EMA airport fine for stopping at double yellow line - court date in near future.

Coupon-mad

I think I would move #16, 17 and 18 up, to become #10, 11 and 12 and renumber below those.  It flows better that way by keeping similar subject points together.

To the regulars, was it EMA Airport that had that weird contract with the wrong company number or was it another one?

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

I think I would move #16, 17 and 18 up top become #10, 11 and 12 and renumber below those.  It flows better that way by keeping similar subject points together.

To the regulars, was it EMA Airport that had that weird contract with the wrong company number or was it another one?

It was Southend Airport with the wrong company numbers.

Coupon-mad

Why does point #13 of Jake B's WS talk about a counterclaim? 
Is it evidence that this is just a cut & paste template WS because there is no counterclaim?

There appears to be no evidence that your car was stopped in a red route area...although no doubt there are photos, not all roads and laybys are enforced under the EMA boundary VCS are acting within. How can the Judge tell where the car was on the site, are the red lines clearly shown and is the driver visible?  I am concerned you are suggesting that you have no idea who was driving in January 2020 at the local Airport, when surely this isn't an unremarkable day and you do know?  The Judge will ask that...might look better to admit to driving if it was you, and state that you don't think you were within the red route/no stopping area.

And the presence of a zebra crossing and various barriers makes a mockery of the allegation that you can't stop anywhere on the Airport Roads, because plenty of them are not within VCS' enforcement, as can be seen from their own 'maps'.  

The first picture of a sign shows it at right angles to approaching drivers, which could not possibly be seen in moving traffic.  A no stopping zone has to have regular repeater signs facing oncoming traffic, not a sign on a pole facing 'out' from the pavement.  That could only be read if you stopped (if a driver saw it).

Fruitcake

Both company numbers are correct.

However, I can only see one photo of a car on a road with double red lines, not two photos of a car in exactly the same position taken at different times.

The scammers have therefore not proved that the car was stopped. It is quite possible that the car was actually moving, and it is reasonable to expect the scammers to have provided proof to the contrary, which they have not.
You should aver that the car was not stopped, and put the scammers to strict proof of the contrary.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

Both company numbers are correct.

However, I can only see one photo of a car on a road with double red lines, not two photos of a car in exactly the same position taken at different times.

The scammers have therefore not proved that the car was stopped. It is quite possible that the car was actually moving, and it is reasonable to expect the scammers to have provided proof to the contrary, which they have not.
You should aver that the car was not stopped, and put the scammers to strict proof of the contrary.

This is dated 1st March 2020, whilst the OP's claim relates to January 2020; I can't see any photos dated January 2020.

Half_way

Does this nonsense apply to cyclists??

 I might find myself holed up in the Diseworth/Kegworth/Castle Donnington area in a few months depending upon covid ( a couple of villages right next to the airport ) and the airport itself is on a few cycle routes in the area, as well as walks

And as for the airport, is the argument about the land covered by bye-laws being used?? You should be able to find them online if you look for something called the aerodrome map / airport users guide ( aimed at pilots/businesses/trades on the airfield, airport and aerodrome  etc as opposed to the passenger stuff)

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

Both company numbers are correct.

However, I can only see one photo of a car on a road with double red lines, not two photos of a car in exactly the same position taken at different times.

The scammers have therefore not proved that the car was stopped. It is quite possible that the car was actually moving, and it is reasonable to expect the scammers to have provided proof to the contrary, which they have not.
You should aver that the car was not stopped, and put the scammers to strict proof of the contrary.

This is dated 1st March 2020, whilst the OP's claim relates to January 2020; I can't see any photos dated January 2020.

I can't find where the OP has told us the date of the alleged event.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

Both company numbers are correct.

However, I can only see one photo of a car on a road with double red lines, not two photos of a car in exactly the same position taken at different times.

The scammers have therefore not proved that the car was stopped. It is quite possible that the car was actually moving, and it is reasonable to expect the scammers to have provided proof to the contrary, which they have not.
You should aver that the car was not stopped, and put the scammers to strict proof of the contrary.

This is dated 1st March 2020, whilst the OP's claim relates to January 2020; I can't see any photos dated January 2020.

I can't find where the OP has told us the date of the alleged event.

OP's post at 12.48pm on 18th April on page 8.

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

Fruitcake said:

Both company numbers are correct.

However, I can only see one photo of a car on a road with double red lines, not two photos of a car in exactly the same position taken at different times.

The scammers have therefore not proved that the car was stopped. It is quite possible that the car was actually moving, and it is reasonable to expect the scammers to have provided proof to the contrary, which they have not.
You should aver that the car was not stopped, and put the scammers to strict proof of the contrary.

This is dated 1st March 2020, whilst the OP's claim relates to January 2020; I can't see any photos dated January 2020.

I can't find where the OP has told us the date of the alleged event.

OP's post at 12.48pm on 18th April on page 8.

Sorry, yes, just found it.

Date of alleged event, 04/01/2020.
Date of photo "evidence"  01/03/2020

You are absolutely right, no photos in their WS taken on the date of the alleged event so no proof at all that the car stopped in a no stopping zone, unless there are photos we haven't seen because the OP hasn't shown us all of them.

san2020, you must, MUST put this in your WS. The scammers have produced photos from a different date to that of the alleged event. The photos are time and date marked in red so they can't claim they are from a different date. They have provided no proof that the car was there, let alone stopped in a no stopping zone at the material time.

san2020

KeithP said:

As the pages aren't in order it is difficult to read their WS.

However, I did spot these words...


So you are forbidden to stop, but if you do stop that costs £100. Amazing!

You cannot agree to a contract to do something that is forbidden.

Foolishly, they include an image of a sign in their evidence that confirms their lack of understanding...



You really must include this point in your Witness Statement.

could you highlight what point is to be made out of the above? I have the pics but lack of understanding.