Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

beamerguy

BPatient wrote: »

I was not part of the Whatsapp group, but I am happy to send details of my case, which was discontinued. I have tried to PM Bountyhunter, but the mailbox is full and won't accept messages.

Kindly show it on the forum

BountyHunter

Last 2 group discontinuances recently received so final results are:

From 25 group members

1 Contested jurisdiction, which was settled by the claimant, including a refund of the £100 application fee, and the claim dropped.

1 Struck out – due to BWL not meeting the WS deadline

11 Discontinued

6 dismissed at hearings, including 1 for inadequate signs, 1 that Byelaws don’t apply, and 4 for lack of/inadequate contract

1 group member is only in the early stages pre Claim form

2 gone quiet/ awol from the group

1 was considering paying in the early stages as their spouse was the RK and they didn’t want to go to court, no further contact

1 Didn’t realise they had the wrong address on MCOL from a previous claim and missed deadlines without realising. Default judgement was made against them.

1 defendant couldn’t make the hearing date at the last minute due to self-employed work commitments. Additional costs were added to the claim for not attending.

BountyHunter

The following 5 Judges dismissed 6 cases at hearings (I will include full defendant names and reference numbers when writing to them).

19-Jul-19, Carlisle Court, District Judge Russell Stone, Northern Circuit (Reason: Invalid/ lack of contract)
01-Aug-19, North Shields, District Judge (Michelle Jean) Temple, North Eastern Circuit (Reason: Inadequate signs)
05-Aug-19, Middlesbrough Court, District Judge (David) Hambler, North Eastern Circuit (Reason: Byelaws don't apply)
10-Sep-19, Middlesbrough Court, District Judge (Victoria) Moreton, North Eastern Circuit (Reason: Invalid/ lack of contract)
11-Sep-19, Middlesbrough, District Judge (Victoria) Moreton, North Eastern Circuit (Reason: Invalid/ lack of contract)
17-Sep-19, Newcastle Court, District judge (Nathan John) Adams, North Eastern Circuit (Reason: Invalid/ lack of contract)

grimnog

BW Legal have just discontinued their action against me (I’m one of the 11 mentioned above). The notice of discontinuance literally landed on my doormat on Witness Statement submission deadline day, as I was walking out of the house to head to the court to submit my mammoth (circa 150 page) Witness Statement and exhibits. What a total waste of days and days of effort put into producing it! A huge amount of thanks goes to the group though for all their fab work and support, certain members in particular (you know who you are). If anyone out there would like to benefit from this great work, I’m happy to email my Witness statement pack and exhibits for them to use - someone might as well get good use out of all the hard work.

The resounding message is this: they will bully you, they will intimidate you and they will abuse the court processes to basically pressure people into paying. The whole process is incredibly scary and onerous on those of us who have never needed to defend themselves before, and they know it - that’s why they do it. They will persevere at nil or minimal cost to themselves, so that defendants have to put in incredible amounts of time and effort just to meet the court’s deadlines and jump through the administrative hoops presented. If ever you miss a hoop, you lose. They know it. The whole court process is a joke when it is abused in this fashion, but that’s the system. It’s frankly broken. The little man is effectively guilty by default.

Huge thanks must go to the regulars on forums such as these for their continual hard work at helping us push back against a system stacked against us. Anyone out there who is considering caving in and paying - please don’t! Fight all the way and use the support and help out there to assist you. And don’t doubt yourselves! The more they intimidate you and the more they threaten you, the more desperate they are becoming because they know they don’t have a case.

Good luck everybody and thanks again for all the help.

BountyHunter

How does this look & how do I set out the draft order?

Dear District Judge xxxxx

Re: BWLegal UKPPO Newcastle Airport Parking Claims

I am writing on behalf of a group of consumers who have recently been successful in gaining the dismissal or discontinuance of several Newcastle Airport Parking claims dating back to 2016.

The group of 25 was formed following research on the consumer help website Money Saving Expert, having realised we all had similar claims to defend.

I would like to draw your attention to the pattern of vexatious claims in the hope that further action can be taken.

