robin hood airport, stopping fine Options

[jvp]

my wife and i traveled from robin hood airport in 2015. we booked and paid for parking and got told to go to a certain car park (was either 4 or c cant quite remember. Having never been to this airport (and never will again) we stopped to ask two guys in a van who worked there. To be fair i didn't look at the van just though it was easy to ask someone which one of several car parks was ours, they replied 'don't know mate' we thought this was strange as they clearly worked there as we assumed they were security. we continued on and saw what we thought was out car park. my wife jumped out to check the sign as it wasn't clear from the road. these unhelpful vultures in the van were a private parking firm and they followed us and took a photo. my wife was out of the car a matter of seconds, not even 10! we got home to a parking fine!!!!!! i wrote to the airport and went mad but they said it was nothing to do with them. i now have a county court fine letter. what should i do. the letter is addressed to my wife but the car was not registered to her. any help would be much appreciated.

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

Well your next step is to...write a defence. Given you are defending a claim.

Mse forum, newbies thread, post 2. Has an example CONCISE (cannot stres that enough, not war and peace) defence.

[jvp]

firstly thank for all the help,
i have trolled though pages and pages,
this is my first attempt at a defense,


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ###### on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim do not state that the Defendant was the driver or the keeper of the Vehicle. As the registered keeper was not the driver, this indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Claimant has yet to respond to the Defendant’s letter, sent to Vehicle Control Services, requesting information lacking in the Letter Before Claim, which breached the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraphs 3.1 (a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2 and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6 (a) and 6 ©. The following requests have been inadequately addressed:

4.1 The details for the claim, as this dates back to ##### and Defendant not having a certain recollection as to what this claim relates to.

4.2 Information as to the alleged breaches of their Terms and Conditions and the proof that the Defendant had breached such Terms and Conditions.

5. As the Claimant has not provided the information in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, I can only surmise that this claim relates to a time where the Defendant, having never visited Robin Hood Previously, and five parking areas are sited, asked for help from the driver and passenger of a VCS van where the car park entry was. After no help whatsoever (if VCS are in place to allow traffic flow on airport approaches and reduce security risks, then why didn’t they offer advise as they clearly know the area well working there on a daily basis) the defendant continued to locate the correct access and hit a curb with the near side front wheel, causing an SRS Air Bag lamp to illuminate. For a matter of seconds, a passenger got out of the vehicle to source help, anxious the passenger air bag may deploy. After cycling the ignition several times, the lamp disappeared and the vehicle continued. A false alarm yes the light went out and the tyre was not badly damaged but the people in the vehicle at that time did not know this, the vehicle stopped for seconds.

6. of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 states, “Except in an except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”. As per Paragraph 5 above, the Defendant’s situation should be regarded as an emergency, as it was an unexpected and serious situation requiring an immediate action, whereby stopping at the side of the road was the said immediate action taken by the Defendant.

7. of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 states, “Without reasonable excuse park a vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose”. Should the court not regard the Defendant’s situation as an emergency. As per Paragraph 5 above, the Defendant’s conduct should be nevertheless regarded as a reasonable excuse to stop the vehicle in such circumstances.

8 The defendant wished to add that an illuminated SRS Air Bag lamp is an MOT fail item and in the MOT testing manual item 7.1.5 consider it to be a major defect. The Highway Code states that you can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition

9. The Defendant asks the court for the claim to be struck out as an abuse of process on its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

9.1 The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

9.2 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9.3 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'Debt Collection Charge' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9.4 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

9.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

9.6 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing

9.6 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Should i mention they firstly sent the court summons to my wife and threaten GDPR as where did they get her personal info from?
also in parts 5 and 8 have i made mistakes?
thanks

[Redivi]

No point in mediation whatsoever
It only ever makes sense if there is some common ground and a compromise is possible

I don't know why nobody has helped you improve your defence because it doesn't make these points clearly enough :

You were not the driver
Only the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) can give VCS the right to recover payment from the registered keeper
The location is not relevant land in accordance with POFA
Therefore VCS cannot recover payment from you

The problem is that you've said you weren't the driver but "the defendant" hit the curb
Is this by any chance a defence written for your wife that you failed to update when the name was corrected