Business Park, also owned by Peel and managed by VCS.

It was held that :

Stopping is the same as parking
VCS had "a legitimate interest in preventing obstruction on the narrow access roads of this private business park when heavy goods vehicles, buses and other vehicles needed to proceed unimpeded, by imposing a charge to be paid in such circumstances" although the issue of obstruction hadn't been raised and was the invention of the judge
The driver should have stopped outside the business park and inspected the signs

If this case will be heard by the same court, the OP's chances are slim

It might be safer to apply for the hearing on the papers and save a full hearing for a court that's more favourable for the motorist


BMPA appeared to be willing to help, but then they have sent that last email about me receiving help on here. The only thing that they know that's not on here is who the driver was. In relation to FB when I got the Letter Before Claim they felt that this page was more equipped to advise me.
I have to say that I feel a bit that disheartened regarding saving the full hearing for a court that's more favourable for the motorist (are you suggesting another case other than mine), obviously you can do whatever is needed, but I've always been assured throughout this thread that the first case to go to Court I will have support / there's a fighting fund / we'll all be there etc etc. Please don't take this as me being bolshy or unreasonable, it's just that I felt assured to carry on with this fight knowing that I had the backing of this group. For me I just need to know as if costs go up and I'm going to face a fine that I'll then have to pay in full then I either know everything has been done to fight it or if not I should have just paid up straight away (I'm also fully aware that this is my decision, it's just when I've been assured I've put my trust in the group).

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:13
Post #1357681

The appeal hearing was in June or July last year with a Circuit Judge

He reserved his decision for a few days

Cannot help wondering if he was followed the same logic as the Supreme Court when it produced the Beavis decision
If he couldn't find a contrived reason to decide for the parking company, Carmageddon would result

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:26
Post #1357685

QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 01:41) *
I would start by emailing them (dont forget time limit for filing defence if you have not yet done so):

"Dear Sir,

In the County Court Business Centre, Claim No. xxxxxxxx

Preliminary Request for further information or clarification,CPR, Part 18


before I can file my defence I need you to please clarify the following:

1). Are you bringing this claim pursuant to schedule 4 of PoFA by claiming that vehicle in question was parked (rather than merely stopped)?

2). Please explain and quantify your claim for 'contractual costs' which appear to be £60.

3). Please confirm if parking or stopping of a vehicle is subject to any statutory control, including, but not limited to, bylaws?

4). Why have you failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rules PD 16, 7.1(1) by not serving a copy of the agreement:-

"Other matters to be included in particulars of claim
xxxx

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and
"

A copy of this letter is being filed with the court and I reserve the right to bring it to the attention of the court at future date.

Please reply by email to xxxxxxx within 7 days and serve all future documents etc. by email.



Hi, is this to be sent to VCS (and the Court also). I have sent a letter and an email to VCS regarding other photographic evidence and CCTV footage and asked them to correspond with me via email given the timescales - as yet no response!!)

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:13) *
The appeal hearing was in June or July last year with a Circuit Judge

He reserved his decision for a few days

Cannot help wondering if he was followed the same logic as the Supreme Court when it produced the Beavis decision
If he couldn't find a contrived reason to decide for the parking company, Carmageddon would result


Is this in relation to the business park case? So do we know the outcome at all of this or is it still being appealed?

I am going to go past the airport later, I've not got a dashcam, would a mobile phone recording be of any use instead?

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:16
Post #1357706

It was the business park case

Any means of photography is valid
Start recording from well outside the airport area so you can show not only the unreadable signs but the presence/absence of signs to tell you it's a private road

According to Streetview, the actual Private Road area doesn't begin until very close to terminal and some distance after you've passed the large sign marking the entrance to Liverpool Road
"Private Road" is at the bottom of the sign

Any mention of VCS is going to be in very small print and unseen

It's difficult to argue that a motorist wouldn't know he was in a No Stopping area but he could easily believe that contravention of the signs would be enforced by the council or the magistrates under byelaws
Cannot see how it can be argued that he was entering into a contract with a company that's buried its name in small text

Nothing prevented VCS designing the signs to put "Private Road" at the top in large text and their own name immediately below it

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:18
Post #1357707

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:16) *
It was the business park case

Any means of photography is valid
Start recording from well outside the airport area so you can show not only the unreadable signs but the presence/absence of signs to tell you it's a private road

According to Streetview, the actual Private Road area doesn't begin until very close to terminal and some distance after you've passed the large sign marking the entrance to Liverpool Road
"Private Road" is at the bottom of the sign

Any mention of VCS is going to be in very small print and unseen

It's difficult to argue that a motorist wouldn't know he was in a No Stopping area but he could easily believe that contravention of the signs would be enforced by the council or the magistrates under byelaws
Cannot see how it can be argued that he was entering into a contract with a company that's buried its name in small text

Nothing prevented VCS designing the signs to put "Private Road" at the top in large text and their own name immediately below it


It was also dark, so should I do this in the conditions that are on the NTK do you think? If I have time I'll try to do both today.

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #1357710

On 3/6/2015 I stopped briefly on land adjacent to Liverpool Airport owned by Peel Holdings. I was picking up my son from work

I suspect buisness park

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 12:30
Post #1357712

The area has streetlamps and the signs appear to be at a height that they can be lit by headlights

Phone cameras aren't as good at night as a dashcam but you may record something you can use

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 13:31
Post #1357748

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:26) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 01:41) *
I would start by emailing them (dont forget time limit for filing defence if you have not yet done so):

"Dear Sir,

In the County Court Business Centre, Claim No. xxxxxxxx

Preliminary Request for further information or clarification,CPR, Part 18


before I can file my defence I need you to please clarify the following:

1). Are you bringing this claim pursuant to schedule 4 of PoFA by claiming that vehicle in question was parked (rather than merely stopped)?

2). Please explain and quantify your claim for 'contractual costs' which appear to be £60.

3). Please confirm if parking or stopping of a vehicle is subject to any statutory control, including, but not limited to, bylaws?

4). Why have you failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rules PD 16, 7.1(1) by not serving a copy of the agreement:-

"Other matters to be included in particulars of claim
xxxx

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and
"

A copy of this letter is being filed with the court and I reserve the right to bring it to the attention of the court at future date.

Please reply by email to xxxxxxx within 7 days and serve all future documents etc. by email.



Hi, is this to be sent to VCS (and the Court also). I have sent a letter and an email to VCS regarding other photographic evidence and CCTV footage and asked them to correspond with me via email given the timescales - as yet no response!!)

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:13) *
The appeal hearing was in June or July last year with a Circuit Judge

He reserved his decision for a few days

Cannot help wondering if he was followed the same logic as the Supreme Court when it produced the Beavis decision
If he couldn't find a contrived reason to decide for the parking company, Carmageddon would result


Is this in relation to the business park case? So do we know the outcome at all of this or is it still being appealed?

I am going to go past the airport later, I've not got a dashcam, would a mobile phone recording be of any use instead?


I'm not clear where you are with the paperwork and timings. Would you clarify please?
Would others confirm in broad terms what should be sent to the court, I see references to Witness statements and details of defence but not entirely sure what goes in each. I believe defence details are simply the legal arguments to be used and these should be submitted in the initial papers to the court and the witness statement is something that is used in court on the day but perhaps those more knowledgeable would comment.

The first thing to do is draft the defence points that will be sent to the court and put them up here for comment before sending. I believe these should be all the usual stuff,
1. Forbidding signs can't offer contract
2. Bylaws exist which determine the conditions of using the airport a breach of which is for the magistrates court
3. Imposssible to read all the words on the signs when driving past and therefore not possible to accept a contract.
4. Impossible to do anything but drive onto the private roads since a) no reversing on a dual carriageway, b) red rout starts immediately adjacent to the first sign, hence it's impossible to accept the terms of the licence to drive onto the roads as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the POC

And re #3 above. I mentioned before that it appears from photos 1 & 2 on the PCN that the car is stationary with the brake lights on for 12 seconds immediately prior to the sign. Did the driver in fact stop to read the signs - in which case I think that's a good defence point since it means that in order to comply with any alleged contract or licence a car has to stop to read the signs which immediately crystallises an alleged offence that's not equitable.

As I said I'm willing to come along and help (unless I'm away on holiday). But we do need to start getting some specific words into the documents that need to be returned. As others have said this perhaps should be taken off line for discussion by a few who really understand not just the arguments but also the procedures and process.

I believe the points above are the sorts of things that need to be used but I'm no expert, and certainly I'm not au fait with all the process aspects.
Perhaps two or three of those amongst us who are knowledgeable would discuss with webster off line. As I said I'm happy to chip in with copies of the bylaws and the letter form the Minister of State that confirms the bylaws are "in force", or help on the day if necessary





Posted by: bearclaw Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 13:44
Post #1357761

Is it actually on the private road or public access roads? If they are still on the roads maintainable at public expense then there is a right to pass and repass and allow passengers to board and alight which can only be overriden by criminal traffic regulations which are like bylaws addressed in the magistrates court only....

Has anyone looked at the Definitive Map for Liverpool to see? I dont think they have it on line.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:05
Post #1357799

Even on private ROADS, there is an implied right to stop - and a requirement, as they include pedestrian crossings on those roads, from memory

Hex - the intiial defence is a set of legal arguments why the D isnt liable
Witness statements, photos etc are "documents", which are exchanged once the hearing is allocated and according to the Order the court sends out. they are NOT shown for the first time on the dya.

Posted by: bearclaw Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:26
Post #1357815

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:05) *
Even on private ROADS, there is an implied right to stop - and a requirement, as they include pedestrian crossings on those roads, from memory


The other argument I'd make is that if you are not allowed to stop, do you just drive into the back of a queue of cars if you see any? It could be taken to a ludicrious conclusion I suppose...

DPP vs Jones [1999] has a comment from the Law Lords that is interesting... Lord Irvine L.C stated “I conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway." If it is a highway - even on private land, then surely that applies and a temporary stop to allow alighting etc

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 16:53
Post #1357833

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:26) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 15:05) *
Even on private ROADS, there is an implied right to stop - and a requirement, as they include pedestrian crossings on those roads, from memory


The other argument I'd make is that if you are not allowed to stop, do you just drive into the back of a queue of cars if you see any? It could be taken to a ludicrious conclusion I suppose...

DPP vs Jones [1999] has a comment from the Law Lords that is interesting... Lord Irvine L.C stated “I conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway." If it is a highway - even on private land, then surely that applies and a temporary stop to allow alighting etc


Good spot bearclaw. This needs to be a keeper. The appeal was upheld by a 3:2 Lords majority
The full link is here
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:59
Post #1357859

QUOTE
provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway


Read VCS v Crutchley and look for "mischief" a.k.a.nuisance and "obstruct". Paras 4 and 29. You'll have to get up a bit earlier to dissuade a circuit judge with a mission.

Posted by: bargepole Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17
Post #1357870

This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.

Posted by: 4101 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:13
Post #1357894

is the Crutchley judgment available? Is Wood the designated civil judge?

Posted by: Spudandros Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:47
Post #1357915

QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Couldn't the defendant choose another court, like Wigan?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:49
Post #1357917

QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.


I of course respect your opinion on these matters. Are you saying that none of these stopping cases at LJLA will ever be succesful or mainly those that are heard in Liverpool or St. Helens?
If the former then that is a bleak prospect and VCS will of course be encouraged to start on the big backlog they've presumably got.

Must admit it's not clear to me whether this relates to the Business Park which I understand to be outside the airport or to the private Speke Hall Drive dual carriageway private road to the terminal area. What's your understanding and would it make a difference anyway whether it's the business park or airport?




Posted by: Spudandros Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:55
Post #1357922

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.


I of course respect your opinion on these matters. Are you saying that none of these stopping cases at LJLA will ever be succesful or mainly those that are heard in Liverpool or St. Helens?
If the former then that is a bleak prospect and VCS will of course be encouraged to start on the big backlog they've presumably got.

Must admit it's not clear to me whether this relates to the Business Park which I understand to be outside the airport or to the private Speke Hall Drive dual carriageway private road to the terminal area. What's your understanding and would it make a difference anyway whether it's the business park or airport?



Thinking about this, I suspect VCS will treat the first case as an important test case and wheel out the big legal guns.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18
Post #1357929

QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:38
Post #1357943

In would continue with your defence , I still think that this is a big bluff game

you can always pay just before the court date


PS , St Helens may be your local court , but is not the wording "court of YOUR choice "

Posted by: 4101 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17
Post #1357965

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.


Woods is the designated civil judge for Cheshire and Lpool. He leads the other judges for that entire circuit but his word is not binding law.

I still dont know where the driver allegedly stopped, and you still have not put all the docs in post no.1 as asked.

Has an AoS been filed? What is the date for filing a defence.

Have any photos been provided?

In the dark here.

Posted by: whjohnson Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39
Post #1357982

Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:52
Post #1357988

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.



I posted this a few days ago


can I now add , things do not add up here , BW have not added realistic court / and solisitors costs in this case , a win in court would be a financial loss , so I am sticking by the following

"after reading thru the 3 cases on here , I think:

BW legal final swan song before getting out of private parking

there have been thousands upon thousands of VCS/JLA cases over the last 6 yrs (and more) , so if BW send out 10,000 claims @£25 a time , a lot of people will have moved house of the others 60-70% will pay up and 30% will fight


BW get 5,000 defaults (not bad for £25) , and get the full inflated sum from 60-70% of all that get papers and they simply drop the rest

this could be the biggest case of defaults seen so far , causing financial and personal grief on thousands of people


and BW can simply send another mail shot the next week , and the week after "


Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:10
Post #1357994

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.


I can't have a CCJ, I have too many years left on my mortgage unfortunately!

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:13
Post #1357995

deleted

Posted by: whjohnson Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:16
Post #1357996

I cannot see how defaulting on a pesky scam ticket claim can undermine your mortgage - especially if you are keeping up the regular payments.
They can't just suddenly withdraw it can they? Surely such an action would not be in the financial interest of the lender?

Maybe different if you don't yet have a mortgage and are in the process of applying for one, but a mortgage with a long and solid repayment history behind it must be a wholly different beast?

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:20
Post #1357998

they have set the fugue out , not viably economical to push thru court , if they win , then pay up with 28 days , but give the buggers a fight


Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:25
Post #1357999

QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.


Woods is the designated civil judge for Cheshire and Lpool. He leads the other judges for that entire circuit but his word is not binding law.

I still dont know where the driver allegedly stopped, and you still have not put all the docs in post no.1 as asked.

Has an AoS been filed? What is the date for filing a defence.

Have any photos been provided?

In the dark here.


The alleged offence took place just off the roundabout on the way out of the airport.

I will do my best to get the documents on post 1 tomorrow.

I have sent an AoS which was sent two weeks ago tomorrow (it would have been received by the Court on 02.02.18)

What photo's do you mean? The photo's are on the NTK. I have also requested others that VCS say that they have along with CCTV footage, I have not yet has a reply.


QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:16) *
I cannot see how defaulting on a pesky scam ticket claim can undermine your mortgage - especially if you are keeping up the regular payments.
They can't just suddenly withdraw it can they? Surely such an action would not be in the financial interest of the lender?

Maybe different if you don't yet have a mortgage and are in the process of applying for one, but a mortgage with a long and solid repayment history behind it must be a wholly different beast?


No it wouldn't be withdrawn but a CCJ would seriously impact on me when I come to remortgage or apply for credit. With a CCJ I'm scuppered!!! Also if they won and I wanted to pay monthly this would also harm my credit rating!


Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:26
Post #1358003

any CCTV footage could actually be damaging to there case

scanning back cant see it , did the driver stop to let person out of car or pick passenger up

Posted by: 4101 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:27
Post #1358005

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:10) *
QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.


I can't have a CCJ, I have too many years left on my mortgage unfortunately!



I would not pay the £60 extra charge. That is taking the ...........


Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:29
Post #1358006

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:25) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.


Woods is the designated civil judge for Cheshire and Lpool. He leads the other judges for that entire circuit but his word is not binding law.

I still dont know where the driver allegedly stopped, and you still have not put all the docs in post no.1 as asked.

Has an AoS been filed? What is the date for filing a defence.

Have any photos been provided?

In the dark here.


The alleged offence took place just off the roundabout on the way out of the airport.

I will do my best to get the documents on post 1 tomorrow.

I have sent an AoS which was sent two weeks ago tomorrow (it would have been received by the Court on 02.02.18)

What photo's do you mean? The photo's are on the NTK. I have also requested others that VCS say that they have along with CCTV footage, I have not yet has a reply.


QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:16) *
I cannot see how defaulting on a pesky scam ticket claim can undermine your mortgage - especially if you are keeping up the regular payments.
They can't just suddenly withdraw it can they? Surely such an action would not be in the financial interest of the lender?

Maybe different if you don't yet have a mortgage and are in the process of applying for one, but a mortgage with a long and solid repayment history behind it must be a wholly different beast?


No it wouldn't be withdrawn but a CCJ would seriously impact on me when I come to remortgage or apply for credit. With a CCJ I'm scuppered!!! Also if they won and I wanted to pay monthly this would also harm my credit rating!


you would not be allowed to pay monthly , but as this is small claims and they have put very minimul costs down , the figure would be approx the same as they want now (extras? £25 court fee?)


QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:27) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:10) *
QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.


I can't have a CCJ, I have too many years left on my mortgage unfortunately!