Working collectively, with no previous knowledge of court proceedings, 11 claims were eventually discontinued, 6 dismissed at hearing (one of which was your own judgement), 1 struck out & 1 dropped following contesting jurisdiction.

The full progress is captured in the following forum:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5971217/newcastle-airport-ukppo-bw-legal-collective-defence-group

Details of the 6 cases dismissed at hearing……….

Based on the above, I am writing to ask you to consider an order using your own case management powers, debarring UKPPO from filing or continuing with any more Newcastle Airport claims, without the permission of the local Circuit Judge first, and only if they set out in what way any new cases differ from all those discontinued and beaten in court by consumers.

This is to protect future consumers from being unnecessarily harassed with meritless claims, and prevent any further “abuse of process”.

I attach a draft order to review and thank you in advance for your consideration.

Your sincerely

waamo

Whilst the bar for being declared a vexatious litigant is very high either losing or discontinuing so many cases at a single site must be causing a bit of a stir.

It might be worth contacting the Ministry of Justice and pointing the issue out to them. Whilst I don't expect much to come of it there is the possibility it gets the issue more widely discussed.

BountyHunter

I'll attempt to copy the WS here - it was a group effort any may not be perfect but hopefully useful in parts for future claims.

It seemed to do the trick for the majority of the discontinuance outcomes.

BountyHunter

In the County Court at Newcastle upon Tyne, Law Courts, The Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 3LA


Claim No. []

Between

UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LIMITED (Claimant)

and

xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT


1 Introduction
1.1 I am [Full name], of [Full Address]. I am the Defendant in this matter and will say as follows; I am an unrepresented consumer with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents as professionally as expected, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience.
1.2 In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. Attached to this statement is a bundle of documents/exhibits to which I will refer.
1.3 Before I describe what happened on the material date at Newcastle Airport, I confirm that my main points of defence are:

• Failure to comply with pre-action protocol
• Changing nature of the claim (Byelaws and Contract claim)
• No contract with the Driver
• No authority to bring the claim (Contract with Landowner).
• No authority to bring the claim (under Byelaws)
• Abuse of Process – (additional costs claimed)






2 Sequence of Events

EXHIBIT B Parking Charge Notice DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT D Letter of Claim DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT F BWLegal email response DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT H BWLegal response to defence DD.MM.YYYY

2.1 On the material date, the Driver had visited Newcastle Airport for the purpose of collecting a passenger. The Driver had pre-arranged with the passenger to meet them within the short stay drop off/pick up car park.
2.2 The passenger’s flight had arrived ahead of schedule. On exiting the airport buildings; the passenger, who was unfamiliar with Newcastle Airport, walked around the short stay drop off/pick up car park looking for the place where the driver was likely to arrive.
2.3 The driver approached the roundabout in the right-hand lane to follow the road markings going straight ahead, the Driver briefly noticed the red signs on the roundabout but could not stop to read the detail.
2.4 The Passenger left the car park and was spotted by the Driver at the roadside. The driver stopped and the passenger entered the vehicle. ANPR images included in the PCN appear to show this as a stop of fifteen seconds.
2.5 The driver had not entered the car park at this point, and could not have accepted the terms and conditions of any parking notices displayed within the car parks, contrary to statements received from the Claimant.
2.6 The driver then continued as intended into the short stay car park, as the road markings indicated this was the only option available – and paid the appropriate rate to exit via the barrier (from memory 3 years ago the driver believes that either the first 5 minutes was “free” in this area or the driver paid the minimum £1 exit fee at the barrier).
2.7 I received what appeared to be scam mail addressed to the registered keeper. Having done some initial research on consumer forums that supported this view, I chose to ignore the original PCN and reminder letters, believing them to be unenforceable for various reasons. For the same reason I did not submit an appeal for the PCN.
2.8 Following this I received several letters from different companies (Gladstones, Zenith, Debt Recovery Plus) demanding payment of £160.00 + interest and threatening court action. On further research/ advice I did not to engage with any of these companies.
2.9 Having heard nothing for at least 12 months, I received a letter before claim, which I duly responded to.
2.10 I received an inadequate response from the Claimant’s solicitor, either omitting or refusing to supply the information requested in support of the claim
2.11 Following the letter before claim, I also received multiple phone calls and texts in pursuance of the alleged debt; until I pointed out that permission to contact me by mobile phone had not been “freely” given. I am aware that my name and address will have been provided by the DVLA, but to this date do not know how both my mobile and an old work contact number were obtained.
2.12 At this point I also researched and discovered that the Claimant’s solicitors have issued multiple archived 'parking charges' for alleged breaches at Newcastle Airport, and have to question whether parking companies use of the small claims track as a form of automated debt collection is something the Courts should be seen to support.
2.13 After a further 4 months I received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre and proceeded with the acknowledgement and defence up to this point.
2.14 As I have yet to receive the Claimant’s witness statement, further points may need to be addressed or clarified in the form of a skeleton argument.


