Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

ianeverton

[IMG][/img]

So they reckon this is adequate signage.
Looks like the circus has come to town.

ianeverton

[IMG][/img]
Still dont think i am doing this right.
Although heavily doctored you can see that the pics are exactly the same from the position of the pedestrians feet to the right.
You can also see that the brake lights are on showing a vehicle coming to a stop at the barrier. Proves diddly squat.

ianeverton

[IMG][/img]
Not sure how you dont perform this manouvre coming to a barrier.

ianeverton

As still inadequate as they are, these are the signs at JLA. Decent size and font, actually look like signs not advertising a school fayre. Repeated and on both sides of the carriageway. Even so IIRC these have been deemed inadequate as they are not the same as regular road signs as required under the RTA. But really highlights how poor the Newcastle ones are/were.

ianeverton

This one is also going under 6.3.

Have also noticed the original NTK was ambiguous as to the amount claimed. Says amount due is £100 within 28 days. But further reading says £60.

[Deleted User]

In defence: The signage on that approach road is perpendicular to the traffic and clearly cannot be read from a loving vehicle. There appears to be one sign referring to charging that faces traffic - but mysteriously mounted at ankle height and partially obscured by a traffic/pedestrian barrier. Given "use both lanes" is painted on the road, "no stopping" could have been. I'd have put no stopping, enforcement charges apply on the overhead gantry.

Claimants arguments: Do be prepared to address the "red route" road markings which do appear to be to Highway Code/British standard - i.e you should know not to stop.

ianeverton

Johnersh wrote: »

In defence: The signage on that approach road is perpendicular to the traffic and clearly cannot be read from a loving vehicle. There appears to be one sign referring to charging that faces traffic - but mysteriously mounted at ankle height and partially obscured by a traffic/pedestrian barrier. Given "use both lanes" is painted on the road, "no stopping" could have been. I'd have put no stopping, enforcement charges apply on the overhead gantry.

Claimants arguments: Do be prepared to address the "red route" road markings which do appear to be to Highway Code/British standard - i.e you should know not to stop.

I am guessing as they are stating this is not a contractual charge then there is no requirement for them to show the terms. I.e. Offer, consideration and acceptance. Therefore referring back to the Bylaws where the 6 month time limit is breached. Checkmate.

[Deleted User]

Fair point.

bilib

The byelaw has in it's introduction



"Terms and Conditions" means the terms and conditions of parking or stopping
exhibited at the entrance to and at various locations within the Airport Car Parks and
the Pick Up/Drop Off area.


I have read the entire thread and cannot find any reference to it's relevance in the claims.

grimnog

Yes, it does say that in the “interpretation” section, giving a definition of what “terms and conditions” means, however the relevant byelaw 6.3 does not make any reference to terms and conditions. 6.3 specifically prohibits parking in certain areas, so any “t&cs” are irrelevant - it’s prohibited. Full stop.

The relevant question is whether we met the definition of “parking, waiting in or leaving a vehicle”, none of which are defined in the “interpretation” section!