Doncaster Airport PCN claim form received

Cow_bag

Amended, hopefully this will be the final draft

-------------------------
Witness Statement
-------------------------


I am XXXXXXX, I will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

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 paginated bundle of documents marked Exhibit Reference to which I will refer.

1. On a date of alleged contravention, I paid for parking at Doncaster airport and proceeded to leave the car park when suddenly my car experienced problems with the engine management lights and I had to pull over immediately to avoid blocking an airport approach road.

2. I experienced sudden problems with engine cutting out and no acceleration power so I had no other option, other than stopping in the middle of the lane I was driving, but to steer my vehicle into the zone where it was safe for me to restart my car and drive off.

3. I was focused on trying to restart the car and moving off the area I have entered therefore I did not have the chance to look for and read the signs attached to the lamp posts informing motorists that stopping is prohibited. Even, if I had known this, it would not prevent me from stopping in the ‘prohibited zone’ as described by the Claimant.

4. This was unforeseeable event and the terms and conditions specified by the Claimant do not mention the circumstances in which you can stop in this area.

5. As an evidence I attach Exhibit A - a copy of receipt of repair service and description of problems it caused on the day. In my appeal dated 12th June 2016 (attached at Exhibit B) I stated the stoppage happened due to problems with the car but the Claimant still elected to pursue this matter via litigation. The Claimant also chose to pass my personal data onto third parties i.e. BW Legal and DBCLtd in the process.

6. 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” where defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”.

6.1 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”.

I attach Exhibit C – “PCM vs Bull” Claim No. B4GF26K6 as an evidence.

7. In my view, the Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws should be applicable and considered due to the fact that the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powered conferred upon him by section 63 (1) of the Airports Act 1986 hereby makes the following Order:

 Citation and commencement

(1.) This Order may be cited as the Airport Byelaws (Designations) Order 2005 and shall come into force on 16th March 2005.

Designation

(2.) Doncaster Sheffield Airport is hereby designated for the purposes of section 63 of the airports act 1986.

7.1 VCS operates under Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws. Problems I have encountered driving that night, fit the criteria specified in DSA byelaws. Below are the ones that are specific, relevant and supportive of my case:


5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD
TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road
Traffic Enactments do not apply:

“5 (3) Obstruction:
except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”

and

“5(12) Parking of Vehicles
without reasonable excuse! park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.

I attach Exhibit D - Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws as an evidence.

7.2 In his Defence Statement, the Claimant Is relying upon VCS v Ward case. That case can be fully distinguished and is far from persuasive when scrutinised:

7.3 At appeal, the Defendant did not appear at the court and the case ran against the interest of the victim consumer

7.4 Case VCS v Ward involved a business park, not airport byelaws. The case VCS v Ward has no application to an Airport case like this one, where the byelaws lay the facts and rules out in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that an emergency such as breakdown, is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all.

7.5 In VCS v Ward case, the Defendant failed to adduce relevant cases such as Jopson and Ransomes that already existed. In these cases the matters regarding ‘stopping’ as opposed to parking and agreeing a contract, were more thoroughly considered. Both the cases are persuasive and could have helped the Defendant provide winning argument.


8. Reason for stopping should be considered. In case “Jopson vs. Homeguard Services Ltd” (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. “

In support of this point at Exhibit E - “Jopson vs. Homeguard Services Ltd” (B9GF0A9E)

8.1. Based on the above statement, I consider the issues I have encountered with my vehicle as minor vicissitude.

9.The terms of the warning sign are of particular importance in this case. The print is larger at the earlier part of notice and gets smaller as one works one’s way through it. But in big letters that are legible to any passing motorist, it says:

“Restricted Zone No Stopping at Any time”

9.1 Then in smaller print, legible but only if one positively stopped to read it carefully, one reads the following:

Mobile CCTV & Number Plate Recognition Enforcement cameras in operation. Vehicle keeper details may be requested from the DVLA
Strictly no parking, stopping or waiting on double yellow lines, red route zones or roadways at any time.
£100 Automatic Parking Charge Notice discounted to £60 if payment is received within 14 days of the Parking Charge Notice issue date.