I would not pay the £60 extra charge. That is taking the ...........


it is going to cost them far more than £60 to fight this

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:49
Post #1358013

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:26) *
any CCTV footage could actually be damaging to there case

scanning back cant see it , did the driver stop to let person out of car or pick passenger up


post 29 - the attached file. In their correspondence (or maybe it's on the NTK) it states that these are a selection of images that they have and CCTV footage. So I've requested them. Why would CCTV be damaging to them. Driver was picking up a vulnerable passenger.

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:01
Post #1358015

I would serve the Part 18 and then decide what to do.

You can always throw in the towel before hearing.

Bargepole will no doubt drop by. wink.gif

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:04
Post #1358016

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:49) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:26) *
any CCTV footage could actually be damaging to there case

scanning back cant see it , did the driver stop to let person out of car or pick passenger up


post 29 - the attached file. In their correspondence (or maybe it's on the NTK) it states that these are a selection of images that they have and CCTV footage. So I've requested them. Why would CCTV be damaging to them. Driver was picking up a vulnerable passenger.




because VCS are a PARKING co , they have got your info from the DVLA on pretence of PARKING , and as such written into the IPC code of contract are rules regarding grace periods to read signs


the land is non valid for them to ncontinue , there signage is a joke , etc etc and as this land is bylaws only LJA can bring charges ,

BW are steering away from this and trying to create obfuscation with that claim form

as said above they have set the figure demanded far to low to pay BW to turn up , , this is smoke n mirrors and BW are playing poker

you either pay the £160 now in cash , one off payment or you fight them , if you loose you have 28 days to pay VCS and it will not be a CCJ . however it will cost them £200-300 to see your hand in court .

a bloody nose and a loss may cause BW to stand back on future cases ,

and as stated several times , buy an away day ticket put a pin in a map , dont use st helens if you are not happy

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 01:20
Post #1358032

What courts are nearby and have had big wins and sympathetic judges at? Wasnt there one on MErseyside a while back where some judge was round up all the PPC cases as he had a bee in his bonnect about the parkco's wasting court time?

Posted by: bargepole Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38
Post #1358039

You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109875&hl=crutchley&st=70

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:19
Post #1358098

QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38) *
You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109875&hl=crutchley&st=70


If this is to be defended then it needs to be distinguished from the Crutchley case to stand at least some chance of a different decision.
I see the significant difference as being the following. Do you think there is any merit in these distinguishing points?

A. LJLA is subject to bylaws. The business park isn’t.

B. The airport roads are not clearly delineated as being private as apparently were the business park roads. In fact one of the main reasons that LJLA were not give advertising consent for the original signs was that it was not clear that anyone was entering private land. That is why Liverpool Council required 10m of the approach road to the airport be coloured with blue tarmac as part of the eventual planning consent for the new signs in February 2017 (Paragraph 7)

C. The DfT calculations giving the empirical calculations showing the impossibility of reading the large signs was not submitted. (See para 16 where it says “it appears to be agreed”). Might the outcome have been different had the calculations been presented?

D. There are small repeater signs at LJLA which have the camera symbol and the words ‘Traffic Compliance Cameras’. These signs are placed parallel to the road on a fence which is separated from the carriageway by a footpath, a bicycle path a green verge and a strip of gravel. (It’s not clear whether these are the same as at the business park Paragraph 19). The rest of the words on the sign are much smaller. These are clearly too far away and not facing the traffic and hence not readable at 30 mph on a dual carriageway. There are other even smaller signs on lamp posts but again parallel to the road. Google maps does not show the repeater signs on the business park nor the posted speed limit but it’s reasonable to assume that since the road at the business park is not particularly wide they may be more readable and the speed limit may be different. Speke Hall Drive is a wide dual carriageway unlike the business park which is not a ‘particularly wide road’ (Last sentence paragraph 32)

Paragraphs from the Crutchley judgment

7. I shall now deal with the circumstances in which this parking charge came to be levied. The International Business Park in Speke is a large landscaped area providing access roads to various industrial and office units in an enclosed park adjacent to the river Mersey. It is privately owned by Peel Holdings. It is clearly demarcated as a private business park

16. There is an indication that traffic compliance cameras are in use. It appears to be agreed that this sign is sufficiently clear to be readable by motorists as they pass.

19. As well as the larger sign, it is agreed that on fixed lamp posts at various points on the site were smaller signs containing much more information. However these smaller signs would not be readable to a driver without stopping and getting out of his car to examine the fine print, which would amount to a technical infringement of the stipulation in any event. It is said that there may have been over 80 such notices in place. I do not know how many of the large signs were positioned in the park.

32. It is also helpful to consider the nature of the rights and interests which the parties are maintaining by this arrangement. The Claimant has a clear and legitimate interest, in my judgment, in maintaining the free flow of traffic through the business park. Whilst there would always be exceptional cases arising from breakdown, severe inclement weather etc, if there were no preventative measures available from the enforcement of terms and conditions, the situation could easily arise where vehicles stopping only for less than a minute could cause congestion and obstruction which would not serve either the landowner, or the businesses who required regular access to their properties. These are not particularly wide roads, and I suspect that vehicles stopped even momentarily would prevent two larger vehicles passing in opposite directions.

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:22
Post #1358101

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:19) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38) *
You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109875&hl=crutchley&st=70


If this is to be defended then it needs to be distinguished from the Crutchley case to stand at least some chance of a different decision.
I see the significant difference as being the following. Do you think there is any merit in these distinguishing points?

A. LJLA is subject to bylaws. The business park isn’t.

B. The airport roads are not clearly delineated as being private as apparently were the business park roads. In fact one of the main reasons that LJLA were not give advertising consent for the original signs was that it was not clear that anyone was entering private land. That is why Liverpool Council required 10m of the approach road to the airport be coloured with blue tarmac as part of the eventual planning consent for the new signs in February 2017 (Paragraph 7)

C. The DfT calculations giving the empirical calculations showing the impossibility of reading the large signs was not submitted. (See para 16 where it says “it appears to be agreed”). Might the outcome have been different had the calculations been presented?

D. There are small repeater signs at LJLA which have the camera symbol and the words ‘Traffic Compliance Cameras’. These signs are placed parallel to the road on a fence which is separated from the carriageway by a footpath, a bicycle path a green verge and a strip of gravel. (It’s not clear whether these are the same as at the business park Paragraph 19). The rest of the words on the sign are much smaller. These are clearly too far away and not facing the traffic and hence not readable at 30 mph on a dual carriageway. There are other even smaller signs on lamp posts but again parallel to the road. Google maps does not show the repeater signs on the business park nor the posted speed limit but it’s reasonable to assume that since the road at the business park is not particularly wide they may be more readable and the speed limit may be different. Speke Hall Drive is a wide dual carriageway unlike the business park which is not a ‘particularly wide road’ (Last sentence paragraph 32)

Paragraphs from the Crutchley judgment

7. I shall now deal with the circumstances in which this parking charge came to be levied. The International Business Park in Speke is a large landscaped area providing access roads to various industrial and office units in an enclosed park adjacent to the river Mersey. It is privately owned by Peel Holdings. It is clearly demarcated as a private business park

16. There is an indication that traffic compliance cameras are in use. It appears to be agreed that this sign is sufficiently clear to be readable by motorists as they pass.

19. As well as the larger sign, it is agreed that on fixed lamp posts at various points on the site were smaller signs containing much more information. However these smaller signs would not be readable to a driver without stopping and getting out of his car to examine the fine print, which would amount to a technical infringement of the stipulation in any event. It is said that there may have been over 80 such notices in place. I do not know how many of the large signs were positioned in the park.

32. It is also helpful to consider the nature of the rights and interests which the parties are maintaining by this arrangement. The Claimant has a clear and legitimate interest, in my judgment, in maintaining the free flow of traffic through the business park. Whilst there would always be exceptional cases arising from breakdown, severe inclement weather etc, if there were no preventative measures available from the enforcement of terms and conditions, the situation could easily arise where vehicles stopping only for less than a minute could cause congestion and obstruction which would not serve either the landowner, or the businesses who required regular access to their properties. These are not particularly wide roads, and I suspect that vehicles stopped even momentarily would prevent two larger vehicles passing in opposite directions.


I agree, but its not my money at stake.

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:17
Post #1358312

QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38) *
You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109875&hl=crutchley&st=70

How is this likely to pan out if the OP admits part of the claim and disputes the BWLegal charges ?

VCS would have to reconcile the charge with CPR 27.14 and show that it was actually incurred

A lot of effort and expense to recover £54 unless they're confident it will set a useful precedent

Posted by: anon45 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:19
Post #1358313

I think the Crutchley case was blatantly wrongly decided, and in any case it does not constitute case law. I think most judges would have, correctly, come to a very different decision on that case, and similarities with that case should not necessarily doom the OP here.

I certainly do think this OP should continue with a defence, particularly if it is likely to be heard in a different court and before a different judge.

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:38
Post #1358319

QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:17) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38) *
You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109875&hl=crutchley&st=70

How is this likely to pan out if the OP admits part of the claim and disputes the BWLegal charges ?

VCS would have to reconcile the charge with CPR 27.14 and show that it was actually incurred

A lot of effort and expense to recover £54 unless they're confident it will set a useful precedent



They are claiming the £60 as a contractual charge, not legal costs.

You have to read the small print on the sign, at 30mph.

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:46
Post #1358322

so £60 for breaking the contract?

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:51
Post #1358326

In correspondence it's usually described as "legal costs"

The text on the sign that's effectively an open-ended demand is too vague to give rise to a contract

The only examples of such contractual charges to recover debts that are described in the White Book of Civil Procedures relate to very closely specified contracts such as mortgages, not an incidental reference on a sign

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:56
Post #1358327

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:46) *
so £60 for breaking the contract?



in my view, yes, but who knows what the court would say, to be honest, I have always stayed away from the County Court, it is a bit like a Mags Court with
3 lay mags, - a total gamble. The High Court is much better but you can get a Deputy HC Judge who is, er.........

Example, High Court
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/713.html

Appeal Court
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/24.html

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 21:03
Post #1358330

ahh , just wonering if they could double dip £100 + £60 , as the second could not happen unless the first was proved


sorry , back to bylaws

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 21:14
Post #1358333

is there a map of the airport boundaries where bylaws apply?

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 21:21
Post #1358334

the map is held by LCC and I believe by goverment

found this on google http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/JLA%20boundary%20map%202015%20Airport-1.pdf

and this http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/JLA%20original%20map.jpg


and as noted by JLA , bylaws ARE in force , and awaiting update

https://image.ibb.co/girzqn/vcs.jpg

Posted by: Dennis Basher Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:02
Post #1358355

So JLA Customer Services' standard response is that the last set of byelaws are "regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company".

If that's the case, perhaps they could explain why the Airport's current schedule of charges and terms and conditions of use 1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018 states that the use of the Airport is subject to compliance with Airport Byelaws, instructions orders as published from time to time by the Company, the Civil Aviation Authority, the DfT and BorderForce. (Paragraph 5.8.2)

https://www.liverpoolairport.com/media/2461/schedule-of-charges-and-tcs-of-use-2017-18.pdf


Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:12
Post #1358362

JLA need to show socs showing that bylaws have been resided , or back down and show new ones dated correctly

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:31
Post #1358369

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:12) *
JLA need to show socs showing that bylaws have been resided , or back down and show new ones dated correctly


It's apposite that this morning I received the email below from the ICO over my complaint that the DfT were still withholding details of the draft bylaws that LJLA have been seeking for several years. The mere fact that LJLA are seeking to secure a new set of bylaws is of course more persuasive evidence that the old byelaws still exist (and are not obsolete as they described to me a couple of years ago).

From the ICO
This is just a quick email to say that your complaint against the DfT, regarding your information request of 12 June 2017, has recently been allocated to me for consideration. Your case reference remains the same - nnnnnnn.

I have reviewed the information you have supplied and I have contacted the DfT for a copy of the withheld information and further arguments to support its decision to withhold this under the FOIA. I have asked for a response by 14 March 2018.

Once the DfT has responded and I have decided how your case should proceed, I will write to you again with a further update.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:43
Post #1358376

so if they are in draft , the old ones have NOT been superseded

Posted by: hexaflexagon Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:53
Post #1358377

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:43) *
so if they are in draft , the old ones have NOT been superseded


Exactly!

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:59
Post #1358379

so now this case is completely different to the one at the industrial estate



OP you need to contact Liverpool council for a copy of the bylaws ASAP


as it looks like it should be JLA pressing charges , not VCS

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 23:26
Post #1358383

QUOTE (Dennis Basher @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:02) *
So JLA Customer Services' standard response is that the last set of byelaws are "regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company".

If that's the case, perhaps they could explain why the Airport's current schedule of charges and terms and conditions of use 1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018 states that the use of the Airport is subject to compliance with Airport Byelaws, instructions orders as published from time to time by the Company, the Civil Aviation Authority, the DfT and BorderForce. (Paragraph 5.8.2)

https://www.liverpoolairport.com/media/2461/schedule-of-charges-and-tcs-of-use-2017-18.pdf


That does not guarantee a court win but should prove excellent evidence as an admission that bylaws are in force.

Well done.



Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 23:39
Post #1358384

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:11) *
I've had a response from the DVLA the Enquiry Reason is as follows;

"Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park"

The DVLA does not record the location of the alleged contravention.

"The data is given Under Regulation 27.1 (e) of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2002, whereby if the landowner or their Agent are able to demonstrate reasonable cause the DVLA may release keeper details from the record. The DVLA considers the allegation that the terms and conditions of private parking as reasonable cause and has provided the data to allow the landowner and their agent to pursue their legal rights"

Whether a private road or not, a road is not a private car park. Is this therefore a breach of obtaining my data for the incorrect use of it?


That is very interesting, have you complained to the ICO about the DVLA releasing your data without the location being mentioned or the fact that byelaws
are in force?

Have you complained to the DVLA?

Have you complained the the BPA that they are trying to enforce on non relevant land?

Posted by: freddy1 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 23:41
Post #1358385

vcs case here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64255004&postcount=25

"VCS the produced a document from some local council (not from VCS) outlining excuses for breakdowns in restricted areas the Judge would not allow it as it had NOTHING to do with the case."


full story http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4514387

any relivence to this case?

Posted by: 4101 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 23:57
Post #1358386

Dear Mr Johnson
Freedom of Information request – Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws
Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request in regard to the byelaws for
Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
The Airport has provided a copy of the current byelaws, so I am pleased to confirm that
the Department is able to release this information in full, as enclosed with this letter. The
Secretary of State confirmed these byelaws on the 2 June 1982 and they came into
operation on 1 July 1982.
If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the
decisions made in relation to your request you may complain within two calendar months
of the date of this letter by writing to the Department’s Information Rights Unit at:


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/198654/response/495713/attach/3/140320%20L%20DM%20FOI%20reply%20to%20Mr%20P%20Johnson%20F0011123.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 00:15
Post #1358388

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:59) *
so now this case is completely different to the one at the industrial estate



OP you need to contact Liverpool council for a copy of the bylaws ASAP


as it looks like it should be JLA pressing charges , not VCS


No need. I have a copy along with a letter from the Minister for State that they are "in force" as he puts it. I think they may be on my thread which chronicals the various matters associated with these stopping PCN's, but if not I'll upload them here.

The potential difficulty of course is that Liverpool Council's position is that they only apply to the 'old airport' site and not the site that was redeveloped many years ago, which they argue is the Speke Hall Avenue land on which the signs are located.

I maintain that since the bylaws don't define the airport boundary, (and nor is there apparently a map that is contemporaneous with the bylaws ) and define the airport as:
"the area of land including the buildings and installations thereon, for the time being constituting the aerodrome known as Liverpool Airport"
that the words 'for the time being' don't limit the definition in terms of either space or time. LC's view is, or was, different and clearly how any court would decide that is open. Presumably LC would not press charges if they deny the bylaws don't apply. It is though in our interest to have the argument put before the court

Posted by: anon45 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 00:16
Post #1358389

In my view, there is neither true consideration (given that the driver/ airport customer presumably already had the right to pass on airport business) nor true acceptance (the idea that the motorist had a true opportunity, driving past at (potentially) 30mph, to fully read and understood the (inadequate, forbidding) signage prior to entering into the onerous and one-sided "contract" is ludicrous). This is all the more so since case law and the Consumer Rights Act suggest that onerous terms in consumer contracts require considerable notice in order to be enforced against the consumer.

The perverse and erroneous Crutchley decision to the contrary needs to be challenged rather than meekly accepted.

Furthermore, it sounds like PoFA (which only applies to parking, not to stopping) probably will not apply here owing to the existence of valid byelaws. It is true that different judges have taken very different views to the question of the burden of proof required to establish that the defendant was driving; however, even in a court considered to be "unfriendly to motorists", it seems to me that the defence of 'driver id not established' is not so utterly hopeless that the OP should simply pay up at this point.

Posted by: 4101 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 00:33
Post #1358392

If the county court judge says that there are no bylaws in place that leaves the entire airport without the protection of those bylaws.

I doubt any cc judge would dare do that, that is HC stuff.

We really need to see the sign supposedly ignored.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 04:25
Post #1358398


Sections 63 and Schedule 3, Airports Act 1986

Safety of aircraft, vehicles and people, controlling operation of aircraft, controlling vehicles not on public roads including regulating speed and parking, regulating taxis, restricting access to parts of the airport, preserving order, and safe custody of lost property

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 09:19
Post #1358431

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 04:25) *
Sections 63 and Schedule 3, Airports Act 1986

Safety of aircraft, vehicles and people, controlling operation of aircraft, controlling vehicles not on public roads including regulating speed and parking, regulating taxis, restricting access to parts of the airport, preserving order, and safe custody of lost property

You have something there

About 120m after the start of the Red Route, the speed limit changes to 30 mph

Wonder what LJA would reply if the OP told them they can't enforce a speed limit on a private road
Would they say it was covered by the Byelaws ?


Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 09:25
Post #1358433

I thought he RTE, including speed limits, applied on roads accessible by the piublic? So they would be restricted if there are strreet lights, for example.

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 09:40
Post #1358438

They could reply that it's a restricted road under the RTRA 1984 S.82(1)

They might reply, however, that it's covered by the LJA byelaws and directly contradict BWL

Either way, the sign creates a conflict

The only speed limit that can be enforced on a private road not covered by byelaws is the 30 mph imposed by the RTRA

If the speed limit approaching/leaving the Red Route is 40 mph, what's the limit between the start of the Red Route and the 30 mph signs ?
Which sign is in the wrong place - the speed limit or the Private Road ?

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 09:48
Post #1358440

but who applied for permission to install speed signage

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 10:24
Post #1358447

Wasn't needed

The speed limit arises from the presence of the street lighting

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 10:34
Post #1358451

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 09:48) *
but who applied for permission to install speed signage


LJLA made the application. Originally in July 2015. It took much argument and debate with Liverpool Council until the Council go so fed up with LJLA not revising the application as they had been asked, that they told LJLA that they were about to determine the application and reject it. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109259

It wasn't until January 2017 that a new Application was submitted. This application wasn't consistent with the physical signs on the ground so LJLA hastily withdrew it and corrected it, resubmitting in February 2017. LJLA then approved the application with I think three conditions, one of which was to paint the first 10m of the publc road blue so that, as they said, the public know they are entering a private road. How some blue tarmac indicates this I've no idea but there you go.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 10:40
Post #1358453

so mif JLA applied and installed , then that wasnt RTA , that was bylaws

Posted by: 4101 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:14
Post #1358487

I think VCS are member of IPC?

Those signs do not meet the spec.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:45
Post #1358503

QUOTE (4101 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:14) *
I think VCS are member of IPC?

Those signs do not meet the spec.



so what , very few signs installed by there members meet spec required , Stevie wonder does the auditing as a side line

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:53
Post #1358507

If the claim is defended, it's still worth stating that they fail to meet Part E Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice
Make clear that VCS has failed to meet the condition of ParkingEye v Beavis that it must be in compliance with its Code

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:55
Post #1358508

but this is
NOT about parking , its trespass and charges incurred by doing it

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:09
Post #1358519

They're relying on ParkingEye v Beavis for recovery of a contractual charge

If they're claiming trespass, they can only recover the actual damage or, if none, the benefit the motorist obtained

They can't have it both ways

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:18
Post #1358526

They're relying on ParkingEye v Beavis for recovery of a contractual charge


what loss?


no parking space was offered or taken , surly this is far from bevis v parking lie

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:38
Post #1358535

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:09) *
They're relying on ParkingEye v Beavis for recovery of a contractual charge

If they're claiming trespass, they can only recover the actual damage or, if none, the benefit the motorist obtained

They can't have it both ways


That's a good point.
I'm losing track of some of these documents. Have we seen mention of Beavis somewhere since if correct, and should there be any doubt, that would be another persuasive argument that the appellant is treating this as a contractual matter rather than a trespass. I'm not saying that the trespass aspect shouldn't be put into the defence statement as a backstop if the judge were minded to reject the contractual arguments.

In addition we shouldn't forget Bearclaws # 344 and the DPP vs Jones [1999] case. The road wasn't blocked in this matter, which was one of the arguments mentioned in the Jones case, and we can distinguish this stopping on a wide dual carriegway with the narrow road that was mentioned in the Crutchley Business park case.

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 13:41
Post #1358538

I don't think Beavis is mentioned in the letters in this Forum or the Particulars of Shame but I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere in the correspondence

To be specific, the £100 charge is for the breach of terms and conditions for using the road
ParkingEye v Beavis doesn't require the damages to be a realistic estimate of the loss
It says that the amount IS a penalty but can be recovered if there's a legitimate interest in the charge to prevent the driver's behaviour
It also refers to a charge that's no larger than necessary but worth recovering

The £60 charge is a contract to pay the costs of recovering the £100

ParkingEye v Somerfield has an interesting angle to argue whether the charges can be treated separately
It includes an opinion that the addition of debt collection charges results in a sum that is definitely a penalty that cannot be recovered

Posted by: Dennis Basher Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 14:28
Post #1358562

Also, the Beavis case (Para.111) established that while the [AOS] Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator.

The IPC Code of Practice states that Entrance Signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

It can be fairly argued that based on the miniscule wording on the JLA entrance signs, it would be impossible for VCS to "identify themselves" to any driver passing at 30 mph.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 14:33
Post #1358565

QUOTE (Dennis Basher @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 14:28) *
Also, the Beavis case (Para.111) established that while the [AOS] Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator.

The IPC Code of Practice states that Entrance Signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

It can be fairly argued that based on the miniscule wording on the JLA entrance signs, it would be impossible for VCS to "identify themselves" to any driver passing at 30 mph.




Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park

what car park? , no offer of parking is made , there is NO car park (looked after by VCS)

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:42
Post #1358633

Could I refer you to the earlier comments about challenging the track.

Whilst byelaws and RTA are all relevant - they are irrelevant in a Civil track. For example, I may want to use the Elliot v Loake argument whose track was criminal but often a judge in a civil track will throw it out.

You can of course run criminal arguments in civil tracks but I thought this was about winning rather than playing the numbers.

Posted by: kommando Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:44
Post #1358634

From post #322

QUOTE
https://www.liverpoolairport.com/parking/te...tions-car-parks

LIVERPOOL JOHN LENNON AIRPORT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE OF CAR PARKS

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Entry to or use of the car parks at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (“the Airport”) is subject to these terms and conditions of use (as varied, updated or amended from time to time) of Liverpool Airport Limited (“the Company”) and any airport byelaws in use from time to time. These conditions contain limited exemption clauses affecting all persons who enter or use the car parks.
Entry to and use of this car park is entirely at your own risk.
QUOTE
Customers are requested to read carefully the terms and conditions of entry to and the use of the car parks
and to follow the procedures recommended in those terms and conditions which are for their benefit. Should you wish to make a complaint, you are requested to follow the complaints procedure set out in Condition No 6 which will ensure that your complaint is brought promptly to the attention of Company staff.

I've had a quick look at LJLA car park website and can't see anything related to VCS running it. I have got a 4 year old demanding my attention though so not had chance to look thouroughly. I did notice that they use airport bylaws! Not sure if that has any relevance to this case regarding byelaws in use?!


Nothing on the approach roads and how you cannot stop, but they do make clear you are expected to read carefully the terms and conditions for entry to and use of the car parks.

Also they confirm the bylaws are in force (time to time means nothing if there are no notices saying they are not in force).

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:57
Post #1358639

All very well but

a) you are up against some sharp legal minds - the judges
b) they have full control over what they can legally use - and criminal in a civil track can be dismissed
c) you challenge at every stage and if you want to challenge on RTA/Byelaws, it is track.

I'm off.

Posted by: webster1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:07
Post #1358642

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:57) *
All very well but

a) you are up against some sharp legal minds - the judges
b) they have full control over what they can legally use - and criminal in a civil track can be dismissed
c) you challenge at every stage and if you want to challenge on RTA/Byelaws, it is track.

I'm off.


Are you saying not to pursue this case?

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:15
Post #1358648

you fight this right upto the court steps , then ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:25
Post #1358652

QUOTE
you fight this right upto the court steps , then ,,,,,,,,,,,,,


What

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:37
Post #1358656

back off and pay at the court steps ,,,,,,,,,,,if BW take it that far

this is a game of poker , knowing BW the chances of them cocking up are good


the figure claimed today is the same (or within £25) of that at court , and even pushed thru would be a 75% win , or same figure paid as today if lost

as stated previously BW have not allowed any overheads to cover court costs , if they win , they loose

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:47
Post #1358658

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:37) *
if they win , they loose

True but if they win they 'lose' one case but many others will fold.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:51
Post #1358660

edited :


I posted this a few days ago


can I now add , things do not add up here , BW have not added realistic court / and solisitors costs in this case , a win in court would be a financial loss , so I am sticking by the following

"after reading thru the 3 cases on here , I think:

BW legal final swan song before getting out of private parking

there have been thousands upon thousands of VCS/JLA cases over the last 6 yrs (and more) , so if BW send out 10,000 claims @£25 a time , a lot of people will have moved house of the others 60-70% will pay up and 30% will fight


BW get 5,000 defaults (not bad for £25) , and get the full inflated sum from 60-70% of all that get papers and they simply drop the rest

this could be the biggest case of defaults seen so far , causing financial and personal grief on thousands of people


and BW can simply send another mail shot the next week , and the week after "

why are all other BW cases £250 + http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=118644

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 20:45
Post #1358685

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html which was a different outcome to the Crutchley case. I know one contrary case a summer does not make, but maybe the Liverpool/St Helens circuit judges are not as anti as may be thought.

The more I think about this the more I think it's worth going to the line with this one, if necessary pulling out on the actual day if confidence is low. There's always a chance VCS decide not to turn up.

Posted by: freddy1 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 20:50
Post #1358687

in the buisness park case (all of them) there were no bylaws to hinder

I still think BW have set the figure far vto low to address a court case , all other non JLA are the std £250 ish


they have set a number , pay now or push them , with the money claimed who are they going to send?

Posted by: 4101 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 21:50
Post #1358708

QUOTE (webster1 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:07) *
QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:57) *
All very well but

a) you are up against some sharp legal minds - the judges
b) they have full control over what they can legally use - and criminal in a civil track can be dismissed
c) you challenge at every stage and if you want to challenge on RTA/Byelaws, it is track.

I'm off.


Are you saying not to pursue this case?



you alone must decide this, but if I were in your position I would contest the charge.

You will not have to pay their costs under Small Claims Track unless you behave unreasonably, this is rarely granted.


Posted by: bobthesod Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 00:40
Post #1358733

Wpould the fund assist in this case, whichever way it goes?

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:10
Post #1358769

QUOTE
There's always a chance VCS decide not to turn up.


Given that they are most certainly following this thread, I'm sure they'll turn up, which is why I would fight it right to the end.
It'll cost them whichever way.

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:27
Post #1358774

In post 33 - the o/p posted a copy of the wording in one of their letters.

"The Site is privately owned and there is no public right of way........."

In which case, how are the public supposed to access the airport?

Surely this means that the only means of anyone other than the landowner accessing the airport is by committing trespass, either on foot or by vehicle?

What are you supposed to do? Fly in and fly out only?

Like freddy, I am now wondering is this is a last-gasp attempt to obtain money, given the supposed shake-up to private parking regulations coming soon.

Posted by: bargepole Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:42
Post #1358781

There are a number of people on this thread suggesting that the OP should fight this all the way, using various arguments.

The question is, are any of them prepared to get their hands dirty, and help write the Defence, and turn up in Court to Lay Rep for the OP?

Anyone can sit safely at a keyboard shielded by the anonymity of their username, saying that someone should do this and that. But unless they are prepared to put their words into action, it's all hot air.

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:48
Post #1358782

And your advice is...............and how did you come to your conclusion? What are the perceived weaknesses?
I ask because this thread has gone from "We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender" to "Run away! Run away!".

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:55
Post #1358785

An airport has an implied right of access
How else can it perform its purpose ?

From this 2010 thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t50414.html

The first is that the element of public access has to be tested by reference to facts as well as rights. The question in this context is whether the public actually and legally have access. As the Lord Justice-General (Clyde) observed in Harrison v. Hill 1932 J.C. 13, 16:

"There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed--that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or implicitly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs."

Lord Sands observed in the same case at p. 17:

"Any road may be regarded as a road to which the public have access upon which members of the public are to be found who have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied."

Secondly, the public in this context means the general public. To quote again from the opinion of the Lord Justice-General in Harrison v. Hill at p. 16

"I think that, when the statute speaks of 'the public' in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go the farmhouse or to any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways."


The road provides a short link between two obviously public roads that have a lot of junctions and signs showing that the driver has entered Liverpool Airport
I'm not convinced that the signs amount to an implied prohibition to members of the public that do not have business or social purposes to visit the airport itself


Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 12:08
Post #1358787

QUOTE
An airport has an implied right of access
How else can it perform its purpose ?


My point exactly, so a trespass charge is out of the question surely?

If so, what does that leave us with...............?

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 12:42
Post #1358796

QUOTE (bargepole @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:42) *
There are a number of people on this thread suggesting that the OP should fight this all the way, using various arguments.

The question is, are any of them prepared to get their hands dirty, and help write the Defence, and turn up in Court to Lay Rep for the OP?

Anyone can sit safely at a keyboard shielded by the anonymity of their username, saying that someone should do this and that. But unless they are prepared to put their words into action, it's all hot air.

I know Bargepole and helped produce some evidence that he's used successfully to defend a number of cases

If he thinks that a defended hearing will create the same legal disaster for the motorist as the Beavis case, his opinion should be taken seriously
He obviously doesn't believe we've found the magic bullet that he couldn't

I'm leaning to his view that, if the OP can't prove that someone else was driving, this is a dangerous case to take to a hearing

There are options other than paying the claim that would create expense and work for BWL/VCS
They also, however, create expense and work for the OP

They appear to be :

1 Pay £255 to dispute the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court
2 Admit the debt for the parking but not the additional charge leaving BWL to decide if it's worth the cost and effort to recover the small sum
3 Dispute the entire claim with the strongest possible defence but settle outside the courtroom if BWL turn up

#3 could create a problem for BWL if it does recognise this thread
They would know that, even if they turn up, they'll make a financial loss and won't achieve the court decision that they want

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 12:59
Post #1358806

QUOTE (bargepole @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:42) *
There are a number of people on this thread suggesting that the OP should fight this all the way, using various arguments.

The question is, are any of them prepared to get their hands dirty, and help write the Defence, and turn up in Court to Lay Rep for the OP?

Anyone can sit safely at a keyboard shielded by the anonymity of their username, saying that someone should do this and that. But unless they are prepared to put their words into action, it's all hot air.



I would suggest not turning up and asking that the case is heard on the papers. That way the OP is not asked any questions, including who was the driver.

As for the defence, that is not particularly difficult.

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:19
Post #1358818

So it seems that the conclusion is that either way, defended or not defended, this case may set a precedent for the outcomes of future ones??

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:22
Post #1358820

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:19) *
So it seems that the conclusion is that either way, defended or not defended, this case may set a precedent for the outcomes of future ones??


County court decisions are not binding on other judges, however I would expect all DJs to follow a CJ decision.

Have any other case gone to popla or to court?

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:29
Post #1358824

POPLA is not an option offered by the IPC/IAS ATA. VCS are an IAS/IPC company so no POPLA.

I'm just trying to comprehend exactly what is being done here.

Bye laws are in place which should mean that any contravention is that of a criminal nature rather than civil.
The bye law option offers trespass as a contravention in this case.
The public have implied access to the site,so trespass seems to be a non-starter.

So we move on to a civil claim which would appear, in the presence of bye laws, to be on dodgy grounds.

The claim has been brought by a private parking company but for stopping and not parking.
It would appear that stopping is not classed as parking, so where does that leave us?

Similarly, what difference does it make if the driver is known or unknown?
Surely it doens't make any difference?

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:30
Post #1358825

I wouldn't ask for a hearing on the papers because it's likely to result in the very outcome we want to avoid - an actual court decision in favour of VCS

BWL has a lot more practice at preparing documents for a paper hearing than most of us

As you say, the defence isn't difficult
The problem, however, is the parallel with the Beavis case when every court found a different reason for its decision until the Supreme Court came to the view that Carmageddon would result if companies couldn't enforce their parking notices

The OP would be asking a judge to declare that his local airport, part owned by the council, cannot prevent unauthorised stopping on its approach road and all the parking notices issued over the years have been unlawful

He could accept the defence and say that the airport must deal with the problem by enforcing its byelaws but I wouldn't rely on it

This suggests contesting the Small Claims Court jurisdiction but it's not our place to ask the OP to pay £255 to test our theory

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:34
Post #1358827

QUOTE
He could accept the defence and say that the airport must deal with the problem by enforcing its byelaws but I wouldn't rely on it


I agree, but it would be the only just option for him to take.

A legal remedy may already lie in the existing bye laws, albeit a less profitable one, but that should not enter into the decision. The judge did not force the private parking company to police the roads.

If I were the judge, I would be directing VCS/JLLA to that remedy, and not to waste my time bringing the blatently spurious cases to the small claims court.

QUOTE
it's not our place to ask the OP to pay £255 to test our theory


No, but I thought that was what the fighting fund was for.

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:35
Post #1358828

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:29) *
I'm just trying to comprehend exactly what is being done here.

Bye laws are in place which should mean that any contravention is that of a criminal nature rather than civil.
The bye law option offers trespass as a contravention in this case.
The public have implied access to the site,so trespass seems to be a non-starter.

So we move on to a civil claim which would appear, in the presence of bye laws, to be on dodgy grounds.

The claim has been brought by a private parking company but for stopping and not parking.
It would appear that stopping is not classed as parking, so where does that leave us?

Similarly, what difference does it make if the driver is known or unknown?
Surely it doens't make any difference?



Byelaws may be in place, that is the main issue.

The reply to that is that LJLA is not the old airport as there appears to have been a site move.
There is a history on wikipedia.

The question would be distilled to

"Do airport bylaws cease to be in effect if an airport relocates to a different site?"

