We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Claim Form for parking at Doncaster Airport
Options
Comments
-
RedX, I am working night shift so there won't be any loss of earnings.0
-
Buziak ,
Petrol plus parking on the hearing date and costs for printing and posting come to mind, plus time spent on preparing the case etc
There has to be some costs, it's never a nil cost scenario, for either side0 -
Redx: Correct. Will prepare something for tomorrow.
Three days ago I have received a letter from the VCS. That is a reply to my WS. It has been sent to me and to the court.
"10. The Defendant alleges in his witness statement that this particular Site is subject to byelaws and that by virtue of these byelaws, he was allowed to stop his vehicle at the bus stop and in breach of the Terms and Conditions.
11. The Claimant notes from the Defendant's witness statement that the Defendant refers to the byelaws of Doncaster Sheffield Airport published in 2005. However, the Site in question is called Robin Hood Airport. As such, the Defendant is put to strict proof that the byelaws apply to the Site on which the Claimant is contracted to provide a parking control service.
12. Notwithstanding the above, where byelaws are present and an operator is appointed to provide a parking control service on a Site, the case of Jones & Tighilt (on behalf of National taxi Association) v First Greater Western Ltd [2013] EWHC 1485 is authority that the scheme is justified and lawful. HHj McCahill cited at Paragraph 90:
'Even if the byelaws did not permit its introduction, and even if FGW had wrongly invoked byelaws powers, its position as a private landowner, with power to control those who come on to its land, justfied and rendered lawful the shceme'.
13. The Claimanat submits that the Terms and Conditions were imposed on the land in order to ensure that the roadways and bust stops were left clear to ensure the free flow of traffic and prevent congestion. Robin Hood Airport is defined as private land. Therefore, Peel Investments (North) Ltd are entilted to introduce a scheme as a private Landowner. As such, they have an unqualified private right to determine that vehicles are not permitted to stop onsite.
Thought will share this.
Not sure, how it will play out at this point tomorrow.0 -
You should express your dissatisfaction to the Judge with the late issue of their supplementary WS and ask that it is disregarded as they have given you no time to respond.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Hi guys.
Just wanted to let you know that I have won the case.
Thank you all for your help and support0 -
Great
Another one bites the dust !!
Please give us some feedback on how it went on the day plus what won the case etc
Be interesting to see why the judge rejected the claim , what costs were awarded and how the advice from here helped win it0 -
yes well done .... please do as requested above .... it will help others caught in this scam
Ralph:cool:0 -
RedX and Ralph-y: Thank you. Will do it below.
I am going to refer to specific points that were in my Defence statement and whether the Judge 'accepted' my defence or not. If you go to page 2 you can read it through:
1. No agreement/breach of terms and no contract (alternatively, frustration of contract)
The Judge dismissed this one as I entered into a contract by entering the site.
2. CPR breach- no PCN received
I admitted that I have moved and did not change the address on my license and therefore the PCN was being issued to my old address.
3. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015] UKSC 67 is distinguished
The Judge said that this case is not distinguished from mine.
4. Trespass is a matter for a landowner only - the Claimant has no locus
Dismissed by the Judge
5. Alternative defence - excessive and disproportionate blanket use of CCTV 24/7 regardless of circumstances (contrary to the CCTV rules issued by the ICO)
Dismissed by the Judge as this one was not the matter of this case.
6. Illegal conduct and 'unfairness' breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Dismissed by the Judge as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was not breached.
________________________________
What helped win the case:
1. Pointing out that byelaws apply and point 5(3) from page 17 here: wttp://www.davidmarq.com/bama/doncaster%20airport%20byelaws.pdf [change wttp:// to http:// to access the link]
2. Pointing out that by entering the bus lane I did not block the traffic and enabled other motorists to use 2 lanes.
3. This was unforseeable event. I couldn't have known that my car will break down exactly there. I mentioned that if you travel with an elderly person and he/she had 3 strokes there is a chance that he/she will have another one but you don't know whether it will actually happen.
4. The terms and conditions specified by the Claimant basically do not mention the circumstances in which you can stop in this area.
Some points made by me to The Claimant:
1. The Claimant's representative was saying that in case like mine when I experienced some difficulties with my car I was supposed to call the helpline that is posted on the warning signs. My argument was that if you have the breakdown, first you try fix it yourself and if you can't you call AA to help you out. Similarly if you are in a shopping mall, you see a man with a gun, you will call the police, not try to locate the phone number to the security that works in the building.
Also the counterargument from the Judge was whether I would receive help from them and whether by calling the helpline I would still receive the PCN.
_______________________________________
For someone who is in similar situation:
1. Focus on theDoncaster-Sheffield byelaws
2. Argue that since this road has two lanes going one way, by blocking one you are not causing obstruction since there is a second lane which motorists can use.
3. Mention 'unforseeable event'. This is especially valuable if you can prove that your car broke down and it was for the first time.
_______________________
Something that I didn't do but should have done:
1. I didn't bring/send evidence that my car had a faulty part
2. I didn't issue/write the costs (printing, postage, lost day at work).
Hope it helps!0 -
Thanks for the detailed report!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards