Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

BountyHunter

DEFENCE

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and registered keeper of the vehicle registration xxxx on the material date.

1. The Defendant acknowledges that the driver of the vehicle stopped momentarily on a public highway adjacent to the car parks of Newcastle International Airport on the material date. The Driver then proceeded to enter the pick up/ drop off car park, and paid the appropriate fee to activate the exit barrier before leaving the carpark.

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

3. In the Particulars of Claim (POC) the Claimant states that the alleged sum owed is:
“monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on xxxx in a controlled parking zone”.

The contents of the POC suggest that the Claimant is basing the claim on a contractual obligation concerning parking, however the nature of the claim has been changed from the original PCN issued to the Defendant on xxx which alludes to a breach of byelaws:

• “breach of the byelaws at 1315 Roads Surrounding Newcastle Airport that we are authorised to enforce”
• “The reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is as follows 6.3 Parking in a prohibited area.”
• “UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have been authorised to enforce the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009 and issue parking charge notices as an alternative to prosecution. Unlike a parking charge notice issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act, under Byelaw 3.3.1 the registered keeper is immediately held liable for the sum due.”

4. To fully address the changing nature of the claim, this defence will set out 2 main counter arguments:

i) That the alleged contravention took place on a public road that is not covered by Airport Byelaws.

ii) That no contract could have been formed with the Registered Keeper for “stopping”.


5. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has authority to enforce Newcastle International Airport byelaw 6.3 on a public highway in order to bring this claim. Both the Airports Act 1986 and the Newcastle Airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which the Road Traffic enactments do not apply. The public highway is not a private car park, and not considered “relevant land” therefore the Newcastle Airport Byelaws do not apply.

6. Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest on a public highway to issue a PCN and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. In the event that the court considers this alleged breach of Newcastle International Airport byelaw 6.3 to be considered as “relevant land” and within jurisdiction; the 6.3 byelaw prohibits drivers to “Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice”. The actions of the driver do not meet any of these criteria as the vehicle was not neither parked nor left in a prohibited area. The Defendant therefore denies that byelaw 6.3 was breached by stopping briefly.

8. The Claimant has not provided the Defendant with any valid reason to indicate that this is a claim for breach of contract. The Claimant’s standard response to individuals who have appealed comparable PCNs (all for “stopping” on the periphery of Newcastle Airport Carparks) clearly states that:
“The charge is not issued under contract law and is not an attempt to recover damages for breaching a contract. The charge is an alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates Court for breaching the Airport Bye-laws”.

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

10. The terms of the “No Stopping” signage displayed on the site and surrounding roads of the Airport are inadequate to form a contract with the driver. The position and size of the first signs make them difficult to read whilst driving, and text that forbids the motorist to act does not represent a contractual offer. Since the location was not a car park, and the vehicle was not parked, no contract was established.

11. Further, the Defendant challenges whether the Claimant is eligible to issue PCNs for “stopping”, as this falls outside the remit of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (COP), of which they are a member.

12. The PCN states that the claim is for a “a parking contravention”. This is denied as the Driver did not “park” but stopped momentarily. Should this claim be concluded as a parking contravention, the IPC COP also states that “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs”; time which was not afforded to the Driver in this case.

13. The Claimant has not complied with the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper; in that they lack any reasonable cause to obtain keeper data from the DVLA. The event did not take place on “relevant land”, and stopping a vehicle is not the same as parking.

14. The PCN did not include an invitation to name the Driver, and the Claimant has not ascertained the name of the driver by other means. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle.

15. The Defendant denies that there was an agreement to pay any sum or parking charge, or that a contract was formed.

16. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the claim includes a further £60, for which no calculation is given, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This additional £60 has been variously described as a “Initial Legal Costs” and “Total Debt Recovery Costs”.

17. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. POFA Schedule 4, at paragraph 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) in this case £100.

18. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is misleading and discloses no clear single 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

BountyHunter wrote: »

Also we have a draft defence for review (to follow) - All feedback welcome - in particular can anyone advise if we have the right legal terminology in the right places, if the arguments are logical, and whether it is too long or detailed (is 122 lines the max?)?

There may be some small adjustments for individual circumstances but the defence arguments are the same.