First VCS has to prove there was a relocation after the bylaws were made and then convince the judge that it was then intention of Parliament
that the bylaws are not 'moveable'. They would need site plans from the Land Reg.

I think it is worth filing a defence and waiting for the evidence pack then reading any Reply to Defence.
We might be able to get a pro bono opinion.

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:39
Post #1358830

I thought that the items you describe had already been obtained?


Hexeflexagon wrote:

QUOTE
No need. I have a copy along with a letter from the Minister for State that they are "in force" as he puts it. I think they may be on my thread which chronicals the various matters associated with these stopping PCN's, but if not I'll upload them here.

The potential difficulty of course is that Liverpool Council's position is that they only apply to the 'old airport' site and not the site that was redeveloped many years ago, which they argue is the Speke Hall Avenue land on which the signs are located.

I maintain that since the bylaws don't define the airport boundary, (and nor is there apparently a map that is contemporaneous with the bylaws ) and define the airport as:
"the area of land including the buildings and installations thereon, for the time being constituting the aerodrome known as Liverpool Airport"
that the words 'for the time being' don't limit the definition in terms of either space or time. LC's view is, or was, different and clearly how any court would decide that is open. Presumably LC would not press charges if they deny the bylaws don't apply. It is though in our interest to have the argument put before the court


Early chronology here -

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109259

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:52
Post #1358835

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:39) *
I thought that the items you describe had already been obtained?


Hexeflexagon wrote:

QUOTE
No need. I have a copy along with a letter from the Minister for State that they are "in force" as he puts it. I think they may be on my thread which chronicals the various matters associated with these stopping PCN's, but if not I'll upload them here.

The potential difficulty of course is that Liverpool Council's position is that they only apply to the 'old airport' site and not the site that was redeveloped many years ago, which they argue is the Speke Hall Avenue land on which the signs are located.

I maintain that since the bylaws don't define the airport boundary, (and nor is there apparently a map that is contemporaneous with the bylaws ) and define the airport as:
"the area of land including the buildings and installations thereon, for the time being constituting the aerodrome known as Liverpool Airport"
that the words 'for the time being' don't limit the definition in terms of either space or time. LC's view is, or was, different and clearly how any court would decide that is open. Presumably LC would not press charges if they deny the bylaws don't apply. It is though in our interest to have the argument put before the court




Not obtained by VCS though

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 13:54
Post #1358838

OK, so what does this mean?

I would have expected the bye laws to apply to the original description as to what use the land was put to, regardless of size.
If the airport expanded to encompass more land at the same site, then surely the bye law jurisdiction would expand with it and continue to apply accordingly?

Otherwise thee would have to be constant re-applications every time another acre was developed for the same use.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 14:37
Post #1358863

I believe there is a comment in the byelaws defining the area as the land occupied for the time being known as liverpool airport.

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 14:39
Post #1358864

changed its name tho ,,,,,,,,

Posted by: bargepole Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 15:02
Post #1358875

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 11:48) *
And your advice is...............and how did you come to your conclusion? What are the perceived weaknesses?
I ask because this thread has gone from "We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender" to "Run away! Run away!".


I spoke to some people on a tube train, and they didn't think it was such a good idea.

Posted by: 4101 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 15:20
Post #1358883

At some point this will come to court.

Whether the OP wishes to be the guinea pig is her decision alone.

There is, as far we know, no precedent or authority on this.

The Dft thinks, it seems, that there a bylaws in force (as of 2014) that would seem to be good insurance against a costs order being made against the OP on
grounds of UB.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/198654/response/495713/attach/3/140320%20L%20DM%20FOI%20reply%20to%20Mr%20P%20Johnson%20F0011123.pdf




Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 15:41
Post #1358888

there will be indeed hundreds of those cases going to court over the next few mths , most people will not have the benifits of this and other forums in which to understand and get help


there are thousands upon thousands of outstanding JLA cases , BW start mail drops say a thousand a week ,


going to be the biggest ever setaside situation ever known



if someone with no help and assistance attempts a court appearance and looses thru lack of knowledge THAT will set the president , and game over

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:22
Post #1358898

QUOTE
I spoke to some people on a tube train, and they didn't think it was such a good idea.


Very cryptic but not sure if it's helpful.........


QUOTE
going to be the biggest ever setaside situation ever known


And is that a desirable outcome?

Posted by: freddy1 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:36
Post #1358903

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:22) *
QUOTE
I spoke to some people on a tube train, and they didn't think it was such a good idea.


Very cryptic but not sure if it's helpful.........


QUOTE
going to be the biggest ever setaside situation ever known


And is that a desirable outcome?



to the changes made by goverment? well it may stick out and they may ask why


in the last 6 yrs + this site and others have said VCS/JLA , ignore it !!!

things have changed now , BW have access to many many thousands of unpaid tickets , how many (%) are liable to have moved house?

Posted by: webster1 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 17:11
Post #1358916

I'm reading all this and yes I have to make a decision. At this point I am happy to get a defence together and go forward. However, I think this needs to be done off the forum, as for every point put on here, VCS are looking at it. So my suggestion is that all those wanting to put in to this defence you need to raise your hands and put forward your name then send me a message with your email details and I can get a group sorted. If anyone has any other ideas of how to do this off the group then please put your views on here. Time is ticking on now and I need to get the defence papers back in. If you disagree with what I'm suggesting please say and let us know how you think we should proceed forward. We can always come back to the forum for further advice, I'm not suggesting that we totally ignore it.

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 18:21
Post #1358936

Rather conveniently The Protection of Freedoms Act uses the phrase "The creditor for the time being" to define who has the right to recover payment
House deeds often refer to the "owner for the time being" regarding for example a right of way

In these examples the term clearly describes situations when the original parties to a contract might change when something is sold and rights/obligations are transferred along with it

The land known for the time being constituting the aerodrome known as Liverpool Airport envisages that the aerodrome will expand beyond its original boundary
It makes no requirement that the airport is located on the original site at all

The statutory rules to interpret unclear legislation create great difficulty for VCS to argue for any other interpretation

The plain English interpretation rule doesn't produce an absurd or unfair result
It's consistent with the purposive approach that the Airports Act 1986 authorises airport authorities to issue byelaws
The Airports Act 1986 makes no mention that existing byelaws are revoked when the British Airport Authority appoints its successors


Posted by: 4101 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:02
Post #1358942

If, as VCS claims, the bylaws are land-specific (not moveable), then does mean that the 1982 bylaws are still in place on the land now abandoned?

Surely not, so that would suggest that the bylaws move with the land.

But there must be limits. If 'Scotland Airport' was in Glasgow and then moved to Edinborough would the bylaws move with it? Seems a push to me.

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:11
Post #1358945

QUOTE
, BW have access to many many thousands of unpaid tickets , how many (%) are liable to have moved house?


Indeed, and how many have passed away? How many no longer reside in the UK? How many are now statute-barred under the 6 year rule? Variables! Variables!

To Webster - I am happy to donate a few quid to the costs of this fight if need be. I am not confident in my knowledge to offer anything for a written defence but I do hope that those on this board who are better-placed in terms of legal knowledge will join together and assist you in formulating a reasonable challenge.

I still suspect that this may be a last gasp attempt to extort monies before new private parking regulations are introduced or the new bye laws are completed and implemented.
Therefore, I believe that this one is worth a fight whatever the consequences.
Good luck, and I agree with taking it off-board if need be.

Posted by: Steofthedale Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 02:51
Post #1359039

Sadly, the OP may have to carry the hopes of so many others alone on this as the support of someone with expertise has not been forthcoming and the pledged funding has proved difficult to access.

The pertinent arguments have been well rehearsed, repeatedly.

If a speculative ploy by VCS/BW it would be foolish to capitulate since this would undoubtedly encourage further intimidation of others on similar grounds.

I think this should be seen through to a conclusion. I would happily support the OP to cover any penalty imposed should an adverse ajudication result.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:18
Post #1359086

QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 02:51) *
Sadly, the OP may have to carry the hopes of so many others alone on this as the support of someone with expertise has not been forthcoming and the pledged funding has proved difficult to access.

The pertinent arguments have been well rehearsed, repeatedly.

If a speculative ploy by VCS/BW it would be foolish to capitulate since this would undoubtedly encourage further intimidation of others on similar grounds.

I think this should be seen through to a conclusion. I would happily support the OP to cover any penalty imposed should an adverse ajudication result.


+1, and looking back over this thread from recent times there were several others.

In the absence of Lynnzer's full list I'm happy to throw in my (I think) £15 pledge if webster would care to go back through the thread and list them all to see how we stand.




Posted by: Dave65 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post #1359115

My pledge is still there also!

Posted by: instrumentsofjoy Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:06
Post #1359244

QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:14) *
My pledge is still there also!

Mine too - I think it was £10.00. But happy to match £15.00

Posted by: freddy1 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:14
Post #1359250

as previously stated I will pledge , but only if it gets to court and the OP has assistance that need paying

Posted by: 4101 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:20
Post #1359253

might be able to get a cheapo barrister doing a good turn.

Posted by: Dave65 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:42
Post #1359258

Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.

Posted by: 4101 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:45
Post #1359261

QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:42) *
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.



that would be us, unless you got 5k for Ian Rogers QC.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45
Post #1359280

QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:42) *
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.

Bargepole advised that the previous VCS case makes this defence difficult, IIRC saying: should have contested jurisdiction at AOS stage.

And there are no other lay reps worth trying or who 'specialise in parking law', or who are byelaws experts. So forget lay reps.

A barrister should at least argue it well.

Posted by: 4101 Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 01:12
Post #1359291

OP does not want a Lay Rep as they would have to attend court. So barrister/sol or a papers only hearing

Posted by: whjohnson Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:07
Post #1359717

Let me know if any arrangements are made for collection of pledges.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:21
Post #1359721

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45) *
QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:42) *
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.

Bargepole advised that the previous VCS case makes this defence difficult, IIRC saying: should have contested jurisdiction at AOS stage.

And there are no other lay reps worth trying or who 'specialise in parking law', or who are byelaws experts. So forget lay reps.

A barrister should at least argue it well.


Which is the previous VCS case? Is that the one at the business park which is distinguished by the fact that the land there is not covered by bylaws, unless by some stretch of the imagination the land is defined and understood to be part of 'the airport'.

Posted by: Spudandros Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:39
Post #1359732

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:21) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45) *
QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:42) *
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.

Bargepole advised that the previous VCS case makes this defence difficult, IIRC saying: should have contested jurisdiction at AOS stage.

And there are no other lay reps worth trying or who 'specialise in parking law', or who are byelaws experts. So forget lay reps.

A barrister should at least argue it well.


Which is the previous VCS case? Is that the one at the business park which is distinguished by the fact that the land there is not covered by bylaws, unless by some stretch of the imagination the land is defined and understood to be part of 'the airport'.


The business park and the argument that the stopping signs don't offer a contract to park as no opportunity is given to read the terms. That part didn't relate to bylaws. So that leaves PoFA, not relevant land so no keeper liability but a chance defendant will be put on oath and asked if they were the driver, as is usual with VCS/BWL and a complex argument about bylaws and why VCS can't offer a contract to break the law.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:57
Post #1359741

QUOTE (Spudandros @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:39) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:21) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45) *
QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:42) *
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.

Bargepole advised that the previous VCS case makes this defence difficult, IIRC saying: should have contested jurisdiction at AOS stage.

And there are no other lay reps worth trying or who 'specialise in parking law', or who are byelaws experts. So forget lay reps.

A barrister should at least argue it well.


Which is the previous VCS case? Is that the one at the business park which is distinguished by the fact that the land there is not covered by bylaws, unless by some stretch of the imagination the land is defined and understood to be part of 'the airport'.


The business park and the argument that the stopping signs don't offer a contract to park as no opportunity is given to read the terms. That part didn't relate to bylaws. So that leaves PoFA, not relevant land so no keeper liability but a chance defendant will be put on oath and asked if they were the driver, as is usual with VCS/BWL and a complex argument about bylaws and why VCS can't offer a contract to break the law.


Aren't we making this too difficult. I agree with bargepole's view that since this case is being brought under contract law it needs to be defended principally on the signage matters and the impossibility of having accepted the contract.

However why shouldn't a defence make as a subsidiary point that bylaws are in existence (mentioning that it's a point they have only recently realised) and that had they known they would have contested the jurisdiction. What harm can that do? If a sympathetic judge is looking for some reason to find in favour of the defendant then it can only help.

Posted by: Spudandros Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 10:14
Post #1359754

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:57) *
QUOTE (Spudandros @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:39) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:21) *


Which is the previous VCS case? Is that the one at the business park which is distinguished by the fact that the land there is not covered by bylaws, unless by some stretch of the imagination the land is defined and understood to be part of 'the airport'.


The business park and the argument that the stopping signs don't offer a contract to park as no opportunity is given to read the terms. That part didn't relate to bylaws. So that leaves PoFA, not relevant land so no keeper liability but a chance defendant will be put on oath and asked if they were the driver, as is usual with VCS/BWL and a complex argument about bylaws and why VCS can't offer a contract to break the law.


Aren't we making this too difficult. I agree with bargepole's view that since this case is being brought under contract law it needs to be defended principally on the signage matters and the impossibility of having accepted the contract.

However why shouldn't a defence make as a subsidiary point that bylaws are in existence (mentioning that it's a point they have only recently realised) and that had they known they would have contested the jurisdiction. What harm can that do? If a sympathetic judge is looking for some reason to find in favour of the defendant then it can only help.


I don't want to appear to be the merchant of doom, but this is potentially a huge case with a lot resting on it, so any defence has to be absolutely air tight to leave VCS no opportunity to go for an appeal if its won and I suspect VCS won't take a loss lying down. Crutchley makes a defence based in signage very difficult as that was the basis of the Crutchley defence. Any case is likely to be heard at either St Helens or Liverpool, both graveyards for defendants in parking cases. This really is a case of picking your battle carefully and making sure everything is in place. Sadly, I don't think that's the case here. It needs someone who can show they were not the driver as a safety net should the signs fail - which is possible, the bylaws defence - whatever that will be, I'm still struggling with it, and a more favourable court.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 19:49
Post #1359962

This thread has gone relatively quiet

Are you getting the help you need ?

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 22:01
Post #1360020

QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 19:49) *
This thread has gone relatively quiet

Are you getting the help you need ?

Hi, yes I'm getting help thank you!

Posted by: Ralph-Y Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 21:07
Post #1370076

yes I know this thread has gone quiet .... for many reasons

and my offer ... genuine ...... is not the answer ...

but if the OP takes this to court then I will add to the cause by paying any loss up to £200

is such case is lost.

I do so in hope that after spending the last few hours ... I can offer some support ....


this is my first post here ... but ... I am sure that MSE posters will vouch for me

Ralph cool.gif

Posted by: ostell Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 21:18
Post #1370079

I believe it is being handled offline, away from prying eyes.

Posted by: Ralph-Y Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 21:32
Post #1370083

I totally understand the reasons why ....

just after catching up on a thread that I had missed ....

I want to do my little bit

Ralph cool.gif

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 22:20
Post #1370096

QUOTE (Ralph-Y @ Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 21:32) *
I totally understand the reasons why ....

just after catching up on a thread that I had missed ....

I want to do my little bit

Ralph cool.gif


Hi Ralph, I was going to update this post to let people know where it's up to. I've sent my defence in and last week submitted the Directions Questionnaire, so now I'm just waiting for the next correspondence from the Court. We decided to do the defence off the forum, but obviously once it's been to Court it will be put on here. As you can see there was a lot of activity and we felt it was best to do it this way.
Thank you for your pledge, that's really very kind of you. Once I hear anything else of relevance I'll post it on the forum.

Posted by: Dave65 Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 09:09
Post #1370185

Good Luck and hope all goes well.

Posted by: Spudandros Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 17:24
Post #1392084

Any news on this? It does seem to have been rumbling along for quite some time since the claim form was issued?

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 17:39
Post #1392087

Apologies for the lack of updates. I've recently received a date for Court. This is on the 5th Sept!

Posted by: whjohnson Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 23:11
Post #1392169

Seems a long time away. I wonder if VCS are collating all their claims together in order to be heard in September? There must be hundreds of them.
Most likely, Peel Holdings are colluding with both VCS & Liverpool Council to screw the public over.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 23:19
Post #1392174

Seems a long time to me as well but we've seen no sign of numerous other claims

Wonder if it's been reserved by a senior judge
Where is the hearing ?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 06:44
Post #1392198

The hearing is at Sheffield County Court. I'm aware of one other later in Sept, I think this may be at Wigan County Court.

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:45
Post #1392363

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 07:44) *
The hearing is at Sheffield County Court. I'm aware of one other later in Sept, I think this may be at Wigan County Court.

Is Sheffield County Court your local court? Just asking, because VCS are Sheffield based and I was wondering if they'd pulled a fast one?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:07
Post #1392371

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:45) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 07:44) *
The hearing is at Sheffield County Court. I'm aware of one other later in Sept, I think this may be at Wigan County Court.

Is Sheffield County Court your local court? Just asking, because VCS are Sheffield based and I was wondering if they'd pulled a fast one?


I was advised not to use one local to me as they are deemed not to be very motorist friendly, so it appeared the only option was to go with their local court!

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:14
Post #1392406

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 19:07) *
QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:45) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 07:44) *
The hearing is at Sheffield County Court. I'm aware of one other later in Sept, I think this may be at Wigan County Court.

Is Sheffield County Court your local court? Just asking, because VCS are Sheffield based and I was wondering if they'd pulled a fast one?


