Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Coupon-mad

All I would say is that a D should use the words:

I have been ambushed with new information that the Claimant had a duty to supply in the pre-action phase, according to the 2017 Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

beamerguy

As coupon-mad says ... it's an ambush.

BWL have twice submitted supplementary WS/ Evidence in the form of a new letter or potential documented proof of contractual relationship at the last minute.

Do you know what this proof is or have BWLegal changed the law, POFA2012

BWLegal are desperate

BountyHunter

beamerguy wrote: »

As coupon-mad says ... it's an ambush.

BWL have twice submitted supplementary WS/ Evidence in the form of a new letter or potential documented proof of contractual relationship at the last minute.

Do you know what this proof is or have BWLegal changed the law, POFA2012

BWLegal are desperate

We have plenty of other arguments - just trying to go in prepared for every eventuality.

We don't think the documents will stand up to scrutiny either - and have to question why they have suddenly appeared after 3 years.

Edislaw

I think I follow the logic in the last few posts. Currently the position with their claim in my case is that I have emailed them their copy of the letter before claim with a request for a copy of the relevant airport byelaws. I have denied their allegation with one reason ( there are potentially more). they are insisting I provide information they already have regardless that their confirmation of receipt shows the case reference.

Is a sensible way to proceed to wait until they contact me again and if they do not provide the requested information use that as a first defence?

Edislaw

Quite separate to the specifics I am still in correspondence through my MP (who is completely useless on this matter) with the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Transport - Paul Maynard. The department's role is limited to the approval of byelaws which in the case of Newcastle Airport are currently under review "to ensure they continue to apply efficiently and lawfully".

The justification for not getting involved is that my questions apply to parking on private land and how it is enforced "which is a matter for the airport to manage and justify".

With this knowledge is there a possibility of a two pronged attack:
1. An approach to the owners and operators of Newcastle airport to ask for a meeting to have them justify their action
2. Further appeal to the minister via various MPs seeking his support to ensure that byelaws are not misused to deal with "parking on private land".

I am happy to continue my correspondence on the Bercow principle of persist, persist, persist. What would be helpful would be PM'd suggestions of what alterations to byelaws are needed and why they are not working properly.

Castle

Edislaw wrote: »

Quite separate to the specifics I am still in correspondence through my MP (who is completely useless on this matter) with the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Transport - Paul Maynard. The department's role is limited to the approval of byelaws which in the case of Newcastle Airport are currently under review "to ensure they continue to apply efficiently and lawfully".

Have you sent the D.O.T a Freedom of information request for copies of correspondence between themselves and Newcastle Airport?

Coupon-mad

I am happy to continue my correspondence on the Bercow principle of persist, persist, persist.

Jeez I can't support people modelling themselves on that piece of grinning, slimy ****!

BACK ON TOPIC NOW!

Edislaw

I have now, in the following terms:

1. May I see copies of correspondence between the Department of Transport and Newcastle Airport with regard to the review of their byelaws currently underway?
2. When did this review commence?
3. When it it anticipated the review will be completed and byelaws updated?
4. Do the Byelaws of Newcastle Airport apply to the road system which connects the airport and its car parks to the A696 dual carriageway?

Any suggestions on additional FOIs very welcome.

BountyHunter

Update from hearing this week.

Rather annoyingly adjourned because the BWL advocate had not been given a copy of their latest (Late+additional +ambushed) WS sent to defendant a couple of days ago.

However on a positive note

Judge Cook told the advocate to inform BW that if they are fighting on by laws or contract issue then it would not favour them because he strongly agreed with cases previously won at Middlesbrough and Newcastle.

Judge made the advocate write his suggestion down and strongly inform BW.

Good to see North East judges showing they agree/ communicate on this.

BriPie

Just found this forum after the event, but maybe this info might help others:
After an ignored appeal by UKPPO and the same subsequent threats everyone else has experienced regarding a 'stopping' offence at Newcastle Airport in 2016 I was summoned to North Shields County by BWL on the 5th Sept 2019.
When I turned up there were 2 other defendants (defiants) in the same boat, all armed with statements, photos etc.
Judge Phillips decided to hold the proceedings in one sitting with all of us present.
After discussions with the BWL representatives, and without any reference to our individual defences, the judge sent us out while he 'considered' the facts.
We were brought back in to hear the judge's summary, which basically stated that BWL had no legal right to bring the case to court, citing the contract between Newcastle Airport (it's their bylaws), Park and Fly Ltd (no longer in existence) and UKPPO.
Case dismissed.
Methinks that the judge had done his homework in advance, and the court was well aware of UKPPO's illegal summons. He did refer to a higher judgement against UKPPO which they had not appealed.
Just wish I hadn't spent so many hours preparing my defence!
Anyways, I wouldn't buy shares in UKPPO. On the way out, along with many others hopefully...