Southend Airport no stopping

valrossi

Yeah, never intended to let it go so long, life and 2020 got in the way.

No excuses.

I would be grateful for any help offered.

Coupon-mad

PCM v Bull isn't one I'd use for no-stopping at an airport.  Not the same.  You must have a counter-argument to the appeal case of VCS v Ward (see other VCS Airport threads) and you must understand why the appeal case of Britannia v Semark-Jullien is a damp squib and not what the industry says it is. 

Your WS seems to be missing stuff from the example WS in the NEWBIES thread - your draft doesn't even mention ParkingEye v Somerfield which is a vital quote for all Judges to read in non-ParkingEye cases.  

valrossi

I thought with Bull the paragraph where the judge states

This notice is an absolute prohibition against  
parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out  
of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for  
anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass  
on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the  
form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be  
damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land  
in order to proceed in trespass.

valrossi

Okay I have got version 2 of my WS where I have tried to answer the shortcomings in my original as noted by you Coupon Mad.
After a sleepless night, too much going around in my mind, the way to negate some of the stated cases pointed out by you was to  emphasise that I was not driving, neither was my wife. If you stick to that and the fact that VCS is insisting I was stopped and not not parked, the normal stated cases don't apply and Ward actually assists.
Here is my updated statement and my fingers are tightly crossed.

Le_Kirk

Your point #3 is confusing.  You travelled to Southend from Glasgow in a plane or a car?  You were due to land at a certain time so let us assume a plane.  You then go on to say in the same paragraph that neither you nor your wife was driving.  I should hope not, you have to be a qualified airline pilot.  You need to set the scene early on in your narrative so that the judge understands what you are trying to say.

valrossi

Thanks, good point. I was trying to strengthen my none driving. I will re write. But how do you know I am not qualified to fly the plane.

Le_Kirk

valrossi said:

Thanks, good point. I was trying to strengthen my none driving. I will re write. But how do you know I am not qualified to fly the plane.

Just a guess!

Coupon-mad

Remove this unnecessary  and unhelpful (to you) blather from #6

In order for them to process the claim properly I had to either supply them with the drivers name and address, get the driver to contact them and give name and address or pay the charge. They stated as a gesture of goodwill if payment was received by 05/10/2019 they would offer the discounted charge of £60. If they didn’t receive it by then they stated debt recovery action may be taken and further costs up to an additional £60 would be incurred.

And remove this from #7:

It also went on to say that there are 87 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop. I wasn’t driving so I hadn’t seen them. It did not explain that the signs were an offer of contract and that by entering the driver had agreed the contract and was therefore in breach of the contract by not stopping. It also did not include a copy of the sign to explain their views on a contract. 

Remove #9 completely as it adds nothing to talk about the tedious letter chain of nothing.  Replace it with an assertion that there is no evidence that VCS have the authority to issue Parking Charges to vehicles on the various access roads and that in another case about this Airport recently, it was found that they were issuing parking charges outside their very limited landowner contract area.  Put them to strict proof as to which access road this was and that the Airport contract site map includes this exact location.

#15 is great stuff, you are correct that the case against Mr Idle was dropped because he wasn't known to be driving.

Move this quote away from #19 to show beneath it, separately as 19.1 and put the JUdge's words in italics to make it stand out as an authority citation:

19.1 (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html 
''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

Before your statement of truth, you've said nothing about costs - your costs.  You could try for costs (your time at the standard LiP rate of £19 per hour) for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, for pursuing a registered keeper and pretending that the POFA 2012 applies when they know it doesn't.  The case is not merely hopeless, it is vexatious and they know from VCS v Idle, VCS v Quayle and Excel v Smith (bung them all in - transcripts from the Parking Prankster - Excel v Smith is on appeal as well, therefore persuasive on the lower courts) that where the POFA Schedule 4 does not apply, a parking firm CANNOT pursue a registered keeper, particularly one who they know from an early appeal was not driving, but was the passenger being picked up and has zero liability in law.

Redx

thats because it was at BRISTOL airport, not Southend !!

valrossi

Redx said:

thats because it was at BRISTOL airport, not Southend !!

Okay, despite being told numerous times I need to remove the blinkers.