I was advised not to use one local to me as they are deemed not to be very motorist friendly, so it appeared the only option was to go with their local court!

OK - understood.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 23:06
Post #1392463

QUOTE
I'm aware of one other later in Sept, I think this may be at Wigan County Court.

Wigan court sounds disastrous.

I think I am right that Wigan was responsible for the ludicrous decision (not understanding keeper liability) in Janeo's thread last year.

The other one does not bode at all well and I think you have made a better move.

Posted by: webster1 Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 22:12
Post #1409424

Hi all,
I have now received VCS's submission to the Court, which is quite a large dossier. Very much stating that Byelaws are not in use, relates to the old site, evidence quoting the following cases;
Vine v Waltham Forest LBC (2002), Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971), ParkingEye v Beavis (2014), VCSL v Crutchely (2018) and Jones & Tighilt v First Greater Western Ltd (2013).
They have included the 1982 Airport Byelaws (Old Airport), and state that even if they were in force it does not prevent a set of terms and conditions from being enforced (Jones & Tighilt). States that LJLA are entitled to introduce a scheme as both a private landholder and under the byelaws (if exist). It goes on to say that there is indeed a contractual relation between the claimant and defendant.
They have included more picture evidence.
Now that I have received this information I need to get my papers in asap, although I have to say that I am not confident as all representing myself in Court with this and am wondering if I should just settle.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 22:39
Post #1409430

QUOTE (webster1 @ Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 23:12) *
wondering if I should just settle.

Difficult to opine since nobody knows what your defence is.

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 05:56
Post #1409446

Jones & Tighilt is worth understanding - control of taxi touting for business. Also Perth General Station v Ross [1897] which concerned hotel porters and Baker v Midland Railway Company [1856] which relates to bus drivers.

All have one thing in common which was it was held there was a breach of contract. Contracts were in place to control / limit a commercial activity which is not the case here. In addition, these relate to people who had visited the space many times for commercial reasons which is not the same here. The driver was not seeking pay and reward, would not have paid attention to the signs and would have presumed a common law right to entry / dropping off.

In Crutchley, though the driver was not on pay and award, he had been there many times before and stated that he knew of the restrictions - which I presume is not the case here.

IMHO VCS will be able to establish that contracts can be offered, but the question is whether the man in the street would presume via the signs, that it applied to them and not taxi drivers, porters or bus drivers. Different sui generis.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 12:31
Post #1409558

Driver had dropped off many years before without an issue, but had not been there since the implementation of the no stopping zone so yes assumed could stop. Conditions were dark and raining and driver was looking for a vulnerable adult with early onset dementia. Had the driver noticed the signs would not have stopped! Driver certainly was not aware if entering into any contract!

Posted by: emanresu Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 12:42
Post #1409562

The cases mentioned above are the ones that VCS will go in batting with which IMHO will establish their right to offer parking "licences" . They've taken a while to get here but suspect bylaws are dead and buried which will make Greg Knight's bill a bit easier.

As you point out the key issue is the method of contract formation - unilateral by way of signs.

You can distinguish the cases they quote based on the method of contract formation. Taxi's have to bid for a licence to ply a trade on byelaws land as do buses. Their contracts are bilateral whereas the VCS ones are unilateral. They imply the contract rather than being able to show some sort of discussion / awareness / agreement of the same.

Seems VCS are using this not to win, but to "educate" the judges as to the current position. You just have to correct VCS and "educate" the judges in the same way.


Addition:

Going back over the 25 pages I see the Jones case (and the want to road test it) was mentioned at #181. The contract formation argument was answered at #267 by Dramaqueen. At #357 Bargepole suggested it was going to be difficult and to fold - but you are where you are.

You need to follow DQ's advice and go on the relatively simple contract formation/non-illuminated signs issue as anything else will be kicked into touch. The Crutchley case bears reading too as you can understand why VCS are there and will win these in the future (mischief). There is a win here if you keep it simple.

It is ironic though that the legitimate purpose of the VCS contract there is to get people to park rather than not park. The mischief that the Airport wants to solve is Kiss & Fly as airports get up to 30% of their venues from people parking.

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 12:40
Post #1409840

Just to be clear - the Witness Statement has to be sent to the court and the other side when the court orders. It is usually 14 days prior to a hearing

Skeleton Arguments no later than 3 days before the hearing

Costs schedule no later than 1 day before the hearing.

It would help to know your timings rather than having to guess. The fact you are quoting case law suggests you are past the WS stage but prior to the SA stage. To help with a SA we'd need to see their arguments so put them in a dropbox or similar so people can have a look.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 12:47
Post #1409846

Aplogies I thought I had put the date. I'm in Court in Sept. I submitted a Witness Statement a couple of months ago. If I need to put anything else in 14 days prior then it needs to be in by 4pm tomorrow 22nd, otherwise it's the S.A. that I need to complete.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:25
Post #1409856

I'm sorry I'm at work, I have a few photos of the argument but not all. I will see if my husband can get it sorted for me as I can't upload the pictures without going on another file sharing site and I've not got the capacity to do that this afternoon. If I can send the pictures to anyone by another method then please let me know.

Posted by: Spudandros Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 20:45
Post #1409968

QUOTE (emanresu @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 06:56) *
Jones & Tighilt is worth understanding - control of taxi touting for business.

IMHO VCS will be able to establish that contracts can be offered, but the question is whether the man in the street would presume via the signs, that it applied to them and not taxi drivers, porters or bus drivers. Different sui generis.


IMHO this is going to boil down to a straight PoFA compliance issue at the end of the day. VCS still have to prove the defendant was the driver and, even if they do establish they can offer contracts on land where bylaws apply, it remains not relevant land for the purpose of PoFa and that's what the defendant should keep their eye on.

VCS claim that bylaws applied to a different location (Speke Hall) is nonsense. The airport had already started to move to it's current location by the late 1960s and it's inconceivable that bylaws didn't apply to the current runway, which was operational 1968 or the current location of the terminal, which moved there in 1988. The bylaws do not refer to a geographical location. The 1982 bylaws refer to the entity Liverpool Airport, wherever it might migrate or expand to.

Posted by: Umkomaas Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 20:51
Post #1409970

Not sure if hexaflexagon is helping off forum, if not it might be helpful to try to get his input now.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 20:56
Post #1409972

.VCS still have to prove the defendant was the driver

Don't think we can rely on that one.

It is the WS that needs to be in, it was the initial defence that was submitted back in March. I'm sorry but I've not a hope in hell of getting one constructed in time for 4 pm tomorrow. I've got mixed up.with it.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 21:50
Post #1409988

QUOTE (emanresu @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:40) *
Just to be clear - the Witness Statement has to be sent to the court and the other side when the court orders. It is usually 14 days prior to a hearing

Skeleton Arguments no later than 3 days before the hearing

Costs schedule no later than 1 day before the hearing.

It would help to know your timings rather than having to guess. The fact you are quoting case law suggests you are past the WS stage but prior to the SA stage. To help with a SA we'd need to see their arguments so put them in a dropbox or similar so people can have a look.


I've been informed that Skeleton Arguments don't relate to Small Claims Court?

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 21:58
Post #1409991

They're optional

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 22:03
Post #1409994

In what way are they optional? It applies in some cases or it applies to all but it's optional at to whether submit it. I'm not au fait with this process at all. I can resubmit my initial defence if needed so does this give me time to get other paperwork in within the SA?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 23:12
Post #1410007

Webster1 is understandably concerned at not being able to do justice to this, particularly in the absence of any support on the day.

The hearing is in September x (date not shown in order to keep away from prying eyes - post # 486 should be edited accordingly) which gives little time to review all the VCS stuff and put together a considered point by point rebuttal sufficient to do it justice.

What's the situation with assistance anyway. I've seen reference to McKenzie Friend and lay representatives but is a non qualified third party permitted to speak in court on behalf of a defendant?
I'm not available on the date and even if I was I've never had to deal with one in court and it would take me some time to understand the process and pitfalls in order to put a cohesive plan together.

I understand for the reasons above she is therefore reluctant to defend and is considering withdrawing and paying the charge.

Do decisions in the Small Claims set a precedent for other claims in other small claim courts?
If so it seems to me that given we don't have a cohesive and agreed defence yet, it's probably best if she does withdraw otherwise the precedent set by a losing defence would make defending other cases more difficult.

If a precedent is not set then arguably it doesn't matter for future cases if this one is lost, and might be a reason for still going ahead - assuming webster1 was happy to do so.

On the forum throughout this we've discussed the relative merits of the bylaws, whether and to what extent contract law applies given the signage limitations, the adjacent Business Park Crutchley case, and maybe other stuff.

I'm still not clear in my mind which are the most powerful and hence which should be at the top of any list of defence points on the day if it is defended, and whether there is any reason not to include all points even if we think they may not be much help. Presumably if a sympathetic judge is looking for anything that helps the defence then they may as well be included.

I'm attaching two files wbester1 provided where VCS deal with the bylaws in case its relevant. It seems curious that VCS first state that the bylaws are obsolete (a word they've used here and in other correspondence I've had with VCS), but then they go on and make the point that new bylaws are being considered. Which we know to be the case since LJLA and Liverpool Council are as far as I'm aware still debating these - and have been since I think 2012! Does this admittance that new bylaws are being sought help a defence that used the fact of old bylaws being in place but which are deemed obsolete?

Even at this late stage I'm sure webster would appreciate any comments.

Did anyone ever find out how Lynnzer is after his accident? I know earlier in this thread some of us have re-pledged to supoort a professional defence but it would be useul to have on record his defence pledge list.



 

Posted by: whjohnson Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 23:46
Post #1410009

A quick read-thru of the latest posts suggests to me at least that VCS are having a last gasp attempt at intimidating the defendent into caving in and paying up.
There are so many unknowables on both sides that I gain the impression that VCS are going through the motions in an attempt to dissade others (and there are hundreds) into challanging these charges.

Although it is easy for me to say it, now that it has reached this point I'd stick em out to the bitter end. I really would. It's time that VCS were called publically to account on this site.

Lyniser, along with prankie, are notable by their absences for whatever reason. Nothing from prankie since April.......

The question is asked -

"Do decisions in the Small Claims set a precedent for other claims in other small claim courts?"

I'm no legal eagle, but I beleive the answer is no, not in Small Claims, but it may be persuasive to a judge in an ensuing case which is similar. All cases are supposedly judged upon their individual merit/circumstances but although no legal precedents are set by judgement of a single case, the judge may well take other cases from the same site into account.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 05:39
Post #1410017

QUOTE
A quick read-thru of the latest posts suggests to me at least that VCS are having a last gasp attempt at intimidating the defendent into caving in and paying up.


One way to find out is to pop along to Sheffield court where they have block bookings. There is something going on as VCS tend to pick at an issue until they get a result e.g Carly Mackie in Dundee

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:18
Post #1410043

Here is the initial.defence which I will be submitting as my WS with a couple of extra points including signage calculations, Kode and evidence of bylaws being in use

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:25
Post #1410045

Websteer - you can easily write a witness statemetn
Yo uhave plenty of examples to follow

PLEASE do not throw the towel in at this stage.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:36
Post #1410048

Here is the initial.defence which I will be submitting as my WS with a couple of extra points including signage calculations, Kode and evidence of bylaws being in use

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:25) *
Websteer - you can easily write a witness statemetn
Yo uhave plenty of examples to follow

PLEASE do not throw the towel in at this stage.


My issue is time. I'm at work and have no capacity to read through example statements. I'm submitting my initial.defence which I've just uploaded, with a few more points. I have a letter from Hex from the Dept of Transport confirming the byelaws are currently in force. I'm having to do this quickly this morning!
You have to understand that my other issue is being on my own in Court when I've always been under the impression that I would have support. Given it's the first case I need all the help that I can!

 53248.pdf ( 230.19K ) : 68
 

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:45
Post #1410051

That's a defence, not a witness statement.

The witness statement is a series of facts which you know to be true, and should not contain any legal argument (that goes in the defence).

So, essentially, I am the registered keeper of vehicle CCCCC and was so at the time of the incident.

On [This date] I received a notice to keeper (Appendix A)

On [This date] I received, etc....

On [This date} I sent a letter (Appendix Y) asking for the following information, aaa, bbb, ccc, to which the claimant has never responded. Or, the claimant did respond but failed to address points bbb, ccc, etc...

I'm sure you get the idea. There are examples on here I believe, try the Completed Cases sub-forum

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:51
Post #1410054

You could have started this yesterday, however, when you were repeatedly asked if it is a witness statemetn you need to send in

A third party can of course attend with you - see Lay Reps - so can you try the parking prankster etc? Hopefully you are also postnig on MSE as well - if not, do so today and ask for someone to attend with you.

You do not submit your defence again

SPend your lunch break writing the facts of the case

I tis a fact that byelaws are in place, as shown in document X

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:56
Post #1410055

This has thrown me somewhat. Someone suggested using my initial.defence. I haven't got with me all the paperwork so cite specific dates.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:03
Post #1410057

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:36) *
Here is the initial.defence which I will be submitting as my WS with a couple of extra points including signage calculations, Kode and evidence of bylaws being in use

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:25) *
Websteer - you can easily write a witness statemetn
Yo uhave plenty of examples to follow

PLEASE do not throw the towel in at this stage.


My issue is time. I'm at work and have no capacity to read through example statements. I'm submitting my initial.defence which I've just uploaded, with a few more points. I have a letter from Hex from the Dept of Transport confirming the byelaws are currently in force. I'm having to do this quickly this morning!
You have to understand that my other issue is being on my own in Court when I've always been under the impression that I would have support. Given it's the first case I need all the help that I can!


A few quick comments on the defence statement. I'm in a rush at the moment but will take a slower look later.

1.Statute of limitations is 6 years not 6 months.

2.The agreed time duration of the offence is 30 seconds. It might be worth putting in a comment that that time could easily be reached when traffic requirements dictate, e.g at the pedestrian crossing by the roundabout. It would be ludicrous if that led to a charge

3. Expand the point about the signage being replaced. Explain that Liverpool Council refused to sanction the signs because the Highways department objected and the new signage was required to have fewer words to make it readable. The Council also required that the new signs be clearly identified as being on the airport land not a public road by requiring the road be painted blue for 10m in advance of the signs.

4. Some specific text to rebut each of the cases VCS are relying on - Crutchley Tighilt and I believe a couple of others.

5. Re VCS para 33. This is trying to give the impression that the bylaws under discussion will be the first time any bylaws will have been published. Link that into your bylaws paragraph and the fact that then then Minister for State (Robert Goodwill MP says the bylaws are in place and 'enforceable'.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:05
Post #1410058

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:51) *
You could have started this yesterday, however, when you were repeatedly asked if it is a witness statemetn you need to send in

A third party can of course attend with you - see Lay Reps - so can you try the parking prankster etc? Hopefully you are also postnig on MSE as well - if not, do so today and ask for someone to attend with you.

You do not submit your defence again



SPend your lunch break writing the facts of the case

I tis a fact that byelaws are in place, as shown in document X


Unfortunately no I couldn't have done this yesterday, I have deadlines at work which unfortunately for me are not flexible and only returned home late last night. At that time i thought i hsd submitted a WS, I got mixed up.as I stated last night. I'm only human and made a mistake. I am trying my best this morning to sort it,

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:06
Post #1410059

From what I can tell, noone did so. It doesnt matter. You really SHOULD NOT use your defence, because *they have your defence already*
But you can just use the info in here. On this thread.

You need to adduce, today, now or at lunch, all the evidence you cna, alongisde a witness statement setting out the basic FACTS YOU KNOW

STOP SAYING THIS CANNOT BE DONE

Get on with it.

You are being far too defeateist and, because this was taken off board, youve sufferd somehwat as frankly you should already know, as well as the back of your hand, the proceudrual stages.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 10:03
Post #1410072

The Witness Statement can use the earlier defence as long as you edit it down to the facts such as

For starters use this:

QUOTE
1. It is your car

2. You were driving / you weren't driving depending on your view. [IMHO with signage claims, it is better to be the driver if true]

3. The car stopped for ## secs for the purpose of .......

4. At no time would the driver have stopped had they known of the penalties for doing so which the Claimant states was on the signs

5. On that date, at that time, at that location it was dark as sunset was 18:19 some 90 minutes prior

6. The signs were not illuminated and cannot be seen at speed. In addition, the signs have since been changed under the instructions of the client and ??? [@Hexaflagon can you provide the evidence]

7. There is significant doubt that if the court holds that a contract does apply, that one could have been formed based on the signs there on the day - given the time of day.

8. There is further doubt that a site controlled by bye laws and Road Traffic Acts can be overruled


The killer for VCS is the signs and not byelaws. The replacement of the signs put doubts as to whether they were fit for the purpose of contract formation.

As regards your Skeleton, I'd throw in

1. Vine v Waltham and the signs

2. ParkingEye v Beavis and the clarity of the signs

3. ParkingEye v Somerfield and the over recovery of costs in addition to the headline rate.


As well as the above

I'd send your stuff to VCS with a drop hands offer plus a costs schedule.

VCS will win this if you faff around with byelaws (though they deserve a minor mention). By choosing to go the contract route which was not challenged at the Acknowledgement stage, VCS have hung their case on the visibility of the signs. It is also the single vulnerable point they have as the signs were replaced. Open goal - go for it.

Additional comment

As was said before, VCS pick at something until they get a result so what do they want from these cases? They want a transcript that says contract rather than byelaws. So if you go in batting on byelaws they will throw money at it.

What do VCS NOT want. A court transcript that says that all cases prior to the signs being replaced are null and void as the signs were not capable of forming a contract.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 10:16
Post #1410075

Thank you. Can I put the skeleton stuff in at a later date?

Does anyone know when the signs were chsnged. Prior to or after march 2017?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 10:22
Post #1410078

TYes, skeleton is three days before the hearing.

Look at hexaflagons thread on this topic. Pretty sure they were changed in 2018.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 10:35
Post #1410079

Also is this relevant to put in?

The notice to keeper states the notice was issued for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. However, the driver can only read the terms and conditions on any signage by stopping. It would be unsafe to do otherwise. You will be aware that ES Parking have lost in court several times for ‘no stopping’ cases in Spinningfield, Manchester.

I am also aware that the KADOE contract under which VCS operate only covers parking when accessing DVLA. This is therefore a breach of the Data Protection Act as stopping is not covered.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 11:22) *
TYes, skeleton is three days before the hearing.

Look at hexaflagons thread on this topic. Pretty sure they were changed in 2018.


I've looked at parking prankster and it may be 2015 but I'm not 100% certain. I'm struggling with adding any info in relation to the cases they've quoted. I'm unsure of what I need to be saying. I've got a draft that I think covers what has just been said.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 11:10
Post #1410098

That is close to an argument

You need to make it clear that iti is
1) impossible to agree to a contract while the vehicle is moving.
2) This is especailly true when the signs are small / unlit / hard to see at night etc. WHatever FACTS support your case.

NO NOT PARKING PRANKSTER
Hexaflagon has a LONG running thread on this site about the signs.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 11:26
Post #1410105

Also add that if the airport were using Byelaws or Road Traffic Acts to controlling stopping on roads, those [statutory] signs would be governed by the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. There is no such accepted standards for "contract" signs and these as no more than "best endeavours".

There is a Code of Practice but there is no guidance within for "stopping" only "parking". And it would appear that the client felt that VCS's "best endeavours" were not good enough - requiring them to replace them.

Now if you want to give them a kick, you can point out that although there is a Code available from an "Approved" Trade Association, Parliament has such doubts about the so-called self-regulation of these companies, their Codes, and their signs, that they are working to replace them with a statutory regime in line with Byelaws and Road Traffic Acts

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 11:46
Post #1410115

I've completed a draft now. I just need to double check when the signs were changed. I was checking prankster as I'm.aware of the photos on that site regarding the signs.
Do you want me to put the draft on here? However it does identify the driver

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 12:58
Post #1410133

Hexaflagon has a THREAD on here detaiing chanhes to the signs.
Have you found those threads?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 13:03
Post #1410139

Yes I'm aware! I was trying to check a more easily accessible source than going through the abundance of info on that thread.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 13:07
Post #1410143

It wasnt cleaer you had, as we cannot read minds.

Have you done a search on posts? Or just looked form teh end backwards?

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 13:09
Post #1410144

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 12:46) *
I've completed a draft now. I just need to double check when the signs were changed. I was checking prankster as I'm.aware of the photos on that site regarding the signs.
Do you want me to put the draft on here? However it does identify the driver



The signs were granted approval on 3 May 2017. Application Ref 17A/0037

http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/DocumentExplorer/Application/folderview.aspx?type=MVMPRD_DC_PLANAPP&key=1027942


Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 13:20
Post #1410147

Thank you!

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 13:59
Post #1410165

I will need to send my paperwork off in the next 35 mins. Should anyone wish to look over this then I can email it to you should you wish to message me with your email address which will of course be kept confidential and deleted.

Posted by: KunTricks Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 13:59
Post #1410166

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 10:35) *
Also is this relevant to put in?

The notice to keeper states the notice was issued for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. However, the driver can only read the terms and conditions on any signage by stopping. It would be unsafe to do otherwise. You will be aware that ES Parking have lost in court several times for ‘no stopping’ cases in Spinningfield, Manchester.

I am also aware that the KADOE contract under which VCS operate only covers parking when accessing DVLA. This is therefore a breach of the Data Protection Act as stopping is not covered.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 11:22) *
TYes, skeleton is three days before the hearing.

Look at hexaflagons thread on this topic. Pretty sure they were changed in 2018.


I've looked at parking prankster and it may be 2015 but I'm not 100% certain. I'm struggling with adding any info in relation to the cases they've quoted. I'm unsure of what I need to be saying. I've got a draft that I think covers what has just been said.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/planning-permission-17a0037-signage-at.htm
Above is the link to Parking Prankster post on the planning application. Not sure if it helps?

Posted by: Spudandros Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 14:01
Post #1410167

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 21:56) *
.VCS still have to prove the defendant was the driver

Don't think we can rely on that one.

It is the WS that needs to be in, it was the initial defence that was submitted back in March. I'm sorry but I've not a hope in hell of getting one constructed in time for 4 pm tomorrow. I've got mixed up.with it.


Why not? It's your safety net in the event that the other points fail and Crutchley prevails (which it may)

It's quite simple. Bylaws apply to the land, so there is no keeper liability and, as an alternative, the Notice to Keeper was served outwith the 14 days required by Par 9.5 Sch4 of Protection of Freedoms Act, so they cannot acquire the right to pursue the keeper.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 14:12
Post #1410169

Forget the byelaws argument - that ship has sailed long ago.

The way the court looks at it is IF jurisdiction was to be challenged, it should have been challenged early on. It wasn't so it is in the County Court stream.

Secondly the client and not VCS have chosen the contractual model as VCS can't enforce byelaws nor RTA. VCS can only apply what they are required to - a contractual model based on unilateral acceptance of signs.

Since the battleground is contract/signs that is what needs to be dealt with as byelaws are long gone. It is also the simplest argument to win as the signs are poor. It takes a lot of expertise and testing to get road signs that can be read at speed - which is why the have the TSRGD. The VCS signs are no use and were replaced. In Crutchley the OP knew about the signs. This OP didn't.

From Crutchley

QUOTE
Mr Crutchley lives nearby the business park. He had previously collected his son who worked in one of the units and was aware that he could not gain access to the car park provided for that unit.


VCS got lucky on that one but each case turns on the facts and the fact here was it was dark and the signs poor.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 14:21
Post #1410170

[quote name='Spudandros' date='Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 15:01' post='1410167']
[quote name='webster1' post='1409972' date='Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 21:56'].VCS still have to prove the defendant was the driver

Don't

Why not? It's your safety net in the event that the other points fail and Crutchley prevails (which it may)

The photo evidence. There's no way of disputing it. More pictures have been put forward


I have covered the signage and the byelaws. I need to get this scanned and sent now to comply with the 4pm deadline

Posted by: henrik777 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 18:55
Post #1410265

It doesn't really matter how good or bad the signs are. There simply cannot be enough information on them to be readable whilst driving. If you need to stop to read them or they say, further terms apply see signs for details, then a contract has not been created.

If they claim signs have already created a contract before you stopped then further terms cannot be added in later. (thornton)



No stopping is clear enough but the £100 isn't. What are they going to argue contract wise in court ? What does the motorist get ? In Beavis

"It was common ground before the Court of Appeal, and is common ground
in this court, that on the facts which we have just summarised there was a contract
between Mr Beavis and ParkingEye. Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park his
car in the retail park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, which he
accepted by entering the site"

In a scenario of no stopping what does the motorist get ? In Beavis he got some parking, here you get ?????????





Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 08:06
Post #1410382

Plis, they forbid you from doing anything
THere is no possible contract formed if they offer nothing.

Posted by: Sheffield Dave Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 08:13
Post #1410384

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 09:06) *
Plis, they forbid you from doing anything
THere is no possible contract formed if they offer nothing.

Of course, mere details like that don't seem to bother some DJs. I remember one poster was told by a DJ that there was indeed an offer: an offer not to pay £100.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 08:31
Post #1410391

QUOTE
Of course, mere details like that don't seem to bother some DJs. I remember one poster was told by a DJ that there was indeed an offer: an offer not to pay £100.


And Circuit judges all the way up to Supreme Court judges. The world has gone mad ..... or perhaps we need to understand positive/negative covenants and mischief in the legal sense.

But on the positive side, at least the byelaws issue has gone quiet.

Posted by: dramaqueen Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:15
Post #1410505

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 09:06) *
Plis, they forbid you from doing anything
THere is no possible contract formed if they offer nothing.


I think they would say they are offering a licence to drive through their private land. Like a toll road, but without charging for it.


Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:26
Post #1410512

Except as it si a roadway accessible by the public, the RTA already allow you to drive through.

Posted by: dramaqueen Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:42
Post #1410555

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:26) *
Except as it si a roadway accessible by the public, the RTA already allow you to drive through.

I can see that since the public has access, it qualifies as a road to which the RTA rules apply - such as your car must be insured. But I can't see that because the public has access they also have a right to access. Surely the airport company can close the road, or put up a barrier and charge for access if they so wish?

if this point is to be argued in the defence, the precise legal arrangement under which the public already has a right of access would have to be cited.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:46
Post #1410558

Implied right of access unless specifically withdrawn I'd suggest.

Posted by: dramaqueen Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 15:17
Post #1410564

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 15:46) *
Implied right of access unless specifically withdrawn I'd suggest.



Interesting argument - but it only goes half way. Still need to cite the legal authority for an implied right of access.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 15:25
Post #1410568

That the public are invited on as a natural course of business
You have an implied right to access all publicly acessible land unless specifically withdrawn.

Posted by: whjohnson Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 17:18
Post #1410609

Getting to the real meat, I suppose one might ask the judge what use an airport is if you cannot get to it without tresspassing.

Posted by: dramaqueen Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 20:53
Post #1410666

I think the judge would say you have an implied licence to enter the land. Not an implied right.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 08:26
Post #1410729

You have an Implied right of access to all land you can physically access. This right can be removed - which is what happens in residential cases where tehr is a notice to the MA, banning them from entering your land.
Not licence.

Posted by: dramaqueen Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 11:20
Post #1410799

It's risky to make assertions on the law in court without clear authority to back them up.

This one in particular, because a right that can be removed unilaterally isn't, in reality, a right. If it requires the continuation of an implied permission, it's a licence.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 11:48
Post #1410815

OK, but there is clear invitation
They cannot offer a contract - which is the basis of this court action - for something they forbid you to do. THey offer nothing. VCS offers nothing.

Posted by: unicorn47 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 12:12
Post #1410823

Any road to which the public has access is a Highway.

As such the public have a right to pass and repass.

Posted by: Sheffield Dave Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 12:33
Post #1410827

Another issue is that you have no opportunity to decline. For a example a toll bridge will normally have a 'turn off here unless you want to pay a toll ahead" sign. At LJLA you're on the private road before you've had any chance to read any signs informing you that you "agreed" to a contract not to stop. At this point if you want to decline and leave the airport, you'd need to, err, stop and consult a map to decide the quickest and best way to exit.

Posted by: dramaqueen Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 12:34
Post #1410828

"Any road to which the public has access is a Highway. As such the public have a right to pass and repass".

Try saying that to a judge and the first thing he/she will say is: where is your authority?

If we can find clear authority that the OP already had a right - not simply a licence - to drive along that road, then this argument has legs. She can say she wasn't being offered something she didn't already have. Without it, she's likely to have a rough ride over this point. She also runs the risk of annoying the judge with a half-baked submission that has no evident foundation in law.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 12:40
Post #1410830

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15061%3Aasserting-public-highway-rights&catid=64&Itemid=32

Its a public highway by definition
It is a public right of way
RTAs require drivers to be able to STOP on such roads unless a TRO restricts. As a TRO canot restrict this - as it si a private road - because this is a public right of way, they cannot prevernt stopping. They cannot offer a "contract" to tell you "you cannot stop" - because that isnt an offer.

Posted by: dramaqueen Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 12:57
Post #1410839

QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 13:33) *
Another issue is that you have no opportunity to decline. For a example a toll bridge will normally have a 'turn off here unless you want to pay a toll ahead" sign. At LJLA you're on the private road before you've had any chance to read any signs informing you that you "agreed" to a contract not to stop. At this point if you want to decline and leave the airport, you'd need to, err, stop and consult a map to decide the quickest and best way to exit.


Really good point. How can there have been an agreement if she was not in a position to disagree? The "acceptance by performance" rule can't apply.

Once upon a time, no consideration from the OP would have been enough to argue it was a bare (as opposed to contractual) licence; in which case stopping when asked not to would have been act of trespass and not a breach of contract. But their Lordships in Beavis put a spanner in the works on that one. But this point of Sheffield Dave's could put it right back into bare licence territory.

Posted by: unicorn47 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 12:58
Post #1410840

In Clerk & Lindsell, The Law of Torts, 17th ed. (1995), para. 17-41 the current state of the law as to the question of use is summarised in these terms:

"The right of the public in respect of a highway is limited to the use of it for the purpose of passing and repassing and for such other reasonable purposes as it is usual to use the highway; if a member of the public uses it for any other purpose than that of passing and repassing he will be a trespasser.

This is a quote from "DPP v Jones and Another." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones07.htm


Posted by: localdriver Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 13:40
Post #1410852

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 09:26) *
You have an Implied right of access to all land you can physically access.


Not necessarily, there is a difference between 'can access' and 'have access'. There are many private roads, driveways etc. which anyone has the ability to enter - they 'can' access, but do not have the authority or right to enter - they do not 'have' access.

In the case of airport roads etc,. that authority to access may be restricted to only those who have business at that location, and so not a public highway.








Posted by: dramaqueen Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 13:59
Post #1410858

I've re-started this discussion over in the Flame Pit. (Maybe not helpful to the OP until we've got a clearer answer?).

Posted by: Rifty Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 14:15
Post #1410866


I had reason to visit JLA on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, and, having read this thread, was interested to see what the issues are.

There is
a) no warning of a no-stopping area prior to turning off the roundabout onto the airport estate.
b) the signs are tiny, and it is only the red stripes that alert you to a "clearway" type road. I could not read them - unless I stopped!
c) the purpose of the "no stopping" rule is to force you to use (at least) the minimum £3 drop off area, so you can't drop off anyone on the roadway
d) there did not appear to me to be any way to escape the pay zones. You seemed to be fed either into the £3 drop off, the £5 open air, or the expensive multi-story

Posted by: dramaqueen Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 20:50
Post #1410993

That's helpful stuff. Are then any signs at all at the entrance, setting out terms and conditions of entry?

VCS are saying it's private land with no right of way. Since the only thing they could possibly be offering is access, the exact point at which they claim the offer of access was allegedly made and accepted needs to be identified. After that point it would be too late to add any more terms and conditions.

It looks like the first no stopping sign appeared after the driver had accepted the offer by entering the airport. So unless there was a big sign right at the entrance, making it a condition of entry that the driver shall obey all road signs and agrees to pay £X in the event of any breach, then any subsequent no stopping signs would have no contractual effect.


Posted by: webster1 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 21:05
Post #1410994

From the pictures they've sent the signs appear to start after the red lines. There is no blue tarmac covering and there's no where that you can turn, you have to go forward. If you Google steetmaps for the area you can see where they start.
I've no idea if thetes anything prior to these signs such as a welcome sign

I've looked at the site map. There doesn't appear to be any other signs prior to the red zone

Posted by: whjohnson Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 23:32
Post #1411025

One would have thought that the logical way to control the transition (if one truly exists) from public to a private land would have been via a physical barrier system accompanied by a controlled Pass Issue' system.

Oh shyte! Such a method would have been a cost rarher than a benefit..... nuff said.

In the Great Scheme Of Things, and going back to first principles - forget the clouds and the ifs and buts for a moment - do VCS REALLY have a vaild case? - At all?

Sometimes the wood cannot be seen for the trees. I can understand the consternation and ensuing confusion of both the OP, and of those who are not privey to the off-board goings-on.

That said, this case seems to have disappeared down some kind of disinformation/spurious information rabbit hole, and as a layman reading through the pages, seems to have lost focus upon the principle points.

Is? Or is not, the defendent likely to be successful? If so, then why? Upon what legal basis?

Is? Or is not, the defendent likely to lose their case? If so, then why? And upon what potential legal basis?

A guessing game I know, but can someone shed a little more illumination?

Posted by: kommando Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 06:55
Post #1411042

As for the offer of a licence etc and control of entry surely this is covered by the bylaws, I have seen nothing to suggest they are not in force, only that they are not being enforced which is not your problem.

Posted by: dramaqueen Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 08:19
Post #1411050

Maybe the OP will find it helpful to make a list.

Looking back to the PoC (post 128, page 14) VCS are claiming the driver, by entering the airport, accepted by conduct an offer of a contractual licence to enter and was therefore bound by its terms and conditions; that the contract was breached; that as keeper of the car she is liable for the breach whether she was the driver or not; and that damages in excess of GPEOL are payable.

There’s quite a list of things VCS must prove. They only have to fail on one of them for whole claim to fail. They must prove:-

Preliminary matters
1. That they have the locus standi to bring this claim in their own name (ie not in their capacity as mere agents of the landowner);
2. That the road is on private land with no public right of way;
3. That, if contract and its breach were proved, the Defendant would be the liable party – ie she was the driver. There is no keeper liability - whether or not Byelaws apply - because it's not a relevant contract under POFA. It's a contract to access the land without stopping - quite the opposite of a parking contract.

