LJLA Court Date

esmerobbo

VCS argue that the byelaws are not relevant as they were from 1982 and JLA is a different airport, well they are wrong it is a different terminal but the land it was built on has always been a part of Liverpool airport, the road in question was built to enable bombers built at the Rootes shadow factory to be moved onto the airfield.

The actual runway the terminal is adjacent to was opened in 1966, the only land added to JLA is where the car park and hotel is now everything else is within the airports original boundary.

If you google JLA terms and conditions for this year it states that conditions are enforced by the relevant byelaws.

6. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF USE
6.1 The use of the Airport is subject to the following conditions:
6.1.1 Compliance with the local flying restrictions and remarks published from time to
time in the AGA Section of the United Kingdom Air Pilot, and
6.1.2 Compliance with Airport Byelaws, instructions orders as published from time to time
by the Company, the Civil Aviation Authority, the DfT or BorderForce.

If there are no byelaws how do they enforce the terms and conditions, and does that mean I could trespass and camp on the airfield and only be penalized in a civil court?

System

To save everyone reading the 25 pages

1. VCS chose contract and not byelaws as the basis of the claim - the particulars.
2. The OP encouraged by others chose byelaws as a defence.
3. Defences should always answer the particulars
4. Hopefully the OP's WS now answers the particulars and tackles the contract issue as the OP was supposed to have done.

The OP was encouraged to go a certain way, with certain promises, and there was a belief at the time of another template win - do you all remember GPEOL? You can add byelaws to that one now.

If there are no byelaws how do they enforce the terms and conditions, and does that mean I could trespass and camp on the airfield and only be penalized in a civil court?

For Esmerobbo - you need to read the cases that VCS state in their WS to see what they are getting at. They've used these before. They are persuasive to most DJ's but can be distinguished based on the way the contract is formed.

Coupon-mad

Different Airport, but same sort of claim:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5883457/vcs-airport-court-claim

The OP and that OP should exchange pm's to ensure they are well supported and consistent, and have a full understanding of the fact they are arguing against a charge issued under contract, not under byelaws.

bargepole

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.

Ralph-y

just for information ..... this case has been adjourned ....


I am sure that more details will follow



Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116961&st=600&start=600

Adjourned at the request/whinge of the Claimant, due to THEIR typo...

You could NOT make this stuff up. And no, he/she didn't need a blinking lay rep.