NON-STOP PCN from Southend Airport ******* Case Dismissed, Now VCS appealing ********

Snakes_Belly

IamWood said:

Well,  even they are granted the application to leave to appeal, will the case be any differenct from the original court case? 

They still have to prove:

1) they have the authority

2) byelwas are not applicable

3) is stopping counted as parking


Etc.

I'm not scared at all 😀. A bit annoyed but will carry on for the sake of the similar cases in many years to come.💪

If the authority was not evidenced at the intial hearing they surely cannot use this as a reason for an appeal even if there is landowner authority in place. It would surely be up to the Claimant to evidence this at the initial hearing. They can't have two bites of the cherry.

SayNoToPCN

Worse, their legal rep, who they instructed, conceded there wasnt any

IamWood

Called my local court and advised to send my request to the Circuit Judge.  


I have drafted the following email. Thanks to @Coupon-mad.

Any advice and comments are highly appreciated.


----------------------

Dear Sir

 

I am writing to object to the appeal made by the Claimant, Vehicle Control Service (VCS), for claim number XXXXX.

 

I believe the Claimant ignored the learned Judge's second line in the Order that dismissed the claim, i.e. that their own representative conceded at the hearing that: 'without such evidence, the Claimant could not prove his claim'.  Having conceded that, they cannot have another try and pose the opposite position to another Judge.

 

Obviously, they have no grounds to use judicial time to appeal in a case where the learned Judge made a decision based upon a clearly stated position of conceding that this claim could not be proved, coming as it did from a legally qualified representative from the Claimant.  Their representative has had their chance to use the arguments, which they are now trying to introduce again.  Not only did the Claimant not use that case law but they actually conceded the point, so the case should be considered closed.

 

May I take the opportunity to reiterate my points?

 

1.     The representative of VCS admitted during the hearing on 30/03/2021 that Southend Airport Limited Company is not the landowner.  The Claimant failed to provide evidence that the landowner had given them the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

 

2.     No contract can exist between VCS and the defendant, as the land is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986. It is also subject to the Southend-on-Sea Municipal Airport Byelaws 1980. Airport Act confirms that the road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”.

 

3.     I would question the existence of the alleged contract, which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists.

 

In case “Ransomes vs Anderson (Claim No. 3YS16797)”, the Defendant went to the industrial estate and after not being able to get into their designated parking area, he parked on the road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgment the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with:

 

“Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the land owner listed below”.

 

District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim.

 

4.     It is my position that, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. I based it on the case “PCM vs Bull (Claim No. B4GF26K6)” where defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”.

District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.

 

5.      The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”.  No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67.

 

6.     Reason for stopping should be considered. The sole reason for the defendant to stop was to ask an onsite traffic warden for directions (the drop-off point in this case). Photos received from the claimant show the driver got off and entered the vehicle. The vehicle stopped for only 30 seconds according to the timestamps.

 

In case “Jopson vs. Homeguard Services Ltd” (Claim No. 9GF0A9E), the Defendant stopped for a few minutes to unload some furniture and a desk outside the entrance to the building containing her flat and was issued a parking ticket. In his verdict/statement Judge Harris QC, made the following statement regarding the definition of the word “parking”:

 

“20. […] However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: To leave a vehicle in a car park or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required”. 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. ”

Umkomaas

I'm no expert in this, hopefully others will chip in, but it does look overly lengthy and you do seem to be opening doors for the Judge to reassess your entire defence.

Will you not be mentioning the lash up of the company numbers and names, potentially bringing the whole landlord contract into play, or at worst, exposing the thin thread their case is hanging on given the very poor administration?

IamWood

Umkomaas said:

I'm no expert in this, hopefully others will chip in, but it does look overly lengthy and you do seem to be opening doors for the Judge to reassess your entire defence.

Will you not be mentioning the lash up of the company numbers and names, potentially bringing the whole landlord contract into play, or at worst, exposing the thin thread their case is hanging on given the very poor administration?

Good point, I'll add that too.

Fruitcake

I think it is too long as well, and does not highlight the false dodgy contract issues regarding company numbers etcetera. I think short concise statements would be better, but I have no legal training so I may be completely wrong.

As I said previously,

The contract says, Vehicle Control Services, Company Number 02881745 but Companies House says this is the company number for London Southend Airport Company Limited.

The contract says the client is London Southend Airport Company Limited, Company Number 02078271, but Companies House says this is the company number for the East Midlands International Airport Limited, a completely different entity.


I don't think you need to elaborate two much on those few sentences and state the contract appears to be a false instrument as a result.

A short paragraph is then needed to explain that the client's legal rep/solicitor of choice admitted that the claimant does not have a contract with the landowner.

Redx

I would be mentioning that the claimant has their own in house legal team that deals with legal matters on a daily basis as a serial litigant , so has no excuses in filing incorrect paperwork with incorrect names and incorrect company numbers

The judge based their decision on what was sibmitted to them , the claimant is being unreasonable

SayNoToPCN

As above
Do not repeat your defence.T his is not the time or place to do so

You are objecting to their grounds of appeal

1) That the claimant, which has an inhouse legal team and who was represented on the day by a legally qualified individual, conceded during the hearing that "..." (give quote) and this is reflected in line 2 of the judgment which says..... You do not consider it just that, having conceded the point, they are now trying again with a new court

2) That the supposed contract with the landowner the cl;aimant is now including appears to be a false instrument. Then include the Fruitcake details. Pay close attention to the precise names of companies. Do not give your own verison, wehich you did above!

To be clear for my sake: is the abovfe contract 
- new to you now, with the appeal OR
- was it included in their original WS, and the rep was too incompetent to find it?


If the former, then make it clear that the claimant was put to strict proof of their authority and failed to do so . Whatever the error was, and who caused it, it is not just that the burden should now fall on you, an un-rep defendant. 

If the latter, then you can point out that their rep conceded there was no landowner authority, and that incompetnece appears to be a private matter between the rep and the claimant. 

Le_Kirk

Notwithstanding that you have been advised it is too long and not to rerun your defence, a couple of points in case you do: -

In his judgment the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed notice was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability.

... and

"Warning: Private property. Not No Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. 

Well02

I'm sorry to butt in here, but should the appellant be given the right appeal, would that mean that the defendant would be then be liable for any of the additional 'costs' incurred by the PPC? If so, how is any of this fair?