RobinHood- Doncaster Airport, approach road PCN from VCS

Ja99iE

Just been reading through that, cheers.

It's yesterday's date.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, you have until Monday 5th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

You need to read VCS defences and learn about VCS v Ward as that will scupper your defence unless you can distinguish your case from it.

Mr Ward stopped for FOUR SECONDS due to a car fault/hiccup(!) and a Judge managed to be persuaded on appeal (so it is a case that has clout) that the D was liable. Jeez!

Read the recent defence thread mentioning Ransomes - search the forum.

Ja99iE

Thanks for your responses. I haven't had a lot of time until now, but I'm looking to form a defence in the coming days.

Ja99iE

Ok I have 2 days left to file my defence. Here's what I have so far, any thoughts?

---

Removed, as it was a Witness Statement, not a defence

---

I used a lot of help from other forum posts, so thanks to those who have contributed in similar threads.

Ja99iE

BTW until this statement I haven't named the driver (should I proceed in doing so?)

The driver was going to the airport to pick up their disabled parents. And did pay the £2 express drop-off/pick-up parking charge (sadly no record of this from the SAR despite asking for it) around 20 mins later after driving to a shop to get some water after choking. Would any of that be relevant?

Le_Kirk

Is that a defence or a witness statement? You say you have 2 days left to file your defence then start by heading it witness statement.

Ja99iE

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Is that a defence or a witness statement? You say you have 2 days left to file your defence then start by heading it witness statement.

Defence. My mistake, there was a fair amount of copy and paste involved here.

Ja99iE

Ok, second attempt. I hope this is more like what a defence needs to be.

---

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Defence Statement

---

I am XXXXXXX, I will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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.

2. The driver has not been identified on any occasion and there is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver. The keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm which was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

4. The driver of the vehicle supplies the following statement:
“On the date of alleged contravention, I drove to Doncaster Sheffield Airport when suddenly I began to choke on a boiled sweet. Struggling to breathe and not feeling in control of my vehicle, I quickly turned on my hazard lights, pulled over to the side of the road, and attempted to dislodge the sweet from my throat.
The choking was inexplicable and sudden, and something out of my control. My instincts were to stop the car as soon as it was safe to do so, and attempt to dislodge the sweet. Once I had done so, I became aware of the vehicle some distance behind me (now known to have been a Mobile Enforcement Camera vehicle). I was surprised they had not pulled alongside me to ascertain the reason for my stop. Had they done so, they would have realised I was in some distress, and may have benefited from their assistance. “

5. On all correspondence from the Claimant, it states that the contravention occurred at Robin Hood Airport, Doncaster. The airport rebranded itself to Doncaster Sheffield Airport in December 2016, with the Robin Hood title now a lesser used graphic appendix on only the airport logo. There is no such airport as Robin Hood Airport.

6. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

8. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle stopping or parking at the location in question.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

11. There are various signs present along the roads around Doncaster Sheffield Airport, but none of them have any means of illumination and therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle, driving at the speed limit of 30mph, during hours where lighting is not optimal and no street lights are in use, such as a gloomy December afternoon as it was when the alleged breach of contract occurred. Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the area without knowing what those terms and conditions are. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

12. Based on the “PCM vs Bull” case, where defendants were issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”, the claimant has no standing to litigate this matter.
District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that “the notice was prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.

13. Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws should be applicable and considered:

VCS operates under Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws. The unexpected choking issue the driver encountered that afternoon, fits the criteria specified in DSA byelaws.
Below are the relevant byelaws:


5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD
TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road
Traffic Enactments do not apply:

“5 (3) Obstruction:
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”

and

“5(12) Parking of Vehicles
without reasonable excuse! Park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.

14. This Claimant may try to persuade the court using the perverse decision in “VCS v Ward”, which can be fully distinguished and is far from persuasive when scrutinised. In that case, at appeal, the Defendant did not appear and the case reportedly ran completely against the interests of the victim consumer, such that the Judge even lamented the dreadful position he had been steered towards by this Claimant's legal representation, who, it seems, effectively ambushed the court with a case not first raised at the original hearing. In any event, the “VCS v Ward” case involved a business park and has no application to an Airport case, where the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency - such as choking - is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit.

15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

16. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date

---

Any help greatly appreciated. I don't have long to get this in.

KeithP

The title should just be Defence, not Defence Statement.

This is left over from the Witness Statement version and should be deleted:

I am XXXXXXX, I will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

In 2 - the first time you mention POFA, is should be spelled out in full. Same with any other acronyms you may have used.

In 3 - replace Private Parking Company with Claimant.

Still mentions Witness Statement in your Statement of Truth.