JLA "Stopping" Charge

Router66

Don't forget to change the Somerfield reference to the correct paragraph number too
Is this the correction you are referring to?
He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in para 5, above, and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed. 

Router66

Anchovie said:

'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)

Hi @ Anchovie, thanks for your post. If you look at the entrance signs on Google in 2019 and 2021 they are different.

Jenni_D

Router66 said:

Don't forget to change the Somerfield reference to the correct paragraph number too
Is this the correction you are referring to?
He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in para 5, above, and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed. 

If that's part of template point 7 (I think), then yes ... if you have more than 2 paras (2 and 3) then the template will start at a new para number, so para 5 will be some higher number.  

Router66

Jenni_D said:

Router66 said:

Don't forget to change the Somerfield reference to the correct paragraph number too
Is this the correction you are referring to?
He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in para 5, above, and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed. 

If that's part of template point 7 (I think), then yes ... if you have more than 2 paras (2 and 3) then the template will start at a new para number, so para 5 will be some higher number.  

Perfect...Thanks Jenni 

peadar

Router66 said:

Anchovie said:

'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)

Hi @ Anchovie, thanks for your post. If you look at the entrance signs on Google in 2019 and 2021 they are different.

Yes, the signs have changed since VCS sent me a demand for money in January 2016. I am not sure when they changed, or how often. I am past the 6 year mark now (had wanted to announce this in the relevant thread, but it's been closed).
VCS seem to have progressed at least one more recent case to the Letter before Claim stage.

Router66

Thanks for the info Peadar...In Google Maps left sign was dated July 2019... Right sign is dated April 2021

Anchovie

Something wrong here, The right hand sign replaced the left hand sign in December 2016, with advertisement consent applied for with Liverpool City Coucil January 2017  Parking Prankster: New signs in place at John Lennon Airport (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)

Router66

You have a point Anchovie. I would assume Google is out of whack as the old signs are available to see in July 2019.

Router66

Background Circumstances

In the defence submission, the Defendant is referred to as the Hirer/Driver and the Registered Keeper is a company.

In 2019, the RK and the Defendant made the Claimant aware of the address for service, after the RK received a “Final Reminder”.

The Defendant was then pursued for payment. The Defendant admitted being the “keeper” but not the driver. There was no correspondence received from the Claimant by either the Defendant or the RK.
Question:

In these circumstances, should not the Claimant have followed sections 13 & 14 of PoFA 2012 or the IPC Code of Practice and served a Notice to Hirer ((NTH) on the keeper?

If this is so, it might open the door to another defence point...
RedX posted on the thread of ChraceDK 18/1/22.

“If a Claimant wishes to not comply with POFA (which many don't) then
7 months applies, 6 months to get the keeper details and one month to get it to the keeper”

Also, I have come across a successful appeal to IAS which found in favour of the appellant because the PPC failed to comply with PoFA 2012 sections 13 & 14.

Any thoughts on whether either of these scenarios would have legs as defence points?  

Coupon-mad

Yes, you can use that.