Liverpool JLA Letter of Claim received |
Liverpool JLA Letter of Claim received |
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 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! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:02
Post
#461
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 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. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:11
Post
#462
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 442 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 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 02:51
Post
#463
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 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 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:18
Post
#464
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 979 Joined: 18 Apr 2015 From: Oop t'north Member No.: 76,816 |
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. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:14
Post
#465
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
My pledge is still there also!
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:06
Post
#466
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 431 Joined: 10 Apr 2011 Member No.: 45,808 |
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:14
Post
#467
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 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
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:20
Post
#468
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
might be able to get a cheapo barrister doing a good turn.
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:42
Post
#469
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:45
Post
#470
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45
Post
#471
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
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. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 01:12
Post
#472
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 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
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:07
Post
#473
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 442 Joined: 14 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,738 |
Let me know if any arrangements are made for collection of pledges.
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:21
Post
#474
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 979 Joined: 18 Apr 2015 From: Oop t'north Member No.: 76,816 |
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'. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:39
Post
#475
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
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 |
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 09:57
Post
#476
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 979 Joined: 18 Apr 2015 From: Oop t'north Member No.: 76,816 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 10:14
Post
#477
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
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 |
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 19:49
Post
#478
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
This thread has gone relatively quiet
Are you getting the help you need ? |
|
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 22:01
Post
#479
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 14 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,099 |
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 21:07
Post
#480
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 19 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,841 |
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 This post has been edited by Ralph-Y: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 - 21:10 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:34 |