PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Newcastle Airport PCN
BWL1984
post Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 15:59
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,080



Just looking for advice for the next step to take regarding a PCN received for dropping off at the Hilton Hotel Barrier at Newcastle airport.

My wife received a PCN regarding the above in April 2016. The letters have been ignored from UKPCC & then from Gladstones.

Last month we received a letter before claim from BW Legal. After looking reading the forum I sent the following in reply:

Dear Sir

I have received your letter dated 29th October 2018

The driver did not contravene any parking restrictions

Even if they had, the parking notice to which you refer is nothing more than an offer not to prosecute me under the Newcastle Airport Byelaws
As the deadline for any prosecution was more than a year ago, such a contract has long ceased to have any purpose
You cannot seriously believe that I had a legal obligation to accept the offer

I suggest that you advise your client regarding the futility of any legal action


I have now had the following reply from BW Legal

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Our Client is engaged by Newcastle International Airport Ltd to enforce the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009 (Byelaws) and to (a) issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) to vehicles parked in contravention of the Byelaws and (b) bring proceedings in its own name. It is fundamental to note that the Byelaws do not prevent our client from entering into a contract with a motorist. As such, any material breach of the terms and conditions (stated below) gives rise to a contractual claim which can be brought under civil proceedings (i.e. via the County Court). You are put to strict proof to the contrary.

The signage erected at the Site contained, inter alia, the following terms and conditions:

“PARKING NOTICE
RESTRICTED ZONE

NO STOPPING, PARKING, LOADING OR UNLOADING IN THIS AREA

STOPPING, PARKING, LOADING OR UNLOADING IN THIS AREA WILL RESULT IN A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE BEING ISSUED. YOUR DETAILS MAY BE REQUESTED FROM THE DVLA.”

The signage situated across the Site forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the terms and conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the terms and conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the Site. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions.

The terms and conditions (referred to in the paragraph above), which you accepted upon entering the Site, are clear and unambiguous. The terms make it clear that you should not stop, park, load or unload your Vehicle. The enclosed photographs taken by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition(ANPR) cameras shows your Vehicle breaching the terms and conditions as the Vehicle had stopped/parked in an area where it was prohibited.

As a result of the breach, our client is well within their rights to issue the PCN and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge.

Accordingly, the Balance is Due in full.


Is it best just to ignore? Any help would be greatly appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 53)
Advertisement
post Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 15:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
chapinahat
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 09:37
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 9 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,366



Hi

Read the byelaes. It's attempting terms under the Law of Contract. A note from a PPC saying it's not is not definitive.



Another possible is the relationship between a principal (Airport Company) and it's agent (the PPC). Can be argued only principal can stsrt the claim as the agent has no authority past issue of notices.

Byelaws at Newcastle refer to PPC as an agent.

ATB

This post has been edited by chapinahat: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 09:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 11:30
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



We have done
It is not attempting anything under contract, and the PPC sating it is NOT an offer of a contract IS definitive if THEY ARE MAKING A CLAIM OTHERWISE!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chapinahat
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 11:53
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 9 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,366



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 11:30) *
We have done
It is not attempting anything under contract, and the PPC sating it is NOT an offer of a contract IS definitive if THEY ARE MAKING A CLAIM OTHERWISE!


Hi

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...120796&st=0

Contract found here by judge again airport byelaws.

Sorry you are missing point of a defence of void contract vs a voidable contract.Newcastle Byelaws are specific using 'terms' and 'PCN' and 'agent'.

Have you read the byelaws of both airports to understand the differences?

ATB

This post has been edited by chapinahat: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 12:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 12:29
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



QUOTE (chapinahat @ Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 11:53) *
Sorry you are missing point

If we are missing the point, please explain it, in simple English, in a manner such that everyone following the thread can be enlightened.

At the moment you are just lobbing around cryptic snippets of jargon - in this thread and others - and no one is able follow what point(s) you are trying to make.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 13:06
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK, but we have a definitive statement from the operator that there is no contract
They cannot then claim there is a contract

Youre speaking gibberish again. if you are ESL then please, please take this as constructive feedback - you havent made a single comprehisble statement or argument, and im not the only one to say so
You are leading the OP down a weird path

There is no debt possible, as there is no contract and to CLAIM there is one, under a statement of truth, is perjury.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chapinahat
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 08:01
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 9 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,366



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 21 Feb 2019 - 13:06) *
OK, but we have a definitive statement from the operator that there is no contract
They cannot then claim there is a contract

Youre speaking gibberish again. if you are ESL then please, please take this as constructive feedback - you havent made a single comprehisble statement or argument, and im not the only one to say so
You are leading the OP down a weird path

There is no debt possible, as there is no contract and to CLAIM there is one, under a statement of truth, is perjury.



