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

san2020

Coupon-mad said:

OK, so you already know there is no such presumption in law, otherwise there would have been no need for the POFA Sch4!

As stated by parking expert Barrister and Lead parking appeals adjudicator, Henry Greenslade in the POPLA Annual Report 2015.  Go find that and the page(s) about 'KEEPER LIABILITY' and add something about it in your WS. and add the POPLA Annual Report 2015 as an exhibit. 

Also add the CMA Guidance to the POFA 2012 and refer to it as well, pointing out that there is no keeper liability in law, that can apply on Airport roads/land:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

HTH

Thanks, I have added the Annual report and CMA guidance references in the WS. 

san2020

Coupon-mad said:

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?

adjusted the above and numbering sorted. Many thanks. Sorry for the delay but bit of a panic last night.

san2020

"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?"
Point 13 reference should be void as it was struck out by J at point of counterclaim. (as explained, it did not have any evidance/points)
" 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." 
Adjusted the ws now. (I was meant to, but other guidance overtook)
I have added that some evidence indicates that no stopping is applicable even at zebra crossing. and one allegedly is committing crime by stopping for pedestrians to cross the road safely. 
"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)."
Struggling to understand this bit. can you elaborate for my understanding?

san2020

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.

I should have mentioned that the pictures uploaded, do not contain the vehicle which I own. C has not provided any proof that the relevant vehicle was found on red route. You are right to say that the car was mobile at the time of this picture.
Perhaps this might help further. See Images My Car1 and My Car2
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pylyclxnnq7ri8v/AADBqMgkv35CA77CTLoRYk5Xa?dl=0 

Fruitcake

A picture of an unidentified car with the tailgate up. It could have been anybody's, including mine.

Unless there are two photos of a car in the identical spot taken at different times, there is no proof the car was stopped.

san2020

final draft before I send it out.  happy to have any comments before 2pm today.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/br40f14mfbd3vzg/___WS_Finalv2.0 - Public.docx?dl=0 

Coupon-mad

There is nothing to identify where the car was.  Given not all parts of all roads are enforced, as their own evidence shows, there are sections of roadways that are not 'no stopping' where is the evidence that this was within the enforcement boundary?  You may want to save elaborating on this in your WS and just use it as a point at the hearing when asked to summarise your side.

Re the smaller sign you showed us (the first sign pic) I meant it's not facing approaching cars, look at it!  A 'repeater' no stopping sign has to face approaching traffic or it is a nullity.  Unless that sign was right next to your car where you stopped?!

san2020

the smaller sign is at the round about but my video of couple of weeks back shows these signs have been taken off. see video
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pylyclxnnq7ri8v/AADBqMgkv35CA77CTLoRYk5Xa?dl=0

Coupon-mad

That video is great because I am not seeing repeater signs (the only readable signs are the maps) and there is no reason to think that is a red route.

Have you sent it all to the court and claimant (or solicitor if they are still using one) now?

san2020

Coupon-mad said:

That video is great because I am not seeing repeater signs (the only readable signs are the maps) and there is no reason to think that is a red route.

Have you sent it all to the court and claimant (or solicitor if they are still using one) now?

Sorry, not managed to include video but yes the paperwork was sent around 2pm yesterday. DL was 4pm yesterday. email sent to court and ELMS