RobinHood- Doncaster Airport, approach road PCN from VCS

Ja99iE

Thanks, here is is again with the changes:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim No. XXXXXXX
Between

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

---

Defence

---

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 Protection of Freedoms Act 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 Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 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 Defence are true.

Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

Right, it's a defence then. You need to remove the Witness Statement aspects, as that will follow later. Just settle on legal/technical aspects. There are some other airport bye-law cases on-going, have you read those?

Ja99iE

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Right, it's a defence then. You need to remove the Witness Statement aspects, as that will follow later. Just settle on legal/technical aspects. There are some other airport bye-law cases on-going, have you read those?

What are we classing as Witness Statement parts? From what I gather, it's important to get in there that the stop was for an emergency in order for the byelaws to be relevant. Will I still be able to reference the choking at a later date, and the byelaws at this stage, if I remove the witness statement from the driver?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

That's a good VCS Airport defence as it points out the bylaws allow stopping in an emergency and deals with VCS v Ward head on.

I would just change this as I suspect VCS will argue they do not operate under the byelaws:

Whether or not the Claimant alleges that they operate under, or rely upon, the Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws, these create a level of statutory parking control and must take precedence over the land and cannot be overruled by a claim pleaded in contract or tort. The unexpected choking issue...

Ja99iE

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's a good VCS Airport defence as it points out the bylaws allow stopping in an emergency and deals with VCS v Ward head on.

I would just change this as I suspect VCS will argue they do not operate under the byelaws:

Thanks, I've made that change as suggested.

Any other thoughts on it before I send it in? Is it ok to provide a statement from a unnamed driver in my defence?

Ja99iE

My MCOL has been updated with the following:

"Your defence was received on 19/08/2019
DQ sent to you on 19/08/2019"

However no questionnaire received. Is it something I can download elsewhere? Or do I need to contact them?

Thanks

Redx

It's on their website, as the Newbies thread tells you, so anyone can download it

But as they only just sent it, why not wait ? It was only sent yesterday, or is awaiting postal pick-up by royal mail

KeithP

Ja99iE wrote: »

However no questionnaire received. Is it something I can download elsewhere? Or do I need to contact them?

Why not re-read item 8 in the list in post #23 above?

Here it is again:

Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Ja99iE

VCS have requested mediation. Is that normal? Perhaps a sign that they don't want to take it to court?

I assume the correct course of action would be to decline?

Thanks.

Le_Kirk

How have they requested it? Via the DQ? What did you put in your DQ? Can you imagine the mediation conversation? Claimant how much do you want? - ALL OF IT. Defendant how much do you want to pay - ZERO. End of mediation! Normally recommended to decline.