Hi

Your lack of understanding cost the Amazon driver at Robin Hood airport. Contracts are found on principles of Offer and Acceptance and there being consideration. Not a PPC saying there is no contract or, there is a contract.

In this situation distinct as its by the byelaws from Robin Hoid airport is the defence: the PPC being an agent and so cannot make a claim in contract for the damages/alternative to fine.

You do not understand this. That does not make me wrong.

ATB


I shall not be posting to this thread anymore. Put me on your ignore list. You are on mine.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 08:37
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



Have UKPPO actually tested the 'voidable' contract issue at all? Seems from #40 that UKPPO don't want to test their overt offer [avoiding a byelaws prosecution] so the issue is somewhat academic.

IMHO they will crack the byelaws issue at some point and I expect VCS to be the one to do it.

Have a look at Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 266 which Southpaw has flagged up before. Perhaps the choice of trespass, byelaw or contract just makes the issue not worth the bother for UKPPO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 09:03
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



"MY" lack of understandnig? No, a crap court that decided that "no stopping" can be the offer of a contract despite not offering anything, not allowing any opportunity to read, and misdirected themselevs as to how contract law operates.

Bye chapinthehat. You will not be missed. I will not put you on ignore, because then i cannot see what other drivel you are claiming

You are claiming, incredibly, that a Claimant can state, unequivocally, that their is NO CONTRACT yet this could be changed in court, without causing any issues for the claiamnt? Yeah, of course. Totally
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 14:41
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
You are claiming, incredibly, that a Claimant can state, unequivocally, that their is NO CONTRACT yet this could be changed in court, without causing any issues for the claiamnt? Yeah, of course. Totally


@Chap is correct. What people think they are doing and say they are doing, and what [relevant] signs say will be tested by the examination of evidence by a judge. His view is the one that counts - unless it is tested by a higher court. We thought the same about Beavis.

IMHO the whole Byelaw/Contract thing is beyond all but the more determined PPC. But again in IMHO, VCS will be the one to do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 16:43
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, but my point is that this assertion would have no relevance is itself beyond credulity.
PE were at least consistent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Red Red Wine
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 11:45
Post #51


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,720



Hiya
Many thanks for all your advice re the ticket I got in 2016 , Newcastle Airport, momentarily stopping on roads outside car park !
I thought they’d given up but looks like they’re going for a Test Case to test the byelaws in force there !
There’s a group of 11 / 12 so far - AoS submitted Defences due by 20th March !
On BWLEGAL and UKPPO websites , they’ve made it front page new congratulating themselves on a recent win which they say covers this. They are quoting the case of VCS v Ward, on appeal in the County Court before His Honour Judge Saffman, concerned a no stopping site in Wakefield which they say was found in their favour ! Though funnily enough when u go to click on the details ....... broken links ! lol l
Just wondered if you had any words of wisdom for us to add to our draft defence or if you’d be prepared to have a quick look at it ! We’ve covered the byelaws and the six months rule etc and the Pofla .
Basically we’ve challenged them on all these aspects before and each time all they’ve done is tfr my case to another debt collector ! Though now it’s a definite Court case for all of us on that day !
Many thanks again
C




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 12:55
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



It seems a coincidence that of the number of these cases at this site over the last few years on the forum the two being pushed are in front of these barriers!

Where is LYNZER with the pledges?

This post has been edited by Dave65: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 12:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cyclocross
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 17:41
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,032



There's a summary of what BW consider to be the salient points of the Wakefield case on their web site: https://www.bwlegal.co.uk/news/bw-legal-suc...stopping-sites/

This post has been edited by cyclocross: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 17:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 18:51
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



If I understand the appeal process, that Particular finding is only binding where Leeds is the appeal centre. It may be persuasive elsewhere.
Leeds is in the North East Circuit.
The County Courts that it is the appeal centre for are:
Leeds; Scarborough, York & of course Wakefield.

Other County courts in the North East circuit are: Barnsley; Bradford, Darlington, Doncaster, Durham, Gateshead, Grimsby, Huddersfield, Kingston-upon-Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North Shields, Sheffield, Skipton, South Shields, Sunderland & Teesside.

For which the Appeal centres are: Sheffield; Bradford, Teesside, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, & Kingston-upon-Hull.


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here