Newcastle Airport

Coupon-mad

Beechy74 said:

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.

 

My advice has not changed and they are talking rubbish!

The contravention alleged is not 'entering an area where prohibited' and there is no £100 penalty for doing so and this is just getting ridiculous now.  You stopped at a barrier because...well...it's a bloody barrier!  You are entitled to stop at a barrier and look for terms that relate to the area beyond and/or work out where a vehicle your size can go.

I told you what to do now.   Make a formal complaint to the DVLA and be specific what you mean, quote their own words to NCP and tell the DVLA what UKPPO and their legal advisers are attempting to do to people now, well 'after the event' of a purported byelaws penalty.  Ask for the most severe sanctions and tell them you do not want the usual DVLA fob off template words, please, because the forum you are on are bored to the back teeth with seeing the DVLA fob off consumers and prop up this rogue industry.

 And tell BW Legal they and their clients are being reported to the DVLA with a view to sanctions to stop data being released in future at this site, because they have breached the KADOE rules by chopping and changing from byelaws to 'contractual charge' after the event.  Quoting directly from the DVLA in a reply they sent to NCP's legal advisers about a similar case, this is banned under the KADOE and can result in DVLA suspension and you are now reporting it and will also draw the matter to the attention of the Judge and will counterclaim for keeper data misuse (damages for DPA 2018 breach), should this meritless claim proceed any further:

 "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)”."

Beechy74

Coupon-mad said:

Beechy74 said:

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.

 

My advice has not changed and they are talking rubbish!

The contravention alleged is not 'entering an area where prohibited' and there is no £100 penalty for doing so and this is just getting ridiculous now.  You stopped at a barrier because...well...it's a bloody barrier!  You are entitled to stop at a barrier and look for terms that relate to the area beyond and/or work out where a vehicle your size can go.

I told you what to do now.   Make a formal complaint to the DVLA and be specific what you mean, quote their own words to NCP and tell the DVLA what UKPPO and their legal advisers are attempting to do to people now, well 'after the event' of a purported byelaws penalty.  Ask for the most severe sanctions and tell them you do not want the usual DVLA fob off template words, please, because the forum you are on are bored to the back teeth with seeing the DVLA fob off consumers and prop up this rogue industry.

 And tell BW Legal they and their clients are being reported to the DVLA with a view to sanctions to stop data being released in future at this site, because they have breached the KADOE rules by chopping and changing from byelaws to 'contractual charge' after the event.  Quoting directly from the DVLA in a reply they sent to NCP's legal advisers about a similar case, this is banned under the KADOE and can result in DVLA suspension and you are now reporting it and will also draw the matter to the attention of the Judge and will counterclaim for keeper data misuse (damages for DPA 2018 breach), should this meritless claim proceed any further:

 "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)”."

Thankyou. I'll be doing the lot. The info above is much appreciated.

Beechy74

Redx said:

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 ?

Yeah, ive got form on here for parking stuff lol. The hope was to just end this garbage before Court Papers were issued. Suppose  it was always going to be a bit fruitless. At least the more reading thats done, the more £19 per hours that can be claimed

beamerguy

Beechy74 said:

Redx said:

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 ?

Yeah, ive got form on here for parking stuff lol. The hope was to just end this garbage before Court Papers were issued. Suppose  it was always going to be a bit fruitless. At least the more reading thats done, the more £19 per hours that can be claimed

It is a shame that BWLegal talk so much rubbish. To make an assumption when they clearly don't know what they are talking about is a disgrace to the legal profession

fisherjim

So let me get this straight these so called legal experts are threatening you with court but they aren't quite sure if or why they might  take you to court yet?

In addition they want to pick the bits of contract law and By-laws that suit them and maybe try a punt in county court if and when they decide or someone informs them at some stage what they think you contravened and a grainy picture of the front end of a vehicle confirms it might just have seats for 7 people.

You couldn't make it up, what a bunch of Muppets

beamerguy

fisherjim said:

So let me get this straight these so called legal experts are threatening you with court but they aren't quite sure if or why they might  take you to court yet?

In addition they want to pick the bits of contract law and By-laws that suit them and maybe try a punt in county court if and when they decide or someone informs them at some stage what they think you contravened and a grainy picture of the front end of a vehicle confirms it might just have seats for 7 people.

You couldn't make it up, what a bunch of Muppets

Not very clever is it ? 
And BWL actually thought this forum was full of keyboard warriors, they never looked closer to home ...... they are just a joke 

Redx

No point arguing with the dead , but by all means Keep up the letter tennis , just don't expect clarity !!they are biased in favour of their client , yet strangely ukppo lost over 20 cases in the WhatsApp group thread on here

If they are so confident , they would issue a civil court claim using MCOL !!

Plenty of threads on here where they are saying that they are confident of a win , yet they repeatedly fail in court or give up before the hearing !!