Formation of the contract
4. Offer: that an offer of a licence to enter was in fact made. (This can be inferred as otherwise everyone would be a trespasser).
5. That the terms and conditions of the contract were fully brought to the driver’s attention before the offer was accepted. This is where the circumstances come in: driver driving; VCS
knowing full well drivers can’t be expected to stop and read signs; no opportunity to do so in any event. Therefore Ts & Cs must be on signs which can safely be read and digested whilst driving.
6. Acceptance: That the driver’s acceptance of the contract can properly be inferred by their conduct. Again , this is where circumstance come in: could there have been any other reasonable explanation for driving on, such as they had no choice but to do so?
7. Consideration: That the driver gave valuable consideration to seal the deal. Hmm.

Breach of the contract
8. That No Stopping was a term of the contract – ie included in the package at the point the contract was made. If not, the signs are merely polite requests, like the 10mph signs half way up the private drive to the golf club, which everyone knows can be ignored provided it’s safe to do so.
9. That the driver did in fact stop. I don’t think this is denied.

Quantum of damages
10. That liquidated damages for any breach whatsoever, however minor, were pre-agreed at £100. Ie they must prove that this was properly brought to the driver’s attention, on
readable signage, before the contract was made.
11. That £100 either: a) represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss; or b) is commercially justified and neither unconscionable nor excessive.
12. That the add-ons, over and above £100, are also recoverable. (They’re not).

I hope this helps. It’s probably not complete – but maybe it gives a sort of framework to work on. For what it’s worth, I reckon points 5,6,7,8,10,11 and 12 are probably the ones to concentrate on. Plus point 3 if you weren’t the driver.

Posted by: big_mac Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 08:26
Post #1411051

QUOTE (Rifty @ Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 15:15) *
I had reason to visit JLA on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, and, having read this thread, was interested to see what the issues are.

There is
a) no warning of a no-stopping area prior to turning off the roundabout onto the airport estate.
b) the signs are tiny, and it is only the red stripes that alert you to a "clearway" type road. I could not read them - unless I stopped!
c) the purpose of the "no stopping" rule is to force you to use (at least) the minimum £3 drop off area, so you can't drop off anyone on the roadway
d) there did not appear to me to be any way to escape the pay zones. You seemed to be fed either into the £3 drop off, the £5 open air, or the expensive multi-story

Maybe they have changed it very recently, but...

a) There is no roundabout onto the airport estate. Either they are some distance away or well onto the airport estate.
b)These signs? https://goo.gl/maps/wjAL2DgGbdC2
The 'No stopping' and '£100 charge' are quite legible when driving. It would probably be possible, but not easy, to see them and then avoid passing them. (But it would be easy enough to see them and then exit the airport without stopping.)
The only other entrance is here:- https://goo.gl/maps/zMjQpvJY9zw

d) There is a sign, albeit not very prominent, you have to look for 'Drop off 2'. However, Hale Road (outside the airport) is probably as close to the terminal.
https://goo.gl/maps/6mr58d9TsYx


Posted by: dramaqueen Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 09:38
Post #1411074

Well those signs might present a bit more of a challenge than hoped for. They seemed to have changed form these ones in the Prankester;s blog: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html

I've just edited point 3 in my list above (post 565). I forgot there's no keeper liability anyway, as a contractual licence to drive through isn't a relevant contract for POFA purposes. The existence or otherwise of Byelaws makes no difference. The PoCs are wrong where they claim you are liable even if not the driver. They have to prove you were driving. This is beginning to look like your strongest point. In which case you might consider written submissions only.

Posted by: Sheffield Dave Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 16:39
Post #1411141

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 10:38) *
Well those signs might present a bit more of a challenge than hoped for.

That GSV image is approx 5 metres before the sign, and the text is readable in the image. The next GSV image back along the road is approx 15m before the sign and is not readable. So the sign becomes readable at 10m say. The speed limit at that point is 40mph, which will cover that 10m in 0.55 seconds!

The distance from that entry (i.e. contract) sign to the roundabout is about 220m, the first half being 40mph, the rest 30mph. That means you reach the roundabout (which is your last chance to turn around) after 14.5 seconds plus slow-down at the end. Which is not a lot of time to ponder and consider and decide whether to accept the contract (assuming you managed to read the signs during the half second allowed earlier) while doing things like trying to look at the signs on the overhead gantry to work out which of the three lanes you need to be in at the roundabout, and safely moving into that lane (in the dark and rain). It's not even clear from the overhead signs which lane (if any) you need to be in to leave the airport.

Here is a nice https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3378548,-2.8574756,3a,15y,93.38h,87.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so3KS7Sn66sOTNBcWV4xT5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 a bit further along to the drop-off point. It shows a "real" sign (height restriction) on the same pole as a no stopping sign. The letters on the height sign are about 4 times the size of the "£100" lettering on the lower sign. The first sign conforms (presumably) to highways regulations and/or guidelines for size and visibility and is clearly intended to be seen and read while driving. The second sign isn't meant to be seen, or they would have used similar sized lettering.

If the driver drove south along that dual carriageway and entered the private land, then decided not to accept the terms, and did a U turn at the first roundabout - which is the first available opportunity to exit if declining - and then picked up the passenger on the dual carriageway heading north, then they couldn't have been bound by the contract.

Posted by: bargepole Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 21:50
Post #1411199

Spanner being thrown in the works here.

Back in January, when the claim was first issued, I was asked about the best way to defend it. My suggestion was that the AOS should be returned with the 'contest jurisdiction' box ticked, and the following reasons advanced on the application form:

1. The material location to which this claim relates, is John Lennon Airport, Liverpool.

2. On 17 June 1982, Merseyside County Council enacted bylaws relating to this location, a copy of which are appended to this notice. The bylaws came into effect on 1 July 1982, and have never been revoked. Section 5 (iii) (a) of the bylaws sets out the conditions for driving and parking vehicles within the airport, and Section 12 describes the penalty upon conviction for any breach of the bylaws.

3. Any breach of the parking restrictions, as alleged by the Claimant in this action, is, therefore, a breach of the bylaws, and must be treated as a criminal offence, which cannot be the subject of a civil claim.

4. The correct jurisdiction for this matter is, therefore, the Magistrates' Court, and not the County Court. Any prosecution arising from the facts of this case can only be brought by Liverpool City Council, who in 1986 assumed the functions of the now defunct Merseyside County Council.

For whatever reason, those in contact with the OP did not pass on this advice, and it's now having to be defended on contract and signage issues, which is ceding advantage to the PPC.

Posted by: whjohnson Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 01:14
Post #1411222

At last the fog clears..........

Posted by: emanresu Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 06:45
Post #1411224

QUOTE
Back in January, when the claim was first issued, I was asked about the best way to defend it. My suggestion was that the AOS should be returned with the 'contest jurisdiction' box ticked, and the following reasons advanced on the application form:


It's not in the thread unless I've missed it. Was this done offline?

However I'll disagree as it is clear from the SA that there can be contractual licences offered at Byelaw sites but there will always be other cases coming along where the advice can be tested.



Posted by: bobthesod Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 17:07
Post #1411338

Apologies for the question
But confused by
SA
PoC
AOS

Thought there wasa sticky with all the abbreviations on but cant find
Thanks

Posted by: Albert Ross Sun, 26 Aug 2018 - 17:10
Post #1411341

Skeleton Argument
Particulars of Claim
Acknowledgement of Service

PAP is pre action protocols

Posted by: longbeard2 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 21:04
Post #1412178

Out of interest - presumeably VCS have photos of the car? In this sort of stopping case can you argue there isn't actually evidence the car didn't stop? Particularly if the car is not in the same place in each photo?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 21:06
Post #1412181

Yes that would be part of a defence.

Posted by: Porcupine Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 23:43
Post #1412580

First time I've visited this thread as I am over on MSE most of the time. I know it's a bit late in the day for any input as the OP is in court next week. I've skimmed through the thread but haven't had time to read all of the hundreds of posts, so apologies if these points have already been covered.

I couldn't see the original NTK anywhere. In it did VCS mention 'Parking Charges'. I see on the new signs it says '£100 charge given to the driver and in their claim they only state 'charge', not parking charge.

It seems VCS are steering clear of using the term 'parking charge' and don't even put the IPC AOS roundel on the signs. It's as if they are disassociating themselves from being a parking company.
I always thought the KADOE system was only to be used for obtaining a keepers details for parking events.

Also I presume the contract between VCS and the airport has been seen. Does it give VCS the permission and authority to pursue motorists for other charges (apart from parking charges) through the court system on their own behalf.

Posted by: Porcupine Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 20:05
Post #1412830

QUOTE (webster1 @ Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 22:05) *
From the pictures they've sent the signs appear to start after the red lines. There is no blue tarmac covering and there's no where that you can turn, you have to go forward. If you Google steetmaps for the area you can see where they start.
I've no idea if thetes anything prior to these signs such as a welcome sign

I've looked at the site map. There doesn't appear to be any other signs prior to the red zone


I seem to remember from one of Hexaflexagon's posts re the Airport's planning application for the signs that Liverpool CC stipulated that an area of blue tarmac covering the entire carriageway must be laid. This as well as 'welcome' signs were necessary to distinguish where the airport land began and avoid confusion for motorists.

Speke Hall Avenue continues after the junction with Dunlop Road to the airport and looks just like a normal highway.

Does anyone know if this has been done as the Google streetview pictures were taken in 2017 and it wasn't done then.

Posted by: webster1 Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 20:38
Post #1412840

Hi, we've got that covered, unlike the road!

Posted by: Porcupine Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 21:24
Post #1412858

QUOTE (webster1 @ Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 21:38) *
Hi, we've got that covered, unlike the road!

laugh.gif

Hi webster1, I wouldn't mind sitting in on the hearing if you don't mind. Sheffield is my local court and I understand any member of public may view a hearing unless it's been held in private.
Though if you preferred it if there was no one else present I will respect your wishes.

I could sit in on another hearing as I believe VCS have four claims to be heard that day.

I want to prepare for a possible future claim that I'm expecting to receive from VCS.

Posted by: webster1 Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 21:28
Post #1412859

That's fine! See you there!

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 22:25
Post #1412872

QUOTE (Porcupine @ Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 21:05) *
Speke Hall Avenue continues after the junction with Dunlop Road to the airport and looks just like a normal highway.

Does anyone know if this has been done as the Google streetview pictures were taken in 2017 and it wasn't done then.


For the avoidance of doubt the blue paint was applied albeit a few days late in early August 2017

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:31
Post #1413754

Webster1 is in court tomorrow.

This is clearly a very important moment in this saga of stopping cases, and I'm sure she would welcome all the moral support you can offer.

Let's hope that even at this late stage, assuming VCS have read the Skeleton Argument, they'll decide to pull out. That would send a clear message.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:32
Post #1413756

Webster - GOOD LUCK for tomorrow
Thank you for carrying on with this.

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:43
Post #1413761

Good luck Webster!!

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:43
Post #1413763

QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 12:31) *
This is clearly a very important moment in this saga of stopping cases, and I'm sure she would welcome all the moral support you can offer.


It's not a test case. Run of the mill small claims. Could effectively show that this particular court is best avoided, depending on the result.

Posted by: whjohnson Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:57
Post #1413772

I would like to add my great big GOOD LUCK too.

Please come back as soon as you can to let us know how it went - in detail if you don't mind.

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 12:32
Post #1413784

Good luck. Looking forward to your report.

Posted by: instrumentsofjoy Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 14:27
Post #1413818

I's like to add my best wishes too.

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 17:53
Post #1413863

Ditto for IoJ

There are 4 VCS cases and not 5 as suggested earlier.

Since Sheffield is a low cost court for them expect Jake to come along and present. Give him our best wishes (that he fails again) but watch for the fast pace questions from the judge. The best thing you can do is to slow yourself down and take time before answering. If you are not used to court, they will try to rattle you so don't let that happen.

And if you don't understand something, a Litigant in Person (you) is allowed to ask. Enjoy it. You'll see court dramas in a new light after it.

Edit: Forgot to add that you'll win if you have a real go at the signs. They are not as good as they claim.

Edit 2: Have a note to ask for costs. Most people forget when they win. If you hear "win" think "costs"

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 18:10
Post #1413870

Thanks for your good luck wishes. Whilst feeling a bit nervous I'm prepared as well as can be thanks to a few good people from this thread, who I just can't thank enough.
I'll let you know once it's over and done with. Whether I win or lose I'm just glad that it's over with once and for all tomorrow. I'll give it my best shot anyway!!
I'll report back with the details tomorrow evening.

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 19:06
Post #1413891

QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 19:10) *
Thanks for your good luck wishes. Whilst feeling a bit nervous I'm prepared as well as can be thanks to a few good people from this thread, who I just can't thank enough.
I'll let you know once it's over and done with. Whether I win or lose I'm just glad that it's over with once and for all tomorrow. I'll give it my best shot anyway!!
I'll report back with the details tomorrow evening.



You'll not go to jail and could lose £300 at most, probably no more than they've claimed and perhaps even less.

Go to the loo as near the start as you can, but if you need to go ask.

Other than that, be prepared,try to relax and take enough money for a pint at the end.

What will be will be.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 07:22
Post #1413974

Hope it went well!
Let us know how it went well - celebratory drinks or otherwise!

Posted by: Videoman Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 10:31
Post #1414040

We are all hoping for a good outcome on this one, Webster..... :-)

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 10:57
Post #1414044

It's been adjourned

Posted by: ostell Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:13
Post #1414051

And the reason for adjournment?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:21
Post #1414055

OK, confusing
There is no real reasno for THEM to get it adjourned
What was the reason??

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:26
Post #1414056

.....issue with me emailing the WS (I emailed the initial defence and no problem was brought up then). They put an error in their email so then only got it in the 28th Aug and they state they didn't have enough time to read over it and the new facts of the driver being identified and the reason for stopping.

Posted by: Videoman Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:29
Post #1414058

.... don't forget 'COSTS' if or when you get the chance!! :-)
Hope it turns out well all the same.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:37
Post #1414062

What error in the email? That is confusing.
If you used the same one you had previously, there would be no issue. Please explain more clearly

Video - if the court decides it was teh Ds fault then a wasted costs oorder could go against them.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:42
Post #1414068

It was sent from a different email address so a used email address didn't automatically come up. VCS typed the email address wrong on their covering letter.

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 11:59
Post #1414071

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:42) *
It was sent from a different email address so a used email address didn't automatically come up. VCS typed the email address wrong on their covering letter.


So you sent the WS to an email address supplied to you by VCS which they had typoed?

I do hope that was made clear. I'm sure it was.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:00
Post #1414074

Indeed, PLEASE make that VERY clear!
Otherwise you could be on the hook.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:06
Post #1414075



So you sent the WS to an email address supplied to you by VCS which they had typoed?

I do hope that was made clear. I'm sure it was.
[/quote]

Yes! I informed the judge and the rep from VCS showing the mistake in the email

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:13
Post #1414076

Phew! Good.

Posted by: Richy_m_99 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:29
Post #1414080

Post deleted as I obviously asked something that I shouldn't have.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:42
Post #1414083

No

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:56
Post #1414084

EDITed.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 13:18
Post #1414095

So you should ask for yuor Wasted Costs at the actual hearing
THEIR mistake meant the WS was not served.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 14:50
Post #1414119

Have they indicated a date for the adjournment?

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 15:41
Post #1414133

Odd. Very odd but you can try a "drop hands" offer to both walk away without costs or another hearing. Would do no harm and may be useful if they say no.

Anything from the other cases you could use?

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 15:47
Post #1414134

I've no idea about the other cases sorry. I didn't stick around.
I will consider what you've just said too, thanks!

Posted by: Anon55 Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 16:44
Post #1414149

QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 16:47) *
I've no idea about the other cases sorry. I didn't stick around.
I will consider what you've just said too, thanks!



I think that Webster 1 should stay with this to the end, There is a lot of interest to see what the outcome will be smile.gif


Well done for not giving in to these bottom feeders

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 17:06
Post #1414150

Is it normal for the claimant to be given so much leeway?
If I understand it, VCS provided the wrong email. Aren't any consequences that flow from that rather for them to account for? They have had two days - three if we count Saturday 29 August.

Was it necessary in the interests of justice to allow VCS more than two days to read the WS? Could another judge have said,
'Tough VCS, you screwed up, you've had two days to review, I'm going to continue with this'?

Is it possible, and if so is there any merit in webster asking for the hearing now to be at her local court?
If I remember correctly the only reason Sheffield was used was because St. Helens was too close to Merseyside and the Crutchley circuit.

Posted by: whjohnson Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 17:21
Post #1414153

Seems odd, and to the claiment's advantage?

Have they screwed something up, or forgotten submit further legal argument?

Am I correct in assuming that although the outcome of the case is not binding, it is persuasive?

Am I also correct that there is a significant queue of cases from the same location, and thus large amounts of money involved?

A cynic might begin to think............

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 17:27
Post #1414155

QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
A cynic might begin to think............


How DARE you! The very thought..............!

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 18:34
Post #1414165

What happened today is very normal in a court at this level (and others). Procedural issues are a high proportion of cases despite there being clear rules on who should do what and when. For example, if the WS was posted and emailed, it would all be over - but it wasn't. Posting is covered by the Interpretations Act but email is not there yet.

A lot of Gladstones / BW / LPC wins are on the simple procedural rules e.g. default CCJ's. This is why a "drop hands" offer is useful at this time as the key procedural rule is to reduce the burden on the court by any means possible.

Think of it this way. The court does not actually want to see you and will encourage you to use alternative means. Employment cases now MUST go though ACAS. Personal Injury claims must go through the portal etc.

Rushing to court is just an invite to have a judge take a decision you don't like - but it will be fair, honest and within the rules.