3 Failure to comply with pre-action protocol

EXHIBIT E Letter to BWLegal DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT F BWLegal email response DD.MM.YYYY

3.1 The Claimant failed to adequately respond to the defendant’s CPR 31.14 request made on 26.11.2018, requesting further documentation including a copy of the relevant contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim.
3.2 Pre- action protocol for debt claims 5.1 states that “Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.” On this basis, the defendant requested, inter alia, the following:
• Whether the Claimant is relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 [Not answered/ ignored]
• A plan showing where any signs were displayed [Not provided]
• Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) [Not provided]
• If the Claimant has added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated. [Not provided)

3.3 The Claimant’s solicitor gave the following reason for not providing a copy of the contract: “Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.”
3.4 The defendant has yet to receive the requested documents and clarification from the Claimant. In refusing to provide the requested information in a timely manner, the Claimant has not acted in a reasonable and proportionate manner to mitigate their costs.

BountyHunter

4 Changing nature of the claim between issue of PCN (2016) and Claim Form (2019)

EXHIBIT B Parking Charge Notice DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT G Claim Form DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT F BWLegal email response DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT H BWLegal response to defence DD.MM.YYYY

4.1 The PCN issued by UKPPO states that the vehicle was observed “in breach of the byelaws at 1315 – Roads surrounding Newcastle Airport” and “UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have been authorised to enforce the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2019 and issue parking charge notices as an alternative to prosecution”.
4.2 In the particulars of claim not only has the location been amended to “Newcastle Airport Woolsington -Roads Surrounding Car Park Entrance & Exit Points”, but also reference to any breach of byelaw was excluded. The particulars of claim also includes the statement, for the first time “a parking contravention which occurred on 4/4/2016 in a controlled parking zone”.
4.3 The Claimant’s response to the CPR 31.14 request also infers a breach of contract: “Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in prohibited area.” “The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right which you have to enter the land in question are on the terms and conditions which apply. It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with Our Client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.”
4.4 In respect of the assertion above that the vehicle was parked in the car park, it is apparent that a large amount of the correspondence has been “copied and pasted” from other claims, as the vehicle was not captured within a car park, neither was it parked. The clearest of the ANPR images on the PCN shows the vehicle on the perimeter of the car park.
4.5 The Claimant has not paid due diligence in separating this from other similar claims, as there has been no scrutiny of details nor check for a true cause of action.
4.6 The Claimant’s response to the defence also offers an interesting approach “It is fundamental to note that Byelaws do not prevent our Client from entering into a contract with a motorist. As such, any material breach of the terms and conditions gives rise to a contractual claim which can be brought under civil proceedings”.
4.7 The defendant avers that if the Claimant insists that the vehicle was parked in violation of (criminal) byelaws, then they may not offer an (enforceable) civil contract to do that which is a criminal offence.
4.8 It is the defendant’s belief that, as a claim under Byelaws should have been heard in magistrates court, and the 6 months deadline for hearing the claim has long passed (from 2016), the Claimant has now opportunely deduced that the defendant was in breach of contract.
4.9 Consequently, the defendant has been obliged to address both the contractual and byelaws claims in the defence and this witness statement.

