PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Liverpool JLA Letter of Claim received
webster1
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
24 Pages V  « < 22 23 24  
Start new topic
Replies (460 - 478)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
4101
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:02
Post #461


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whjohnson
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:11
Post #462


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 356
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



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.

This post has been edited by whjohnson: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steofthedale
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 02:51
Post #463


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 131
Joined: 2 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,395



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.

This post has been edited by Steofthedale: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 02:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:18
Post #464


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



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.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post #465


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



My pledge is still there also!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
instrumentsofjoy
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:06
Post #466


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 421
Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Member No.: 45,808



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:14
Post #467


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,715
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



as previously stated I will pledge , but only if it gets to court and the OP has assistance that need paying
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:20
Post #468


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



might be able to get a cheapo barrister doing a good turn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:42
Post #469


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:45
Post #470


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45
Post #471


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 01:12
Post #472


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 272
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



OP does not want a Lay Rep as they would have to attend court. So barrister/sol or a papers only hearing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whjohnson
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:07
Post #473


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 356
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



Let me know if any arrangements are made for collection of pledges.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:21
Post #474


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



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'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:39
Post #475


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



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.

This post has been edited by Spudandros: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:57
Post #476


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 10:14
Post #477


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



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.

This post has been edited by Spudandros: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 10:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 19:49
Post #478


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 328
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



This thread has gone relatively quiet

Are you getting the help you need ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 22:01
Post #479


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 22 23 24
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: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 15:18
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.