JLA "Stopping" Charge

1505grandad

SoT states "defence"

Router66

Great Spot @1505grandad, thank you...I have updated the link. 

Coupon-mad

Looks good except I see no reference to Exhibits, such as the Airport Byelaws and distance pics of the signs looking unreadable (you might be able to get them from Google Streetview or another poster with a LJLA who mentioned a video they took (unless that was you?).

Also never mention Crutchley, you don't want to draw attention to it.  VCS will!  So remove this:

as found in the Crutchley case,

The truly daft finding in the appalling case of Crutchley is that the Circuit Judge was led so far up the garden path that he actually declared that it wouldn't have been unreasonable to expect a driver to stop outside of the no stopping area (where exactly, without getting a ticket?) leave the car and go in on foot first, to wander around and read the signs that are meant to be readable from a moving car!

Router66

Thanks, @Coupon-Mad. I have all the exhibits in a separate folder and will cross reference them now that you have looked at the draft. I was uncertain about how I tagged on your updated defence but pleased that it seems to have passed muster! 
It wasn't me that took the video, I think it was @JohnnyLenny 12th May. Their case is similar to mine in that we both turned round in the Wynne Aviation Gateway. GSV does show double reds running up to the gate but the 2013=> 2015 VCS/LJLA contract shows the red lines as a straight line. I will also edit the draft and remove the Crutchley reference as you suggest.

Coupon-mad

Do you mean it looks like VCS painted red lines OUTSIDE their contracted enforcement area?  That's major.

Router66

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4kag1cet47j26c8/Red Route Boundaries.pdf?dl=0
The first image is from the contract and the last image is from Liverpool City Council...Neither show the Red Route including the gateway. Don't VCS/Excel have form over painting their own lines where it suits?
Also I have amended point 44 in my WS it now reads : 44. The claim is entirely without merit and identical to a recently dismissed Liverpool Airport case heard by DDJ Gabrielle Wenham on 20th April 2022 at Manchester County Courts. There is no doubt that the claimant has full details of the case and is therefore urged to discontinue this claim immediately, in order to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.
Just thought I should check that I am not overstepping the mark?

Coupon-mad

That's fine and not overstepping the mark.

1505grandad

Some probably pedantic observations:-

"17. The signage does not carry any advertised terms and conditions that could

offer a contract, as stated in the claimant‟s Particulars of Claim."

Does the above give the impression that the PoC agree that  -  "signage does not carry any advertised terms and conditions that could offer a contract....."?

"Red Route

VCS signage asserts that the airport roads are “Red Routes”"

Should para number 23 be here  -  at the moment the above is still under para 22.

"33. The claimant, in response to my SAR, revealed that a NtK was issued to

the Registered Keeper and an NtD was issued to the driver."

I have not read back through the whole of the discussion but does the Defence state that the D is the hirer/lessee  of the vehicle  - should that be mentioned in WS.? 

Router66

@1505grandad... I don't mind pedantic, I have already been described as such on the forum! In answer to your queries:-  

Does the below change make my position clear, in that the signs are not clear or prominent and therefore incapable of forming a contract by conduct?
If so, I will amend accordingly.

The claimant’s PoC states: ‘The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued.’
This statement is denied; the signage provides no terms and conditions capable of forming a contract by conduct. Even if such terms and conditions were present on the sign, the details would have been either obscured by trees on the dual carriageway, unlikely to have been read by a driver who was following direction signs, or unable to be read from a vehicle travelling within the allowed speed limit.

 

I think your query re. Paras 22 and 23 is a format error when converting to a pdf. The Red Route header should be at the top of page 5 not the bottom of page 4.

There has already been some discussion on the forum about VCS issuing a notice to driver instead of a notice to hirer. I believe a notice to hirer should have been issued after my employer provided my details for correspondence purposes. At that time I could not be certain who the driver was as it was 3 months after the event. Within that time I had swapped cars with a colleague on two weekends as I needed an estate car to move out of the family home. It was only when a court claim was issued, two years later, that I investigated the dates and admitted to being the driver.

I think that putting this into my WS would give the claimant something to latch on to and therefore not worth mentioning.    

Router66

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sejwq7qx27rypt5/Draft Redacted Final WS.pdf?dl=0
Fast approaching the Witness Statement deadline and I would much appreciate feedback on the draft.
It's good to know there have been some recent successes against VCS but @mcan541908 had a close call with a much better WS than mine. If @VeryOldBailey is till lurking it would help to have the case details (Judge/Claim no. Court) I couldn't find them in the excellent court report.
Thanks