5 No contract with the Driver

Inadequate Signage

EXHIBIT I Photos and aerial view of Newcastle Airport
EXHIBIT M IPC Code of Practice, Part B, section15, & Part E Schedule 1

5.1 Between at least July 2015 and March 2017 there was nothing on the approach between the A696 roundabout and the Doubletree Hilton hotel roundabout to indicate that the driver was entering a controlled parking zone. The sign displayed on the post to the left of the approach (below the circular 20mph limit sign), contained only a notice advising of the pick up/ drop off tariff.
5.2 The Claimant may reference an image of the current entrance sign – however this has only been displayed at some point from March 2017 onwards (on the column below the circular 20mph limit sign), meaning that the sign was changed AFTER the date of the alleged claim (4/4/2016). Note that even this new sign does not prohibit “stopping”.
5.3 In addition, the driver would need to be in the right-hand lane to drive straight on to the Express Pick up/ Drop off or Doubletree Hilton hotel area. Even if the sign was in place at the time of the alleged incident (which it was not), it could be blocked by vehicles using the left lane.
5.4 In the absence of a “controlled parking zone” sign, between at least July 2015 and March 2017; the first signs alerting to the driver of any restrictions only appeared on the edge of the roundabout attached to the barrier. After the roundabout, the driver only has 2 options available; either enter the Express Pick up/ Drop off parking area in the left lanes, or approach from the right lane to enter the Doubletree Hilton hotel car park – barrier controlled.
5.5 Any driver entering the site between July 2015 and Mar 2017 would not have been made aware that they were entering a controlled zone, and due to the road layout beyond the roundabout could not opt out of entering a contract.
5.6 Further signs have been added since Mar 2017 (date unknown) – making a total of 5 signs in one location that must be read by the driver at the same time as negotiating the roundabout. The fact that the Claimant has added additional signs to both the entrance and barrier locations suggests admittance that their original signs were insufficient or ineffectual.
5.7 The signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice.
5.8 The IPC state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There was no signage at the entrance to the site in question. The IPC state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ Signage that is intended to form a contract should ‘Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site’. Also signs must “Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract”
5.9 The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ is very small, does not meet IPC Code of Practice and impossible to be read by a passing motorist. Although the £60.00 notice is in a larger font, the only reference to the full £100.00 Parking Charge Notice is obscured in small text, thus invalidating the contract as there is no opportunity to read the smaller font whilst driving. A reasonable driver could not read the signage without stopping; which would then be a breach in itself.
5.10 The signs forbid stopping yet impose conditions that make it impossible not to stop in order to comply with the conditions.


Forbidding/ Prohibitive signs

EXHIBIT H BWLegal response to defence DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT J Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull [2016] B4GF26K6

5.11 The Defendant questions the Claimants statement that “the signage situated across the site forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park”. ‘No Parking’ cannot possibly be an offer to park and by extension, no consideration or acceptance. A sign of this nature is prohibitive and cannot create a contract with a driver. Any suggestion of a unilateral offer of parking is invalid.
5.12 The Defendant refers the Court to the persuasive case of Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull [2016] B4GF26K6 in which District Judge Glen reflects on the wording of the sign:

“This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway”

5.13 District Judge Glen continues in his judgement that:

“…there was never any contractual relationship [snip] For that reason alone I will dismiss this claim”

Grace period

EXHIBIT M IPC Code of Practice, Part B, section15, & Part E Schedule 1

5.14 A contract to park by conduct cannot be formed unless there is a grace period to discover, read, understand and accept the contract. To do any of these is impossible if a motorist is not allowed to stop or wait, in direct conflict with the IPC Code of Conduct’s “Grace Periods”: “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.
5.15 Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of any alleged “contract”.
5.16 Additionally, binding a motorist to a contractual agreement without a grace period would constitute a breach of Schedule 2(i), The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
“(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms in which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;”

