Vcs letter before claim

KeithP

Pants182 said:

I need to send this tonight. i shall read again but i remember it stating once I have done the defence, print it off, sign and sent back to county claims via email.

That's almost right, but I actually wrote...

...you have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd February 2022 to file your Defence.

Another day to go, but note the 4pm bit.

Pants182

I am out with the children tomorrow ( bad planning on my behalf) so tonight it has to be. 

thanks

Pants182

ok, so I am using the template that has been provided and amending paragraph 2 and 3 only with the below, this is then printed off, signed and sent back to 

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. Liability is denied.

3. A parking charge was issued to the keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX  on Y date by Vehicle Control Services (VCS) for allegedly stopping for 13 seconds on a road at John Lennon Liverpool Airport (JLLA) where stopping is allegedly prohibited.
VCS subsequently issued a claim against the defendant on Z date.

It should be noted that VCS do not have authority from the landowner to issue parking charges on airport roads that are covered by airport byelaws.

Being an airport subject to statutory control (airport byelaws), the location is not relevant land as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Consequently the claimant cannot hold the keeper liable 

(Possible make this para 4 and renumber everything after.)

Stopping is not parking as determined in the case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services, case number B9GF0A9E. Note that this was an appeal court case and therefore persuasive on the lower courts.

The defendant made a site visit after receiving the court claim, and noted that there are no signs visible to a driver at the material location. Signs some distance away from the material location were noted, but they were too high (2 - 3m above ground level) to be read from a moving vehicle. Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule applies, where a sign must be so prominently displayed that a motorist could not possibly miss is. It is averred that no such signs existed at the material location.
Since the terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the attention of the driver, no contract can have been formed between the two parties, and therefore the defendant cannot be held liable.

Fruitcake

Pants182 said:

ok, so I am using the template that has been provided and amending paragraph 2 and 3 only with the below, this is then printed off, signed and sent back to 

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. Liability is denied.

3. A parking charge was issued to the keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX  on Y date by Vehicle Control Services (VCS) for allegedly stopping for 13 seconds on a road at John Lennon Liverpool Airport (JLLA) where stopping is allegedly prohibited.
VCS subsequently issued a claim against the defendant on Z date.

It should be noted that VCS do not have authority from the landowner to issue parking charges on airport roads that are covered by airport byelaws.

It is averred that the claimant does not have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices to motorists for stopping on roads under statutory control in the form of airport byelaws. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Being an airport subject to statutory control (airport byelaws), the location is not relevant land as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and therefore had no right to obtain the keeper's personal data from the DVLA. Consequently the claimant cannot hold the keeper liable 

(Possible make this para 4 and renumber everything after.)

Stopping is not parking as determined in the case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services, case number B9GF0A9E. Note that this was an appeal court case and therefore persuasive on the lower courts.
A parking charge notice should therefore not have been issued for an alleged stopping event, but instead a claim for trespass made by the landowner in the Magistrates court on land where airport byelaws apply.

The defendant made a site visit after receiving the court claim, and noted that there are no signs visible to a driver at the material location. Signs some distance away from the material location were noted, but they were too high (2 - 3m above ground level) to be read from a moving vehicle. Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule applies, where a sign must be so prominently displayed that a motorist could not possibly miss is. It is averred that no such signs existed at the material location.
Since the terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the attention of the driver, no contract can have been formed between the two parties, and therefore the defendant cannot be held liable.

Since you will be defending as driver, I suggest you make amendments as above, plus any information you have from DisruptiveLad. I have not actually seen any documents or correspondence that he has received, so I have formed an opinion upon what he has posted. They are not facts within my knowledge, which is why I made the amendment about averring that the claimant does not have authority as opposed to stating it as fact.

Make sure you put in the correct dates, and remove my comment about re-numbering, but do renumber if you decide that's what you want to do.
The problem with renumbering is that there is a reference in one paragraph to another paragraph that will  then be incorrect.
Alternately, add the paragraph about the site visit and signage to the existing template paragraphs about signage, and leave the numbering alone.


Don't just blindly copy and paste. When this gets to the hearing you will be expected to understand all of the above and be able to argue your case. The judge may or may not side with you on each point, but you must understand what you have put.
The important thing is to get your defence in now, then read and understand all the points you have made so you will understand what you are doing on the day.

