Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

waamo

Caoimhe wrote: »

With regards to BW stating that the byelaws do not negate UKPPO entering into a contract... people have previously appealed around the illegitimacy of the contract, for UKPPO to reply woth the following:

"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 airport byelaws"

Anyone still got those letters?

That's a cracker if you have one of those. It pretty much gives a solid defence for you.

The_Deep

The charge is an alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates Court for breaching airport byelaws"


Surely worth a complaint to the SRA, Trading Standards, the ATA and the DVLA. A PPC is unable to take this to a Magistrates Court.

grimnog

BountyHunter wrote: »

Thanks I recall reading it somewhere too in research for the defence - that will be tonight’s job trying to find it again

Did you find it anywhere?

jkdd77

BountyHunter wrote: »

Quick question - a couple of us have received response to our defences which state

"It is fundamental to note that the Byelaws do not prevent our Client from entering into a contract with a motorist. As such, any material breach of the terms and conditions (stated below [i.e. the wording of the signs]) gives rise to a contractual claim which can be brought under civil proceedings (i.e. in a county court). You are put strict to proof to the contrary."

Is this a load of rubbish or does it need addressing in the witness statement - the defence already covers the changing nature of the claim.

The PCNs state Breach of byelaws, yet the letter of Claims state breach of contract.

The first point will be Abuse of process for the extra £60 - the above is to cover all bases.

Thanks

The byelaws are here:
https://www.newcastleairport.com/media/1353/airport-byelaws-2009-1.pdf

If UKPPO are claiming that a vehicle was parked in violation of (criminal) byelaws, then it is obvious that they may not offer an (enforceable) civil contract to do that which is a criminal offence.

BountyHunter

grimnog wrote: »

Did you find it anywhere?

Unfortunately not - I've been scouring the different forums, FOI website and other resources all weekend

BountyHunter

BW Legal/UKPPO "0" - Collective defence group "1"

With 21 games still to play.

Pleased to report success in a recent hearing. It turns out that the contract with the landowner is just as important as it was many years ago when these cases were first being appealed.

Costs awarded to defendant.

BountyHunter

And now for another question around naming the driver.

None of the claims rely of POFA btw as UKPPO are quoting the Newcastle Byelaws (2009) that make the keeper liable. We think this should be superseded in date by POFA 2012. So unless admitted elsewhere - UKPPO/BW Legal do not know who the drivers were.

There are 3 scenarios in the group:
1) Driver unknown - due to multiple possible drivers and time passed
2) Driver known - i.e. not registered keeper but known spouse etc.
3) Driver = Registered keeper

In scenario 3 - will it be the elephant in the room if there is no denial of being the driver included in the defence/witness statement etc.

Is it likely to be asked at the hearing, and does the defendant have to answer?

Nobody wants to lie - but any avoidance tactics would be appreciated.

If they do admit to driving, what difference does it make given that there was no invitation to name the driver on the PCN?

Hope that makes sense

KeithP

BountyHunter wrote: »

BW Legal/UKPPO "0" - Collective defence group "1"

With 21 games still to play.

Pleased to report success in a recent hearing. It turns out that the contract with the landowner is just as important as it was many years ago when these cases were first being appealed.

Costs awarded to defendant.

That's very good to hear.

Does that Defendant have their own thread on MSE?
If so, it would be good if they can take the time to update it with a court report.

BountyHunter

KeithP wrote: »

That's very good to hear.

Does that Defendant have their own thread on MSE?
If so, it would be good if they can take the time to update it with a court report.

No they had one on pepipoo but we’ll put some notes together with how it went

Coupon-mad

So glad to hear 1 - 0 to you lot so far!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! :T

None of the claims rely of POFA btw as UKPPO are quoting the Newcastle Byelaws (2009) that make the keeper liable.

Are they REALLY trying to enforce Byelaws, in a county court? Needs shooting down.

As jkdd77 said above quite succinctly:

If UKPPO are claiming that a vehicle was parked in violation of (criminal) byelaws, then it is obvious that they may not offer an (enforceable) civil contract to do that which is a criminal offence.

i.e. they can't allow a criminal offence to take place and charge for that!

We think this should be superseded in date by POFA 2012.

I say they are different things entirely and if UKPPO are pleading under byelaws then you need to take the above approach, and point out that UKPPO cannot enforce Byelaws (that ship was never theirs to sail, and could only have been sailed within 6 months of a byelaws penalty being issued, by laying the case before Mags court).

And say that the POFA does not apply either, because this is not 'relevant land' - citing as evidence the DFT Guidance on Schedule 4 of the POFA from 2012, like here where some useful words from the DFT are quoted that your group can adduce in evidence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75927119#Comment_75927119

If a Judge asks 'were you driving?' then the D can't lie, but could if unsure say there is absolutely no way to be certain from so many years ago on a family holiday/picking up a family member from holiday, could have been one of several insured drivers in the family (or even a friend if true that they used the car).

That would be a fair enough answer to the question, given the time lapse.


So unless admitted elsewhere - UKPPO/BW Legal do not know who the drivers were.

If they do admit to driving, what difference does it make given that there was no invitation to name the driver on the PCN?

Not sure it makes a difference if they are admitting to driving. I'd say jkdd77's point needs to be hammered home.

Reading between the lines of an earlier post, one of the group already succeeded by contesting jurisdiction of the county court to hear a case pleaded & relying on byelaws, yes?

Are you all using that case number and a WS from that person, or the order from that case, as an exhibit, and saying that the Claimant's case is fatally flawed and they cannot have their cake & eat it by arguing Byelaws 'penalty' on the one hand (money from penalties is not allowed to go to private firms) yet 'contractual agreement' on the other hand, allowing drivers to commit what UKPPO know is a byelaws offence, in exchange for money?!

It is a nonsense.