Posted by: whjohnson Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 20:20
Post #1414184

If that is truly the case, then why are we paying for the courts system through taxation in the 1st place?
The State makes the rules - we pay for the state - the courts surely exist to ensure that justice is done, civil or crimimnal. Case law is made by judges, other laws are passed by statute/Acts of Parliament and we don't get a choice in the matter as a rule.

The judges/magistrates are handsomely paid and enjoy an expenses regime which surpasses that of our elected MPs, (although not that of MEPs!).
I enjoyed a very long train journey in the company of a Hight Court judge who was travelling in the same 1st class carriage as I was. We had a very interesting discussion whilst he enjoyed the 1st class catering facilities, no doubt on expenses. He was on is way to oversee a murder trial at the time and judge's sumptious lodgings awaited. I couldn't believe that things were still done this way. I thought it had all gone away years ago, but no, the public trough is still there for all those who are priveliged enough to sate themselves at the tax payer's expense.
It is high time that the whole system was overhauled and dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Rant mode off!

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 08:10
Post #1414242

QUOTE
It is high time that the whole system was overhauled and dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.


It is being. Google "digital courts".

There have been a number of consultations with "Court User" groups on the issue but digital courts would sort the key issue which is people failing to read the Civil Procedure rules and following them.

You could argue too that failing to read parking signs falls into the same category though parking signs are not as comprehensive as the CPR and Practice Directions - yet.

Posted by: Videoman Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 17:43
Post #1414693

.

Posted by: longbeard2 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 18:27
Post #1415714

Webster your inbox is full so I can't reply to your message

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 18:37
Post #1415720

QUOTE (longbeard2 @ Tue, 11 Sep 2018 - 19:27) *
Webster your inbox is full so I can't reply to your message

Deleted some messages!

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:10
Post #1421580

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have ended up settling this case. It's not a decision that has been taken lightly and I know many will be disappointed. There was a case a couple of weeks ago that lost. After this and how the judge looked at the case I have to say I lost a lot of confidence in the County Court process. I was given help by some good people, one in particular with an extensive legal background. If my case had gone the same way with the judge not really looking at my evidence I risked paying additional costs for the adjournment and I had to balance this too with the stress it was causing. Whilst I had every faith in my arguments, for me it seems to be the case of pot luck with the judge on the day despite how good the evidence and arguments may be.
I went as far as I could and just want to thank those that supported me along the way. I hope someone does take this all the way one day and give VCS a good kicking. I don't think they have won this at all. They probably spent far more than they got off me! Anyway, thanks again!

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:34
Post #1421590

That is a shame but I fully understand your position.

Given that a lot of thios was done 'off forum,' I wonder if you might be kind enough to show us your final defence? Indeed, although it will not help you, you may get some satisfaction in hanging around and commenting on other cases, given your experience and knowledge gained through this process.

Well done for sticking with it as far as you did.

Posted by: webster1 Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:53
Post #1421604

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 19:34) *
That is a shame but I fully understand your position.

Given that a lot of thios was done 'off forum,' I wonder if you might be kind enough to show us your final defence? Indeed, although it will not help you, you may get some satisfaction in hanging around and commenting on other cases, given your experience and knowledge gained through this process.

Well done for sticking with it as far as you did.


Thanks, like I say the decision really wasn't taken lightly. The initial defence and Skeleton Argument were written for me so I'll need to get permission before I can share.

Posted by: Albert Ross Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:55
Post #1421605

I echo cabbyman.

Well done for sticking it out this far.
I believe that this may still have been ongoing, if the list of pledges was about. However we are where we are.

I also hope that you can stick around. You know the pressure of deadlines and the time needed to comply with them.
Its not pressure until you have a deadline.



Posted by: webster1 Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 19:07
Post #1421611

QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 19:55) *
I echo cabbyman.

Well done for sticking it out this far.
I believe that this may still have been ongoing, if the list of pledges was about. However we are where we are.

I also hope that you can stick around. You know the pressure of deadlines and the time needed to comply with them.
Its not pressure until you have a deadline.

Of course I'll advise wherever I can! If the fighting fund had of been available I no doubt would have continued but it ended up too much of a risk!

Posted by: Porcupine Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 21:29
Post #1421651

It's a shame considering all the time and effort you put in so far to fight the scumbags. Though it's understandable, being faced with another trip to Sheffield and a day off work again.

Especially since the adjournment was due to their error. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a deliberate ploy by VCS to stall and put you under more pressure.

Posted by: Dave65 Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 21:48
Post #1421663

Yes, a shame it could have been different maybe.
It was Lynnzers plan to gather the pledges, but unfortunately he is no longer around.

Posted by: bobthesod Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 22:18
Post #1421673

Slighty o/t

How did the pledge system work. did Lynnzer just have a list of those who would chip in, or was there an actual pot of cash? ( i am NOT suggesting anything untoward here, so dont even think it)
If it was the former then can another one be set up, perhaps linked to a 'justgiving' account if and when it is needed Jeez we nearly had them as well. I would be willing to arrange a list with names and emails and amounts on an excel sheet, but ATM have a lot on at home that really need 100% of my time.




Posted by: ostell Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 06:40
Post #1421688

I think Lynnzer was involved in a serious car crash and has not been available.

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 08:25
Post #1421706

While this is clearly not the result that webster1 wanted (and hats off for taking it this far with all the effort and stress required), and many here wanted to see this through, there is one consolation. That is that VCS don't have a court win to brag about and to put others under pressure over. Shame we couldn't get the pledges together. Maybe if Lynnzer reappears in due course, they can be used in a future VCS/LJA case (and there are a few pending, it would seem). The other thing we can be sure about is that VCS have shelled out a lot more than they have got back.

Posted by: webster1 Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 08:29
Post #1421708

[quote name='The Slithy Tove' date='Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 09:25' post='1421706
That is that VCS don't have a court win to brag about and to put others under pressure over.
[/quote]
A case was won by VCS a couple of weeks ago unfortunately. It appears the judges mind was made up before proceedings even began!

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 09:20
Post #1421720

Unfortunately the CC system has an element of roulette, 2 identical cases can and do get two different results, What would almost e better is losing and winning an appeal giving the result more clout.

I fully understand you taking the pragmatic approach even though it is unpalatable.

Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 09:50
Post #1421735

I did follow this.
Just a quick question was this progressed under the byelaws?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 10:17
Post #1421757

Not that I can tell - otherwise they could not bring a civil claim, for a start.

I understand the reason, its just a shame. They really should not have gotten away with this.
There is always lititgation risk - its why settling is the preferred solution as that is definite, and not up to a 3rd party.

Posted by: instrumentsofjoy Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 12:16
Post #1421823

I cannot account for others but my pledge was exactly that - a pledge.

Never paid any money over.



Posted by: longbeard2 Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 15:30
Post #1421896

I have a case cominng up, happy to take it up in court. Does anybody have any details of the recent case that was lost?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 22:36
Post #1422027

No, I don't, but read what bargepole's advice was (it's earlier in this thread, and was not the route taken by this OP):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5903196

Who wrote this defence and skeleton argument, Webster1, and can we see it?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 07:52
Post #1422065

My understanding is the driver had identified themselves aand admitted to taking a phone call, so not simply turning around. Once your credibilitiy is shot its a long wy back.

Posted by: webster1 Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 08:01
Post #1422069

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 08:52) *
My understanding is the driver had identified themselves aand admitted to taking a phone call, so not simply turning around. Once your credibilitiy is shot its a long wy back.

This wasn't my caseby the way!!!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 08:24
Post #1422079

Of course not! I was tlaking about the lost case, sorry for not making it clear smile.gif

Posted by: hexaflexagon Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:19
Post #1426107

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 19:34) *
That is a shame but I fully understand your position.

Given that a lot of thios was done 'off forum,' I wonder if you might be kind enough to show us your final defence? Indeed, although it will not help you, you may get some satisfaction in hanging around and commenting on other cases, given your experience and knowledge gained through this process.

Well done for sticking with it as far as you did.


I see that webster1 is checking whether the witness statement and skeleton argument can be uploaded here. I do hope they are.

I played a very small part in providing some of the factual stuff and quotes from various parties including LJLA, Liverpool Council and the DfT. for the defence arguments.

I saw the eventual defence arguments and statements and (admittedly as a lay person) felt that an important milestone had been reached with the final defence papers which were to be used in court. It appeared to me an extremely well constructed and argued case, which of course I'd expect from a professional barrister who put the thing together, and I had high hopes.

The defence was I believe somewhat different to bargepole's view, but that's not to say that was wrong, just different. If we learn anything from these things it's that sometimes different judge's are swayed by different arguments on essentially the same circumstances.

I of course respect Webster1's decision not to go ahead in the circumstances but believe the work that has been done will be extremely useful at some point.

One aspect that I think we should try and thrash out is where best to have one of these cases heard. I believe webster1 chose Sheffield, almost next door to the VCS offices because it had been suggested that St. Helen's, which was the nearest court was too close to the Liverpool court which heard the Business Park case which was similar, but different in some important aspects and therefore distinguishable.

Was there any reason to believe that a St Helen's Court would have any connection with Liverpool, and that the mere fact they are only a few miles apart might mean the same Judges might sit in both?

One thought I had was that it would do no harm to make it more expensive for VCS to argue in a court as far removed from Sheffield as possible. Carlisle or perhaps Berwick on Tweed ~200 miles away in the North spring to mind. And even better somewhere in Devon or Cornwall ~ 300 miles away.
That would surely increase the possibility of VCS asking for the case to be heard on the papers, or in the event that they do seek to make the case in person the chance that on the day they would be delayed and fail to appear.

The point about the pledges has been answered but in Lynnzer's absence, since it seeme he alone held the pledge list, it would do no harm to formalise this, perhaps as a thread in this forum to which people could add their own pledges so that there's complete clarity.

Thoughts...

Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 15:24
Post #1426110

Agree as my pledge is still there.
Another 14 months gone without hearing anything more on my airport Penalty.

Posted by: Blue62 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 21:41
Post #1428875

It appears BW have changed tack and are trying to explore what they consider contractual breaches.
This has just been highlighted to me for the first time in my 3rd 'letter before claim'. Going back to an alleged stopping PCN from 2015.
I was wondering whether permission has been granted yet for the sharing of the prepared defence in your case as I am sure it would be of benefit to the next guineapig.

Posted by: Dave65 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 21:50
Post #1428878

I believe Lynnzer is back, he gathered the pledges to support one of these court cases.

Posted by: Spudandros Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 15:18
Post #1428989

QUOTE (Blue62 @ Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 22:41) *
It appears BW have changed tack and are trying to explore what they consider contractual breaches.
This has just been highlighted to me for the first time in my 3rd 'letter before claim'. Going back to an alleged stopping PCN from 2015.
I was wondering whether permission has been granted yet for the sharing of the prepared defence in your case as I am sure it would be of benefit to the next guineapig.


BW aren't handling these. VCS are doing them directly courtesy of Jake Burgess

Posted by: Blue62 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 22:33
Post #1429050

QUOTE (Spudandros @ Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 16:18) *
QUOTE (Blue62 @ Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 22:41) *
It appears BW have changed tack and are trying to explore what they consider contractual breaches.
This has just been highlighted to me for the first time in my 3rd 'letter before claim'. Going back to an alleged stopping PCN from 2015.
I was wondering whether permission has been granted yet for the sharing of the prepared defence in your case as I am sure it would be of benefit to the next guineapig.


BW aren't handling these. VCS are doing them directly courtesy of Jake Burgess

All the paperwork I have received has come from BW as did the previous two letters of claim , could this be because it is a claim going back to early 2015?

Posted by: Spudandros Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 23:46
Post #1429057

QUOTE (Blue62 @ Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (Spudandros @ Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 16:18) *
QUOTE (Blue62 @ Fri, 26 Oct 2018 - 22:41) *
It appears BW have changed tack and are trying to explore what they consider contractual breaches.
This has just been highlighted to me for the first time in my 3rd 'letter before claim'. Going back to an alleged stopping PCN from 2015.
I was wondering whether permission has been granted yet for the sharing of the prepared defence in your case as I am sure it would be of benefit to the next guineapig.


BW aren't handling these. VCS are doing them directly courtesy of Jake Burgess

All the paperwork I have received has come from BW as did the previous two letters of claim , could this be because it is a claim going back to early 2015?


BWL are likely handling all the initial paperwork, but the actual claim will come from VCS themselves. If the LBA comes with the relevant annexe document, its probable VCS will issue court papers.

Posted by: instrumentsofjoy Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 10:58
Post #1429091

I am another one who pledged. Happy to continue with it. I think I offered a tenner.

Posted by: bobthesod Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 14:47
Post #1429141

Lynnzer dis pop up on a thread the other day. If he sees this perhaps he could clarify the situation. and Yes i will be in for a tenner as and when

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 17:50
Post #1429158

Me too but not to pay for a certain lay rep who should be avoided.

Posted by: Dave65 Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:16
Post #1429170

My pledge is still their also.

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 12:13
Post #1429264

[quote name='hexaflexagon' date='Wed, 17 Oct 2018

I played a very small part in providing some of the factual stuff and quotes from various parties including LJLA, Liverpool Council and the DfT. for the defence arguments.

I saw the eventual defence arguments and statements and (admittedly as a lay person) felt that an important milestone had been reached with the final defence papers which were to be used in court. It appeared to me an extremely well constructed and argued case, which of course I'd expect from a professional barrister who put the thing together, and I had high hopes.

The defence was I believe somewhat different to bargepole's view, but that's not to say that was wrong, just different. If we learn anything from these things it's that sometimes different judge's are swayed by different arguments on essentially the same circumstances.

I of course respect Webster1's decision not to go ahead in the circumstances but believe the work that has been done will be extremely useful at some point.

One aspect that I think we should try and thrash out is where best to have one of these cases heard. I believe webster1 chose Sheffield, almost next door to the VCS offices because it had been suggested that St. Helen's, which was the nearest court was too close to the Liverpool court which heard the Business Park case which was similar, but different in some important aspects and therefore distinguishable.

Was there any reason to believe that a St Helen's Court would have any connection with Liverpool, and that the mere fact they are only a few miles apart might mean the same Judges might sit in both?

One thought I had was that it would do no harm to make it more expensive for VCS to argue in a court as far removed from Sheffield as possible. Carlisle or perhaps Berwick on Tweed ~200 miles away in the North spring to mind. And even better somewhere in Devon or Cornwall ~ 300 miles away.
That would surely increase the possibility of VCS asking for the case to be heard on the papers, or in the event that they do seek to make the case in person the chance that on the day they would be delayed and fail to appear.

The point about the pledges has been answered but in Lynnzer's absence, since it seeme he alone held the pledge list, it would do no harm to formalise this, perhaps as a thread in this forum to which people could add their own pledges so that there's complete clarity.

Thoughts...
[/quote]
Apologies for the late reply I've just returned from a couple of weeks away. I just want to say that Hex played no small part and has been a huge source of support to me throughout this whole case, so thank you!
I've been given permission to share the SA and also another SA for the case that went to Court after me. I'll have to sort this out and take my info off, as people know as I'm pretty abysmal at uploading stuff onto this site! I'll get it sorted in the next few days. Again thank you to all those that supported me and hopefully this will help the next person that VCS take to Court.

.....also initially I got the Letter Before Claim and a Directions Questionnaire from BW before VCS sent one.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 13:49
Post #1429283

QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 12:13) *
Apologies for the late reply I've just returned from a couple of weeks away. I just want to say that Hex played no small part and has been a huge source of support to me throughout this whole case, so thank you!
I've been given permission to share the SA and also another SA for the case that went to Court after me. I'll have to sort this out and take my info off, as people know as I'm pretty abysmal at uploading stuff onto this site! I'll get it sorted in the next few days. Again thank you to all those that supported me and hopefully this will help the next person that VCS take to Court.

.....also initially I got the Letter Before Claim and a Directions Questionnaire from BW before VCS sent one.


Thanks webster1. Good to know that it can be shared. Thanks.
If it helps I've grapped the text from the original SA .pdf and can redact it to remove any references to your case and making it a general SA.

One thought arises, what's the general view about making it publicly available here? One downside is presumably that VCS will undoubtedly read it and allow them to tailor their arguments accordingly...or maybe they can do that anyway once a SA and WS are filed at court, in which case it may not matter. But I think we should agree how best to use this.

I also asked the other day about choosing a court other than Sheffield (too easy for VCS) or Liverpool (which seems to be unfriendly as far as these matters are concerned). What's the general view with this?

Lynnzer, if you're watching this thread can you let us know how much has been pledged? Louise may well have been able to continue had there been some de-risking of the costs.


Posted by: bearclaw Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 16:20
Post #1429336

Further to the comments above at some point I pledged a tenner and I am happy for that to stand as well.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 17:13
Post #1429345

Note to the Admins/Moderators.

Re the fighting fund pledges.

Is there a forum facility which would allow members to record their pledges so that they are visible and we can understand what's available. Perhaps a sticky which anyone could add to?

Posted by: bobthesod Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 20:18
Post #1429376

Good idea hexa

Posted by: webster1 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 20:29
Post #1429377

[quote name='hexaflexagon' date='Mon, 29 Oct 2018

Thanks webster1. Good to know that it can be shared. Thanks.
If it helps I've grapped the text from the original SA .pdf and can redact it to remove any references to your case and making it a general SA.

One thought arises, what's the general view about making it publicly available here? One downside is presumably that VCS will undoubtedly read it and allow them to tailor their arguments accordingly...or maybe they can do that anyway once a SA and WS are filed at court, in which case it may not matter. But I think we should agree how best to use this.

I
[/quote]

If it's decided that the SA be posted on here then I woukd very much appreciate you doing that, thank you. I'll send the other SA too which has already had info redacted.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)