Newcastle Airport

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

Any help? -  per PePiPoo:-

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t133185.html

"The DVLA does not allow parking operators to use a mixture of contract law and Byelaws at the same

time. Parking operators must choose one or other form of parking management and stick to it. This is

demonstrated in the emails released in response to Freedom of Information Request 302420. On pages

15 and 16, the DVLA writes to the Legal Counsel at NCP as follows: “We note the position you are in

with railway car parking but we would restate that if you are operating the railway car parks under

Byelaw 14 then that must be clear on the signage, communications and tickets and if you are operating

the car parks under contract then that needs to be clear on signage, communications and tickets. We

will not release data for those sites where it is not clear to the users which you are using or where you

may decide after the event which you will use (byelaw prosecution or contractual breach)”."

That's what I was thinking of, well found!

nosferatu1001

I would contest jurisdiction
The claim should clearly have been a mag court, as byelaws are a criminal matter
There is no option for them to pursue in county court. none. 
Will cost £100

Beechy74

The RK sent an email of appeal to BW Legal. The questions raised in the email are in italics and BW Legals response is in bold. I hope it makes sense.

A Byelaw should be heard in a Magistrates court within 6 months. Youre threatening to persue this case in a County Court nearly two years after the material date. 

Also noticible in the later claims, the word 'byelaw' has been  removed. Why is that? Attached to this email is proof the parking company were originally persuing the claim as a breach of a Byelaw.

In regards to your byelaws point – our client is engaged by Newcastle International Airport Ltd to enforce the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009 (Byelaws) and to (a) issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) to vehicles parked in contravention of the Byelaws and (b) bring proceedings in its own name. It is fundamental to note that the Byelaws do not prevent our client from entering into a contract with a motorist. As such, any material breach of the terms and conditions (stated below) gives rise to a contractual claim which can be brought under civil proceedings (i.e. via the County Court). You are put to strict proof to the contrary.

Please feel free to ask your client what the PCN is for, although a simple search of the internet reveals its 

'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.
6.3 Parking in Prohibited Areas
Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice.'

So by your admission, there is no evidence to suggest there was any leaving or parking of the vehicle. There is  just one grainy image of the vehicle at a barrier.... We requested a SAR and that one image is all we received because there is no other evidence to back this up.

So once again, i ask you to drop this claim.

Thankyou,

In regards to the Contravention itself, you have ignored one possibility as far as a contravention here. The area that you stopped in is a no stopping area apart from ordinary use of the site. Waiting and stopping are synonyms. The portion of the byelaws that you have quoted state the following:

 

'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.

6.3 Parking in Prohibited Areas Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice.' [Emphasis Added].

 

We will email our client in regards to this – but our assumption is that you stopped at the barrier longer than you were supposed to, or that you used the drop off section but did not pay the relevant fee and therefore were not allowed to stop at the barrier.

 

Should you have any further queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

Coupon-mad

Their assumption?  Haha:

We will email our client in regards to this – but our assumption is that you stopped at the barrier longer than you were supposed to, or that you used the drop off section but did not pay the relevant fee and therefore were not allowed to stop at the barrier.

Send a complaint about UKPPO to the DVLA now, citing the DVLA's clear position that they 'won't release data' to PPCs who are not making it clear on all tickets, communications and signs whether a charge is a byelaws penalty or a contractual charge.

Ask what the DVLA are going to do now about stopping UKPPO from obtaining data at Newcastle Airport, given their position is that they are now suing people and their communications and that of their robo-claim 'legal' firm this month, is now pretending that a charge issued under byelaws, has now morphed into a 'parking charge'.  Clearly they are deciding this 'after the event' which is the exact scenario which caused the DVLA to write and warn NCP.  It is now high time the DVLA banned UKPPO until they comply:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=133185

"The DVLA does not allow parking operators to use a mixture of contract law and Byelaws at the same

time. Parking operators must choose one or other form of parking management and stick to it. This is

demonstrated in the emails released in response to Freedom of Information Request 302420. On pages

15 and 16, the DVLA writes to the Legal Counsel at NCP as follows: “We note the position you are in

with railway car parking but we would restate that if you are operating the railway car parks under

Byelaw 14 then that must be clear on the signage, communications and tickets and if you are operating

the car parks under contract then that needs to be clear on signage, communications and tickets. We

will not release data for those sites where it is not clear to the users which you are using or where you

may decide after the event which you will use (byelaw prosecution or contractual breach)”."

Redx

B a legal have their interpretations of a lot of things

What matters is the interpretation by the courts

It would appear that you haven't done what Nosferatu mentioned above

Beechy74

Redx said:

B a legal have their interpretations of a lot of things

What matters is the interpretation by the courts

It would appear that you haven't done what Nosferatu mentioned above

Its just them sending 'fines' at the minute. I didnt think the Jurisdiction thing could happen until there were County Court papers issued. Do i have that wrong?

Beechy74

They have also just e-mailed the following ;-

On discussing the matter with our client we now understand why you were issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

 The barrier you entered is specifically for the use of vehicles which seat 7 or less people. This is stated in large signage around the area.

 The vehicle involved in the contravention seated more than 7 people.

 There is only two interpretations of the photograph that we have sent you. If this photograph shows you stopped at the barrier but you then entered the area, you breached the terms and conditions by entering an area in a vehicle prohibited from entry. If this photograph shows you stopped at the barrier but you then did not enter, you breached the terms and conditions by stopping in a no stopping zone against the ordinary use of the site.

 Either way, the photograph our client has used to show the contravention is clearly evidence of this.

 The balance remains due and owing. Please make a payment proposal to clear the balance.

 

Beechy74

Newcastle Airport website says...
The car park is suitable for any vehicles with a maximum of 7 seats, any vehicles with more than this are advised to use the Minibus / Van Car Park. 

Redx

Doesn't matter who says what until a court claim is issued , this is the banging heads like at the boxing match weigh in , it's the actual fight that matters . Few people if any on here are interested in this current exchange , it's all smoke and mirrors

If bylaws are breached , it's magistrates court within 6 months , by the airport

If it's civil contract laws that are breached , it's civil court within 6 years

But surely you know all this ?

nosferatu1001

Tell BW Legal that you are aware they are talking nonsense, and have no intention of entering into a dialogue of the deaf
There is no balance owing, there was no contract on offer, and you cannot create a contractual offer out of an alleged byelaw offence. 
You suggest they accept your one time "drop hands" offer, erase your data, before this is added to your existing complaint to the DVLA where you are seeking the banning of UKPPO from the keeper database because they are trying to claim an alleged breach of byelaws, a criminal offence, can be magically transformed into an alleged breach of a contract. You are officers of the court, and you know this is nonsensical.