Stopping vs Parking

EXHIBIT B Parking Charge Notice DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT F BWLegal email response DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT K Laura Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] 9GF0A9E

5.17 The Defendant challenges whether the Claimant is eligible to issue PCNs for “stopping”, as this falls outside the remit of the IPC that defines core standards for “parking” charges.
5.18 The Claimant has only provided 2 still images of the vehicle included in the original PCN. These are time stamped 15 seconds apart and appear to show the vehicle in transit; both are in darkness and give no indication that the vehicle was “parked” in any way.
5.19 The 1st Photo (2nd in time sequence order) is a front image of the car including number plate, obscured by the glare of headlights. It is not clear where the photo was captured in the context of the airport roads, and does not offer any proof that the vehicle was “parked”.
5.20 The 2nd Photo (time stamped 15 seconds before the above photo) – shows clear road markings but no sign that the vehicle was “parked”.
5.21 The defendant submitted a subject access request to both the Claimant and their solicitors; no further photographs or video recordings were provided.
5.22 By their own definition the Claimant should have discontinued the claim based on the photographs captured by the ANPR. In the Claimant’s response to the CPR 31.14 request: “By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with Our Client”. As referred to in 4.5 above, the Claimant has not paid due diligence in separating this from other similar claims, as there has been no scrutiny of details nor check for a true cause of action. As the car was neither parked in the car park (or on the road), the PCN is therefore invalid.
5.23 The Defendant refers the Court to the appeal of Laura Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] 9GF0A9E, sections 19-21 in which Judge Harris makes the distinction between parking and stopping:
“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

Registered keeper vs Driver

EXHIBIT B Parking Charge Notice DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT H BWLegal response to defence DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT N Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – section 56, Schedule 4, part 9

5.24 The Registered keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant had fully complied with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
5.25 The PCN did not include an invitation to name the Driver (a requirement of POFA), therefore the Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle.
5.26 Whilst the Claimant may still insist that a contract could be formed with the Driver, the Claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving and is put to strict proof.
5.27 The Claimant even fails to make the distinction between the Driver and Registered Keeper in their response to the defence “you were registered keeper and/or the driver of a vehicle”, demonstrating that they have yet to identify the Driver.
5.28 Furthermore, the Defendant questions how a Registered Keeper can accept implied terms of a contract if they were not in the vehicle at the time, and had no opportunity to read any offer of contractual terms.

BountyHunter

6 The Claimant has no authority bring the claim (No contract with Landowner).

EXHIBIT H BWLegal response to defence DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT O Park and Fly contract 1.6.2015
6.1 In the Claimant’s solicitors response to the defence, they state: “Our Client is engaged by Newcastle International Airport Ltd to enforce the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009 (Byelaws) and to (a) issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) to vehicles parked in contravention of the Byelaws and (b) bring proceedings in its own name”.
6.2 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any indication that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf
6.3 The Claimant may present a Parking Enforcement contract dated 1st June 2015, valid for 3 years, to evidence authority to issue PCNs in their name. The contract is question is between the Claimant and a company called Park and Fly. Park and Fly are not the landowner – therefore the document does not evidence that the Claimant had the authority to manage the scheme on behalf of the landowner on the date of the alleged claim. The landowner is Newcastle International Airport Ltd.

[This next section would have been added if in possession of the letter dated 23 Apr 2015 prior to sending my WS]
The Claimant may also produce a redacted letter dated 23 April 2015 from the finance Director of Newcastle International Airport to the Managing Director of UKPPO Ltd.
This letter states “Newcastle Park and Fly Limited and Newcastle International Airport Limited are bound by a legally binding agreement….. within this agreement it is expressly stated that Newcastle Park and Fly Limited agrees to, amongst other activities: Enforce NIAL’S bylaws at all times and in particular to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the car parks and circulation roads of, and approach roads to, Newcastle International Airport.”
The parking Enforcement contract is with a company named “Park & Fly Ltd”, at Newcastle International Airport, Woolsington.
The redacted letter refers to “Newcastle Park and Fly Limited”.
According to Companies house, there are 2 possible companies these documents could reference, neither of which had or have a registered address at Newcastle Airport (as suggested on the Parking enforcement contract):
1. PARK AND FLY LTD, Company number 10636984, Registered office address 254a Horton Road, Datchet, Slough, England, SL3 9HN, Dissolved on 31 July 2018.

