JLA "Stopping" Charge

Giant_Hogweed

My son was diverted from Leeds Bradford on Boxing day to JLA due to fog, and having had my own run in with VCS (Doncaster airport), and having seen the numerous cases on here and being completely unfamiliar with JLA I was dreading it.
A simple google (and this is for everyones information) and the 40 minutes free car park is available a short walk (5 minutes ish) from the terminal. Drop off 2), Yet still there was a few cars dotted around risking the parking Nazis!
I can't help with advice I'm not savvy enough but I don't understand why so many people get caught at JLA.
Hope that information is helpful for any future visitors

Coupon-mad

I guess you were unusual in knowing there was an issue with VCS there.  Most drivers don't.

Router66

Coupon-mad said:

I guess you were unusual in knowing there was an issue with VCS there.  Most drivers don't.

Spot on Coupon Mad...The defendant was following the signs to Drop Off 2 but then they disappeared. Fortunately the provided VCS footage shows them positioned on a lamp post but obscured by tree branches. So much for clear and prominent signage!

Le_Kirk

As the Lessee/Hirer of the vehicle in question I would have expected the Claimant to serve the Defendant with a Notice to Hirer (NTH), as is required by the Code of Practice of the Claimant’s Accredited Trade Association (ATA).

The defence is written in the third person, so check through all of your defence for any instances of "I", "my", "me" etc and change to "the defendant".

Router66

Thanks Le Kirk...I found a "he" and "his" that had also slipped through...Now all changed to "Defendant" with a bit of re-wording. 
Should I re-post the defence (points 2 & 3) which now also includes the changes suggested by Coupon Mad?

Le_Kirk

No, provided you make those changes and no one else comes up with any more, just add the rest of the template before you send it by e-mail to the address in the template thread.

paulstevens64

The hirer/day to day keeper is admitting to being the driver in this defence. Is that what you mean? You have previousy not declared who the driver is. Your case is built around either Byelaws - so POFA does not apply, or non POFA notice to keepet/hirer received - so no POFA applies. All blown out of the water if the hirer/day to day keeper admits being the driver?

Redx

Router66 said:

Thanks Le Kirk...I found a "he" and "his" that had also slipped through...Now all changed to "Defendant" with a bit of re-wording. 
Should I re-post the defence (points 2 & 3) which now also includes the changes suggested by Coupon Mad?

Unless you want to help others with JLA cases by publishing your final draft of the numbered changed paragraphs below , so others can benefit after reading your thread , I would ( but leave the rest of the template out , not needed for the forum , but added to your submission

Don't forget to change the Somerfield reference to the correct paragraph number too

Anchovie

'The largest of the signs were positioned alongside a dual carriageway which had a 40 mph speed limit. It was therefore impossible for the driver to read these signs safely without stopping. It is noted that these signs have since been replaced, suggesting that the Claimant had recognised that the 2019 signs were not fit for purpose. Regrettably for the Claimant, the latest signs still contain a forbidding term “No Stopping” therefore the signs cannot offer a contract - one cannot contract to do that which is forbidden; ergo it can only be a penalty clause, and a private business has no authority to impose a penalty on a consumer.'

I think the current signs were installed December 2016: Parking Prankster: New signs in place at John Lennon Airport (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)

Router66

paulstevens64 said:

The hirer/day to day keeper is admitting to being the driver in this defence. Is that what you mean? You have previousy not declared who the driver is. Your case is built around either Byelaws - so POFA does not apply, or non POFA notice to keepet/hirer received - so no POFA applies. All blown out of the water if the hirer/day to day keeper admits being the driver?

Thank you for raising this point...I am aware that not admitting to being the driver puts the onus on the claimant to prove otherwise. However, after considering forum advice from Coupon Mad and Bargepole posts I decided that honesty is the best policy.  I believe the claimant or judge would home in on who was driving unless it is actually denied in the Witness Statement. As the Defendant and a passenger are credible witnesses it is hoped that the case will swing on their story, which is based on inadequate signage and no contract formed by conduct. I guess we will find out in a few months time!