Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

bilib

4.13 Terms and Conditions
Fail or refuse to comply with any terms or conditions set by the Company regarding
access to Airport premises.


This ties the claimant in a knot if

the below is specific as the OP defence maintains to parking and leaving (abandoning)



3.3 Where any person parks or leaves a vehicle in contravention of any of byelaws 6.2 to
6.6, 6.10, 6.16 to 6.18, 7.1, 7.2 or 7.7, or otherwise contravenes any of those byelaws
in relation to a vehicle, the Company or its agents may (in its/their absolute discretion)



Unless the phrase "any of those byelaws in relation to a vehicle"
pulls in 4.13


It's not clear but if the claim is for stopping . Paying attention to that wording in the Newcastle Airport Byelaws is prudent.


3.3 mentions PCN "terms" but is lower case so can claimant be relying on this to be authorised t and c's through reference to byelaws on tickets and notices.


The ministery that signed this off should be brought to account. I am Joe Public and spotted the obvious drafing error.

Caoimhe

Post removed

Coupon-mad

They admit the CCTV evidence has been deleted? LOL, you must all use that!

Also don't forget I told you waaay back in this thread, that the CCTV cameras belonged to PARK & FLY LTD and the signs had 'PARK & FLY LTD' on them, not UKPPO, at least this was the case in 2014 when I handled a few case like this at appeals, where UKPPO always lost at POPLA (hence they jumped to the IPC instead).

So, your defences could also state that:

The Claimant used images from a CCTV system that they did not operate themselves, and were sharing data with a separate company who did operate the CCTV cameras - Park & Fly Ltd. This is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984 (DPA) which applied at the time, and also contrary to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner's Code of Practice (CCTV CoP) created as a result of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to regulate the use of CCTV.

Further, the Claimant has now admitted that the CCTV 'evidence' (such as it was) has been deleted, and yet they are still attempting to run a series of meritless claims based on still images that were never theirs in the first place, and not data that was under their control. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof, and will be asked to produce the original CCTV footage (moving images showing an actual period of parking and the facts of the event) and to evidence that it has complied with the DPA and the CCTV CoP in regard to this footage and any still images harvested and shared between them and the Airport and/or Park & Fly Ltd, a third party and stranger to the claim.

I also mentioned earlier that the signs were pinned to fences not facing the traffic, and the images posted in #144 etc., show this was true. Your defences should make more of this (there was no clearway signage AFAIK - post #145 is a pic of Liverpool Airport by way of comparison only).

Don't forget to suggest that the signs did not have the parking charge or the Claimant's name on them in large font, or at all, and that plus the fact they did not face the traffic and were attached with cable ties to pedestrian walkway fences means that no driver in moving traffic can possibly be expected to have 'read and agreed' to contractual terms with this Claimant at all.

You can all use fairly similar defences, albeit with details about where your car was caught, and things like this (below) being specific to each case:

Furthermore, CCTV footage provided by the Claimant shows that the Driver of the car was male. The Defendant, and Registered Keeper is female, and therefore could not have committed the alleged contravention.

ianeverton

I also find it abhorrent that as some office junior has concocted that set of Byelaws all manner of injustices can be conducted.
Just because the Byelaw states that they can persue the RK regardless of whether they were the driver or not and give no opportunity to name the driver. That goes against the principles in POFA 2012 (proper legislation), it goes against the principles of the Road Traffic Act, it goes against the principle of justice. You have no control over the actions of a driver as a RK but will be held responsible? How far could that go? Taken in the extreme, a driver of a vehicle that you are the RK of kills someone whilst drink driving, is there any way in any sane justice system that you would be held liable for anything whatsoever? Of course not. So why can these Byelaws come to that conclusion? Can they be challenged as p#55 poor law?

ianeverton

I need to get on with this as @Darren1089 is probably starting to sweat.

darren1098

just a little.

ianeverton

Ha, ha.
Just emailed it to you @Darren1098


Big thanks to the posters here, I did a lot of copy and paste from those defences. Added some bits pertinent to @Darren1098 case alone but nothing major.


If requested I can post it up but as there was no appeal theres plenty left out that the others included.


Anyway, yet again, thanks.


I do hope its a group case if it gets that far.

david_c88

I’ve recieved the same, already filed my defence and rather cheekily submitted a counterclaim for £1000 for harrasment 🤣

Happy to join any group but my defence sounds similar to what you guys are discussing.

I even have evidence from Northumbria Police staring that the RTA DOES apply on the land.

Umkomaas

rather cheekily submitted a counterclaim for £1000 for harrasment ��

Did you enclose the £60 filing fee with your counterclaim?

D_P_Dance

… and rather cheekily submitted a counterclaim for £1000 for harrasment

That should attract their attention.