2. NEWCASTLE PARK & FLY LIMITED, Company number 02881861, Registered office: Unit 1 Prestwick Ind Est, Ponteland, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE20 9DA

These two documents, even when combined, do not offer proof of a contractual relationship between UKPPO and Newcastle International Airport as they refer to different companies.

6.4 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf.
6.5 As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7 The Claimant has no authority bring the claim (under Byelaws)

EXHIBIT B Parking Charge Notice DD.MM.YYYY
EXHIBIT P Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009 v2 – Section 6
EXHIBIT Q Airports Act 1986 – Section 65
EXHIBIT R Road Traffic Act 1988 - Part VII , section 192
EXHIBIT L Consent order UKPPO v Bowman F0DP230M [2019]

7.1 The initial PCN was issued with the reason of "6.3 - Parking in Prohibited Area". This refers to Newcastle International Airport Byelaw 6.3, which provides as follows:
“6.3 Parking in Prohibited Areas. Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice.” The word "leave" in byelaw 6.3 is not to be understood in the sense of "get out of a vehicle" but is instead to be understood in the sense of "abandon a vehicle". This is made clear by the use of the word "leave" in the other byelaws. Byelaw 6.2, for example, would make no sense if the word "leave" was interpreted as "get out of a vehicle", but makes perfect sense if interpreted as "abandon a vehicle". For this reason byelaw 6.3 does not prohibit a person getting out of a vehicle. There being no suggestion that the car was actually parked or otherwise left in a prohibited area, there is no breach of byelaw 6.3.
7.2 The Driver stopped on a road accessible to the public, outside of the Airport Car Parks. The road referred to is in fact subject to road traffic enactments rather than airport byelaws, as per the Airports Act 1986:
''65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.''
7.3 Both the Airports Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply; this location is publicly accessible and therefore the Road Traffic Act applies.
7.4 The Road Traffic Act does not include an exemption for Privately Maintained Roads – the only stipulation is that the public has access “means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes”. The section of road on which the alleged contravention occurred did not require the driver to pass through a barrier. It connects directly with the UK Road Network – therefore it is public access and governed by the Road Traffic Act 1988.
7.5 Road Traffic Enactments are enforced by the police and not Private Parking Companies.
7.6 The Claimant may cite the “Highways Act 1980” to attempt to demonstrate that the car park perimeter roads are exempt from the Road Traffic Act. This is incorrect. The Highways Act 1980 is an act which is concerned with the creation of “highways” out of the public purse. It is not an act concerned with managing road traffic; therefore, the Highways Act 1980 is not a road traffic enactment and does not apply to this case.
7.7 The Claimant is put strict to proof how byelaws take precedence over road traffic enactments on a privately owned but publicly accessible road.
7.8 Furthermore, a breach of byelaws must be treated as a criminal offence within the six-month time limit and cannot be the subject of a civil claim. Any resulting penalties/fines would go to the Government, not the landholder or parking contractor.
7.9 The Claimant is aware of the limitations of pursuing the PCN under byelaws, as one defendant has recently successfully contested jurisdiction on a comparable claim at Newcastle Airport. The Claimant withdrew and agreed to pay £100 application costs in the consent order at Darlington County Court 17.5.2019.
7.10 The Claimant may state that the double red lines indicate the area within which byelaws apply. Notwithstanding the other main points of defence, had the claim been raised within the correct jurisdiction and within the 6-month time limit, the Driver may have given consideration to the validity of the claim.
7.11 However, as the Claimant now appears to be pursuing the breach of contract route, and there was no adequate notice of entering an alleged “controlled zone”, double red lines alone cannot constitute an offer of any kind, have no contractual terms attached and can carry no charges in this instance.