It doesn't reference the magistrates/6 months rule on purpose as jurisdiction has not been contested for those defending.

Thanks

Those defending should not be using the MCOL online system to file a Defence - that's the 'line limit' you mention. The reason for not using MCOL is explained by Bargepole in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

To file a Defence to a Claim issued by the County Court Business Centre I suggest the following:

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 "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put 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

That defence looks very good to me, as does the plan for the documents to submit for the 'contesting jurisdiction first' case.

I seem to recall 3 typical things about PCNs from UKPPO at Newcastle Airport:

1) The 'contract' that used to be supplied to POPLA (just before UKPPO jumped ship from the BPA) was signed by another parking agent: 'PARK & FLY LTD' and not the Airport. No evidence used to be supplied that the enforcement was authorised by the landowners.

2) The signs were woeful, wordy, attached to wire fences, and not facing moving traffic like 'no stopping' repeater signs should be, and you would have had to stop to read them...and they had 'PARK & FLY LTD' on them, and nothing obvious about any contract with UKPPO.

3) The images were collected by supposedly 'security' CCTV and the times imprinted on the bottom of the CCTV images, very often didn't used to match the 'period of parking/time of breach'. It was almost always out by several minutes, such that the PCN was trying to enforce an event alleged to have occurred at a time when the car had long since left the area.

darren1098

I was wondering, on my "Ticket" the 2 photos they have are both fro exactly the same time. Does anyone else have the same thing ?

jenpal66

i'm in the same boat any further news, i emailed my for back but put in the defence box @to follow' as wasn't sure what to do & only just found these posts, am i too late to do anything, I have been away with work so only had a day to sort it, them went on holiday for a week & just back Sunday, so panicking a bit now.

Sorry to those who have repilied to my post on another thread today, as don't know how to start a thread as I'm not good with IT, just as an aside, who gives the DVLA the right to disclose info about vehicles & keepers?? has this ever been challenged???

thanks

jenpal66

i emailed my for back but put in the defense box @to follow'
should say
I emailed mine back... defense 'to follow'

KeithP

jenpal66 wrote: »

i emailed my for back but put in the defense box @to follow'
should say
I emailed mine back... defense 'to follow'

Jenpal66, please stop posting all over the place.

Please start your own thread if you want help.

If you need help on how to start your own thread then please review the Forum Help at the top of every page.

Just a quick answer: by putting to follow in the Defence box you have effectively stated that your Defence in its entirety consists of the two words to follow.

Please, no further response on this thread.

Thanks for your understanding.

ianeverton

At last i have managed to recover my account.
My mate who is Darren1098 in post #105 has had this hanging over him for some time but i kept on advising as the short comings of this PCN and never expected it to come to this point of court proceedings.
So if you could add this case to the multitude issued on the same day it would be a running total of 13 i think now.
I am surprised this hasnt been allocated as a group hearing as my one and only previous one that was due in court was a collective listing. Ultimately the PPC bottled it so i still have never had to go that far.

This is a brilliant thread, with some fantastic advice. Thanks to the group.
Whatever happened to Lizner? as i recall donating to the fighting fund many years ago after some excellent advice defeated a few cases when we had a decent POPLA body to adjudicate.

grimnog

Does anyone have any advice or thoughts on the prospect of a counter claim?

If they either don’t turn up at court or their case is dismissed, can we claim costs/expenses or do we need to submit a counter claim for this? Does a counter claim need to be submitted in advance or can it be done after we have seen the outcome of their proceedings?

I’m just a tad peed off at the sheer amount of time and effort I’ve had to put in to learning all about intricate matters of law to enable me to defend a baseless claim with no cause of action.....

Redx

the NEWBIES thread deals with claiming costs , capped at about £95 plus parking and transport etc, this is done WITHOUT having to counter claim and is considered standard practice in small claims

read about the barrister that claimed his costs and time at his MSA court case hearing, but bear in mind is profession and what they charge etc

a counter claim costs say £25 and you need a suitable cause to do so, plus you do it at the same time as submitting the defence I believe, with a cheque etc

read the MCOL site, it tells you all about the MCOL system , plus LOC123 also goes into it in her thread and posts (its not a secret, but research is the key here)