County Court Claim Vehicle Control Services VCS

Redx

clarkcj wrote: »

Hello, just completing the n244 form.

1) Here is my information to be relied on (Section 10 of n244)
"1. The material location to which this claim relates, is Sandwell and Dudley Station, West Bromwich.

2. The railway byelaws (otherwise referred to as the 'byelaws') are made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail Authority and were confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 June 2005

3. Section 14 of the byelaws sets out the conditions for "Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking" at the station, and Section 24 describes the penalties for any breach of the byelaws.

4. Any breach of the parking contraventions, as alleged by the Claimant in this action, is, therefore, a breach of the byelaws, and must be treated as a criminal offence, which cannot be the subject of a civil claim.

5. The correct jurisdiction for this matter is, therefore, the Magistrates' Court, and not the County Court."

2) I will enclose a draft order that says this:
"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 Sandwell and Dudley Station 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"

3) £100 Cheque will be made payable to HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4) I will include a printed copy of the railway bye-laws, found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

5) I will send all these off tomorrow by signed for special delivery to CCBC nottingham if all is well

Does anybody have any comments or amendments?

Thanks! (apologies for the long-winded message!)

The CCBC is in Northampton, not Nottingham (or Norwich, or Nogales)

Coupon-mad

Good effort, let's see what happens.

IMHO you should ring the CCBC to make sure that the N244 is all you need to do, and that they have everything they need to put this urgently before a Judge, and that they will not be expecting you to also defend the case just because you did the AOS?

I would check to be sure, and speak to a different person, just in case the first one misled you and a defence is actually expected, and a default CCJ arises when you don't file one.

There is also a useful recent post citing the Airports Act somewhere. IMHO it could be used as an alternative argument along the lines:

Even if the court is minded not to consider the above as grounds to accept this application to contest jurisdiction due to it being byelaws land, further and in the alternative, it is also averred that this Airport roadway is publicly accessible. Therefore the Road Traffic Act applies, which is a matter of statute law, and not a traffic event that can be pleaded under contract or tort. The Defendant states that the wording in the RTA and the Airports Act confirms (and at least one Police Force - Northumbria - have advised the public) that Airport roads are in fact subject to road traffic enactments as per the Airport Act 1986, which says:

''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.''

Keep that up your sleeve and read the Airports Act section mentioned, in case a Judge decides to allocate the matter for a prelim hearing to thrash this out.

clarkcj

Called the courts today and all is progressing as it should, no further action is needed until judgement is passed.
I will keep you all updated!

clarkcj

I've now received a letter asking whether I want to deal with the issues raised by way of an "application hearing" or "final hearing". Does anyone know what this means?

Coupon-mad

My understanding would be an application hearing is a shorter one (maybe half an hour) to consider your application on its merits - about contesting jurisdiction only.

A 'final hearing' sounds like the actual hearing of the claim would follow to deal with it once and for all, if the Judge doesn't accept your application to strike it out based on lack of jurisdiction.

I am not legally qualified though and wait to be corrected if that is wrong.

clarkcj

Thanks, would I need to attend an application hearing?
Think I might request one of those.

Coupon-mad

Of course you must attend, you need to make the Judge see it your way with evidence of why this is outside jurisdiction! It's a fine line and you want to be pushing the Judge over it, politely.

Imagine if the PPC turn up or send a legal rep and you don't come. Guess what'll happen?

clarkcj

I now have a hearing date and it's only a fortnight away.
Can anybody advise on hearing prep please?
Or any info on what to expect?

I am more than a little nervous!
I think I understand my case (basically saying that given that I parked on a train station car park and it's covered by bylaws (therefore criminal court jurisdiction not civil court) the civil case should be thrown out... And I can't be tried at criminal court due to the time period elapsing.)

Thanks in advance wise gurus

Coupon-mad

Is this a preliminary hearing about contesting jurisdiction, or a full case hearing?

If it's about the byelaws only, as a preliminary matter, you'd be saying something similar to what you already out in the N244 and draft order.

You could also read Edislaw's recent post on the UKPPO Group defence thread by BountyHunter, where he has created a summary you can download which deals with the byelaws issue at Airports like this, it might help?

clarkcj

I believe it's a full case hearing.
Thanks for the info