9.2 Not only, the small print can not be fully read from the moving vehicle but offer of entering a contract is not displayed by the Claimant.

10. No offer of contract is being presented by the Claimant. In case “Ransomes vs Anderson”, 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”.

10.1 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.

10.2 It is my belief, that by entering the private property and not obeying to the rules displayed on the notice, I did not form any contract with the Claimant because no such contract was presented to me.

11. In “Ransomes vs Anderson” case, the District Judge said:

“the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.

11.1 The district judge was plainly right to say that this notice, in contractual terms, was too vague and uncertain to have the requisite effect

On this point, attached at Exhibit F - “Ransomes vs Anderson” Claim No. 3YS16797

12.   In my Defence I referred to a number of judgments made in various courts in England and Wales. These judgments deal with similar cases where the Claimant knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated ‘parking charge’ claim where the alleged ‘debt’ exceeds the £100 Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice ceiling is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA,  I attach three examples of these judgments demonstrating that several court areas continue to summarily strike out private parking cases that include an extravagant and unlawful costs sum at Exhibit G - Example judgments. 

N244 application was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice. All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6). Exhibit H – POFA 2012
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287. Exhibit I – ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Exhibit J - Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2
A contractual term cannot deprive a consumer of an advantage that they would otherwise enjoy under law, in the absence of the term.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Wow - brilliant!  A model answer for an Airport no-stopping case!  Nicely done. 

The only thing I was struggling to see was a requirement that the C is put to strict proof that they have authority from the landowner to issue immediate/predatory charges to stalled vehicles, a level of enforcement in itself breaches the byelaws, and how they believe that difficulty is not fatal to their case.

1505grandad

Probably being pedantic in the extreme but I believe there is a "B" missing from the front of the case no:-
In support of this point at Exhibit E - “Jopson vs. Homeguard Services Ltd” (9GF0A9E)

Cow_bag

1505grandad said:

Probably being pedantic in the extreme but I believe there is a "B" missing from the front of the case no:-
In support of this point at Exhibit E - “Jopson vs. Homeguard Services Ltd” (9GF0A9E)

thanks for spotting 👍

Cow_bag

Right, all printed and ready to be posted tomorrow.
Do I take the Summary of cost with me on the day?

KeithP

Cow_bag said:

Do I take the Summary of cost with me on the day?

No, send a copy to the Court and the Claimant at least three days before any hearing.
If your Costs Assessment is ready now, send it with your Witness Statement.

Coupon-mad

Cow_bag said:

Right, all printed and ready to be posted tomorrow.
Do I take the Summary of cost with me on the day?

Nothing is posted during COVID.

Cow_bag

Coupon-mad said:

Cow_bag said:

Right, all printed and ready to be posted tomorrow.
Do I take the Summary of cost with me on the day?

Nothing is posted during COVID.

What do you mean nothing is posted during Covid? I still receive my mail.
Do i need to deliver in person?

Coupon-mad

No, the courts are not using paper as much, nor having face to face hearings.   There's no way they want papers arriving at a skeleton-staff court building, when it's obviously going to be a remote telephone hearing with the Judge probably working from home.  Everything is done by email at the mo.

Read the TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread - all of it, because this is what is happening during lockdown - and the Claimant's solicitors have to lump it and accept service by email, too.  It's cheaper for Defendants at the mo!

Cow_bag

Coupon-mad said:

No, the courts are not using paper as much, nor having face to face hearings.   There's no way they want papers arriving at a skeleton-staff court building, when it's obviously going to be a remote telephone hearing with the Judge probably working from home.  Everything is done by email at the mo.

Read the TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread - all of it, because this is what is happening during lockdown - and the Claimant's solicitors have to lump it and accept service by email, too.  It's cheaper for Defendants at the mo!

The letter i received from court dated 18th May states "the hearing will be heard at the courthouse", followed with the time and the address of the court.
It does not say anything about a telephone hearing