Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

BountyHunter

Why am I now tempted to send someone to have a little "stop" at Newcastle airport on purpose!

BountyHunter

We might have a candidate- Ballantyne78 hasn't done their AOS yet.

Ballantyne78

Apologies if I'm being dim here but does the £100 fee for contesting jurisdiction still apply if I have not yet completed the AOS? Is the fee applied only if I am changing my initial response or is it £100 to contest regardless of where I am in the process?

Caoimhe

1) A defendant who wishes to –

(a) dispute the court’s jurisdiction to try the claim; or

(b) argue that the court should not exercise its jurisdiction

may apply to the court for an order declaring that it has no such jurisdiction or should not exercise any jurisdiction which it may have.

(2) A defendant who wishes to make such an application must first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with Part 10.

(3) A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not, by doing so, lose any right that he may have to dispute the court’s jurisdiction.

The above states that the defendant who files an AoS, does not lose any right to contest the jurisdiction. Does it matter if "defend in full" was selected?

Surely if 'contest jurisdiction' was selected, then the above information would not be written in the way it is?

Coupon-mad

Ballantyne78 wrote: »

Apologies if I'm being dim here but does the £100 fee for contesting jurisdiction still apply if I have not yet completed the AOS? Is the fee applied only if I am changing my initial response or is it £100 to contest regardless of where I am in the process?

£100 is the fee for making an application without a hearing, using form N244.

So you would need to shell out the £100 up front with the N244.

Ask for a decision 'on the papers' (without a hearing) to keep the fee to £100. Ask for costs if you win = the court fee of £100 to be ordered against the Claimant.

The person in the best position to do this is the one who hasn't done the AOS yet.

The others would be throwing themselves on the mercy of the court and pleading an error in the AOS tick box and hoping the District Judge would give leave to contest jurisdiction after all. Or asking the CCBC to allow you to change it!!

Might be OK because:

(1) your are individual litigants in person with no experience, who are in time to contest jurisdiction and who have good grounds.

(2) you are all still within the time to do your AOS, so I wonder if you can send a revised AOS by email and tell the CCBC you made an error?!

Wonder what the CCBC would make of this if you phoned to speak to the Court/Admin Manager to explain?

Might be worth the call for the most confident of you to do that, to see if the CCBC would allow a change in the tick box of the AOS given that you are still within 14 days plus 5 for service and didn't actually need to have done the AOS before Tues/Weds.

Why not try that first thing, ask the CCBC and see if they will allow it as you are in time? They take ages to answer the phone so be prepared for half an hour or more waiting.

I am asking other contacts off-forum, for urgent opinions on your draft wording, BountyHunter.

Somewhere on the form (or in a Draft Order, perhaps) the Ds who try this method will need to ask for costs (the £100, plus your costs for printing out the byelaws pages, plus hours to research this at least at £19 per hour, the LiP rate, and your time for calling the CCBC to sort out the AOS issue...why not?).

Costs on the indemnity basis - i.e. higher costs than normal, as a punitive measure - could be claimed if the Judge agrees that to try to claim for a byelaws penalty (that one of you has a letter that proves that UKPPO stated NOT to be a contractual charge) that timed out 3 years ago under the Magistrates' Courts Act, is an abuse of process and arguably, a contempt of court...

grimnog

Hi Coupon-mad

I’m assuming you have some legal expertise, so perhaps you can clarify something for me that’s currently concerning me with this approach to contest jurisdiction.

In the byelaws it states:

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) either:

3.3.1 Apply a Parking Charge Notice
3.3.1.1 A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued in respect of the vehicle. The PCN will specify:
the sum the registered keeper is required to pay;
the time within which the payment must be made; and the address to which the payment must be sent.
3.3.1.2 The PCN will also explain that unless payment is made in accordance with its terms, court action may be commenced to recover sum due from the registered keeper under the PCN together with costs, interest and any other sums legally recoverable;

So a byelaw has been passed, agreed by the Secretary of State, that allows a civil, enforceable penalty to be levied in lieu of prosecution, at the sole discretion of the Company. My understanding is that by contesting jurisdiction we are questioning the very validity of this byelaw, as it appears to say that the matter can be settled as a monetary fine, enforceable in the way they are attempting to do, rather than as a criminal (magistrates) offence.

Personally I think this seems a tad ludicruous, that a law could be passed that effectively circumvents it’s own enforcement process, but if it wasn’t legitimate then surely the Secretary of State wouldn’t have agreed to it? Are we asking the courts to rule that this byelaw 3.3.1 is illegal? As a layman, it doesn’t make sense to me and I’m loathe to gamble £100 on it when the original ticket was only £60! Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

I’m assuming you have some legal expertise

No, but I have consulted two people about this, who are legally qualified.

Maybe bargepole or LoadsofChildren123, or Johnersh who is also legally qualified, might post on this thread tomorrow.

My understanding is that by contesting jurisdiction we are questioning the very validity of this byelaw

No, not at all. But enforcement of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates Court and that time has long gone.

And UKPPO have said these charges were not issued for breach of contract.

It might be different if UKPPO hadn't said that, but they did, and one of the group has a letter proving it, and all of the group can use it and the PCN and signs which made it clear they were pursuing a byelaws matter.

Also, further back in the thread, someone posted pointing out that the signs & PCN referred to a different byelaw than that one, which is a good point we shouldn't forget.

grimnog

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, not at all. But enforcement of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates Court and that time has long gone.

Could it not be interpreted that by sending the PCN within the 6 month enforcement period, they have complied with that requirement? What does “enforcement” mean when the byelaw itself allows for a PCN to be issued?

bargepole

grimnog wrote: »

Could it not be interpreted that by sending the PCN within the 6 month enforcement period, they have complied with that requirement? What does “enforcement” mean when the byelaw itself allows for a PCN to be issued?

The 6 month time limit means that they have to lay the information before the Magistrates' Court not later than 6 months after the date of the alleged contravention.

There is a grey area within the way the byelaws are worded, where it talks about a 'Parking Charge Notice', but does not specify whether it means a notice requiring damages for breach of contract to be paid.

The only way to test this is for someone to make the proposed application, and see what a Judge makes of it.

Coupon-mad

Bargepole also suggested a draft Order, to accompany the:

- N244, completed with the words suggested already (no change needed)
- £100 fee
- copy of the byelaws as evidence


Suggested draft Order from bargepole (a Draft Order is what you want the Judge to order, so it is normal for the court process that you helpfully draft an Order for the Judge, and hope that's what you get):

Upon reading the Defendant’s application to contest the jurisdiction of the County Court in this matter;

And upon the Court noting that that the Claimant’s particulars allege that damages are due to the Claimant for breach(es) of civil contract;

And upon the Court noting that the relevant sections of the byelaws applicable to Newcastle International Airport contain provisions for criminal penalties under statute;

It is Ordered that:

The claim is struck out.

The Claimant shall pay to the Defendant the cost of this application, in the sum of £100, within 14 days.

This would have to be sent within 14 days of the AOS where the intention to contest jurisdiction was stated.