Send it all by email, remembering to either add an electronic signature, or print off the signature page, sign it, scan it, then add it back in to the document and then email it.
This is explained in the guide to court.

It is advisable to email the defence between court opening hours, 9 - 4. Outside that they sometimes get lost. Make sure you get the auto response. If not, send it after 9 am tomorrow.

DisruptiveLad

LJLA's own parking terms and conditions clearly state VCS' authority begins only when a car enters a car park. LJLA were looking into that and within 24 hours they had quashed the Notice. That was followed almost immediately by VCS quashing it. I'm just puzzled as to why you make reference to trespass. VCS' case is based on a falsehood. Clear and simple.

uptonbubbles

DisruptiveLad said:

LJLA's own parking terms and conditions clearly state VCS' authority begins only when a car enters a car park. LJLA were looking into that and within 24 hours they had quashed the Notice. That was followed almost immediately by VCS quashing it. I'm just puzzled as to why you make reference to trespass. VCS' case is based on a falsehood. Clear and simple.

I had contact with LJLA las week  and they advised that the contract between Liverpool Airport & VCS for parking services covers all roadways on airport property including Speke Hall Avenue up to the junction with Dunlop Road. As you state, this contradicts what they state on their own terms on their website (I can't post links but google the Parking T&Cs on the Liverpool airport website) but we don't seem to have access to their full agreement which may or may not cover the so called "red zone"

Fruitcake

DisruptiveLad said:

LJLA's own parking terms and conditions clearly state VCS' authority begins only when a car enters a car park. LJLA were looking into that and within 24 hours they had quashed the Notice. That was followed almost immediately by VCS quashing it. I'm just puzzled as to why you make reference to trespass. VCS' case is based on a falsehood. Clear and simple.

I haven't seen the contract between the landowner and VCS for JLLA, which is why I have used certain wording as I have no written evidence to the contrary.
I have seen the contract between VCS and Bristol Airport Ltd, and irrespective of what may be published on the airport website, the contract does cover (some) roadways within the airport.
I can't make statements about facts not within my knowledge.

Pants182

  i feel a bit lost with this all now and got a poorly baby to throw into the mix. 
the copy of the contract which has expired 24 months from the 8/7/13 stated the site  means" the car parks, unadopted roadways and/or land situated at LJLA, there is loads of other stuff, if anyone wants a copy let me know can email across. 

Fruitcake

You have to submit something. Combine what you think is best and send it off. 

Pants182

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. Liability is denied.

3. A parking charge was issued to the keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX  for the date of event on the 12/06/2017 by Vehicle Control Services (VCS) for allegedly stopping for 13 seconds on a road at John Lennon Liverpool Airport (JLLA) where stopping is allegedly prohibited.
VCS subsequently issued a claim against the defendant on  date 12/06/2017, the defendant sent a letter back and then there was no correspondence until 10/6/2021, several letters later VCs issued a claim dated 24/09/2021

It is averred that the claimant does not have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices to motorists for stopping on roads under statutory control in the form of airport byelaws. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Being an airport subject to statutory control (airport byelaws), the location is not relevant land as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and therefore had no right to obtain the keeper's personal data from the DVLA. 

4.Stopping is not parking as determined in the case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services, case number B9GF0A9E. Note that this was an appeal court case and therefore persuasive on the lower courts.
A parking charge notice should therefore not have been issued for an alleged stopping event, but instead a claim for trespass made by the landowner in the Magistrates court on land where airport byelaws apply. Trespass is only actionable by the landowner and the vehicle was accessing the airport by invitation as part of the normal business of airports activity it cannot be seen clearly where a trespass can have taken place.

The defendant made a site visit after receiving the court claim, and noted that there are no signs visible to a driver at the material location. Signs some distance away from the material location were noted, but they were too high (2 - 3m above ground level) to be read from a moving vehicle. Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule applies, where a sign must be so prominently displayed that a motorist could not possibly miss is. It is averred that no such signs existed at the material location.
Since the terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the attention of the driver, no contract can have been formed between the two parties, and therefore the defendant cannot be held liable.