No stopping Parking Charge at Airport

Coupon-mad

I would delete #17 of the template and replace #17 and #18 with your own facts, written in the 3rd person:

''The Defendant did this/that...the Defendant appealed and...''

Rjhsteel

Coupon-mad said:

I would delete #17 of the template and replace #17 and #18 with your own facts, written in the 3rd person:

''The Defendant did this/that...the Defendant appealed and...''

Cheers. 

Rjhsteel

Before i put the defence down, this was the response from IAS in Jan....

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver stopping in the restricted area, will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they had to collect their passenger where they did due to an emergency. There is no evidence to support this claim, even from the passenger. I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis in any event, as I cannot consider mitigating circumstances. The guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion but they are unlikely to exercise it in the Appellant's favour in the absence of evidence.

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle parked on the land they manage, and within the restricted area. The appeal is dismissed.

Rjhsteel

Defence

1.       The defendant’s partner was travelling back late from London on the train. The defendant had planned to meet down the road at the McDonalds. The defendant’s partner then called him to explain she had been approached on the train by a man that showed her a naked photo of himself on his phone (in her face so she could not look away). He then proceeded to ask her inappropriate questions. She ran from the train and wanted to get to safety as soon as possible, worried that he may have followed her off the train. For this reason (an emergency) the defendant did pull up directly outside the station to collect her. Once again this WAS an EMERGENCY. This is the first and last time the defendant has collected his partner from this area and not away from the station. I feel that as this was an emergency and not a collection or drop off at the airport and not a regular occurrence this was justified and should not be subject to a fine. It was a safety issue. When dealing directly with the parking fine issuer they ignored the reason behind the very brief stop and just reiterated that they have CCTV footage and that there are signs. At no point have we disputed this but it was an emergency, very late at night.  We have appealed with Vehicle Control Services and the IAS which has led us to this situation.

Redx

Pedantry mode , there is no S in Defence

The above is a witness statement , not a defence , the above is about what happened , not the legal arguments of the case , so in a defence it's a timeline of what happened

Rjhsteel

"The above is a witness statement , not a defence , the above is about what happened"
" so in a defence it's a timeline of what happened"
Isn't that the same thing??

Coupon-mad

Splitting this into #17 and #18, and I would not use capital 'shouty' letters at the Judge (who is the main person you care about who reads the defence):

17.   The defendant’s partner was travelling back late from London on the train. The defendant had planned to meet down the road at the McDonalds. The defendant’s partner then called him to explain she had been approached on the train by a man that showed her a naked photo of himself on his phone (in her face so she could not look away). He then proceeded to ask her inappropriate questions. She ran from the train and wanted to get to safety as soon as possible, worried that he may have followed her off the train. For this reason (an emergency) the defendant did pull up directly outside the station to collect her. Once again this WAS an EMERGENCY. This is the first and last time the defendant has collected his partner from this area and not away from the station.   The defendant feels that as this was an emergency and not a collection or drop off at the airport and not a regular occurrence this was justified and falls within the 'emergency/safety' exceptions in the Airport Byelaws that allow stopping under exceptional circumstances.  should not be subject to a fine. It was a safety issue.

18.  When dealing directly with the parking fine issuer they ignored the reason behind the very brief stop and just reiterated that they have CCTV footage and that there are signs. At no point have we disputed this but it was an emergency, very late at night.  We have appealed with Vehicle Control Services and the IAS which has led us to this situation.  The Defendant has since discovered that the IAS is a farce; over the years since 2013 there have been reports of bizarre decisions from anonymous 'assessors'.  In the defendant's case, the decision was cut & paste and they paid no regard to Airport Byelaws or consumer law/the mandatory test of fairness.  It is believed that the IAS is nothing but a kangaroo court, operated by the same people who run the IPC Trade Association, who in turn shared Directors with Gladstones, a robo-claim solicitor who file claims after the IAS dismiss appeals.  The phrase 'conflict of interests' springs to mind and the Defendant is pleased to note that the courts appear to be giving the two Trade Bodies the level of respect they deserve, given they operate cartel-style as self-serving, self-funded groups of parking firms, purely to give them the veil of legitimacy needed to be allowed to purchase registered keeper data.

Le_Kirk

Paragraph 17 starts off in the third person and then has an "I" in there.  Paragraph 18 seems to be mainly written in the First person, also both paragraphs start off talking about the train and end up talking about the drop off at the airport and airport bye-laws.  Is it a railway station at an airport?

Coupon-mad

I've just changed the ''I'' to 'the Defedant and it should be fine now. 

The thread title says 'Airport' so I went with those byelaws but it is odd that we are talking about the train station so the OP nees to confirm this.

Rjhsteel

I picked her up at the train station but it's Airport owned land as next to Southend Airport. It's a weird set up.