John Lennon PCN for stopping

Rileymark1

Jenni_D said:

Copy/paste into Notepad first, then copy/paste from Notepad to here. (If you're copying from Word then sometimes the formatting isn't liked by the forum).

Hi Jenni_D 

Its not letting me do that either, doesn't come up on here with any sort of paste option when i right click. Not too savvy on computers either so not sure how i get it on here now without typing the whole thing out .

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Are you trying to paste into someone else's message?  You need to be pasting or writing into the comment box which you will find just below the last comment on the page.  What happens if you just try to write in it?  Also are you logged in?  If not, you can see the threads but not comment.

Rileymark1

HI Le_Kirk

I am writing on my own post, i copied a defence from elsewhere and amended it with my own circumstances as it was a very similar case to mine. i noticed Coupon_Mad had siad this was a good example which is why i've tried to use this one.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

2. The driver has not been identified on any occasion and there is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver. The keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm which was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

4. The defendant supplies the following statement:

“On the date of alleged contravention, the defendant had arrived from France and had arranged to be collected off the Airport grounds due to the driver being unfamiliar with the Airport roads. Whilst on the journey to the Airport the driver had the defendants 7 month old Granddaughter in the car who was born with a cleft palate (MEDICAL RECORDS AVAILABLE), which in itself caused various complications with her being able to swallow and breathe normally. During the journey the child had vomited and was struggling to clear the vomit on her own due to the hole in the roof of her mouth so the driver had no alternative but to carry out an Emergency stop so the defendant could get into the car to assist with the child. An Emergency stop that is allowed in the Airports own Terms and Conditions.

5. Liverpool John Lennon airport operates under byelaws. Bylaws that have not been revoked and take precedence as confirmed by the DLUHC’S new Parking Code of Practice.

VCS operates under Liverpool John Lennon airport byelaws. The unexpected choking issue the driver encountered that afternoon, fits the criteria specified in LJLA' byelaws.

Below are the relevant byelaws:

5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD

TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY

The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road

Traffic Enactments do not apply:

“5 (3) Obstruction:

except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”

and

“5(12) Parking of Vehicles

without reasonable excuse! Park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.

6. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

8. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle stopping or parking at the location in question.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The airport confirmed in a recent case that VCS’ authority does not extend to roads. It is only INSIDE car parks that VCS have authority.

10. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

11. There are various signs present along the roads around Liverpool John Lennon Airport, the first sign placed almost 20 meters into the ‘red route’ with no laybys present to enable drivers to be able to pull over to read them fully. These signs therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle, driving at the speed limit of 30mph. Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the area without knowing what those terms and conditions are. Terms and Conditions that can only realistically be read by stopping in the very areas the Claimant is classifying as being prohibited areas, thus creating what could almost be described as an Entrapment zone for motorists. The only signs that mention anything regarding Said Terms and Conditions are placed at locations where they are impossible to read without leaving the vehicle due to their size and location. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

12. Based on the “PCM vs Bull” case, where defendants were issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”, the claimant has no standing to litigate this matter.

District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that “the notice was prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.

13. This Claimant may try to persuade the court using the perverse decision in “VCS v Ward”, which can be fully distinguished and is far from persuasive when scrutinised. In that case, at appeal, the Defendant did not appear and the case reportedly ran completely against the interests of the victim consumer, such that the Judge even lamented the dreadful position he had been steered towards by this Claimant's legal representation, who, it seems, effectively ambushed the court with a case not first raised at the original hearing. In any event, the “VCS v Ward” case involved a business park and has no application to an Airport case, where the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency - such as choking - is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

15. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Rileymark1

It let me post it as a quote in the format tab. Got there in the end , thanks Le_Kirk and Jenni_D

Le_Kirk

That is an old example and you would be better off using the latest template which can be found here: -https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1
Adjust paragraphs 2 & 3 and post here for critique.  There is no need to post anything other than paragraphs 2 & 3 unless you changed anything in any of the other paragraphs as we do not need to check the template.  If you need to add more paragraphs do so after 3 but then you will need to adjust the paragraph 7 where it refers to point #5.  Of course when you submit by e-mail to the CCBC you will use the complete template with your alterations and additions.

Rileymark1

HI All,

I have amended the defence again, is this getting somewher near what i need to put into sections 2 & 3 of the defence template or am i still putting too much in at this stage? 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver on the day of the alleged contravention. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

3. The defendant supplies the following statement:
“On the date of alleged contravention, the defendant had arrived from France and had arranged to be collected off the Airport grounds due to the driver being unfamiliar with the Airport roads. Whilst on the journey to the Airport the driver had the defendants 7 month old Granddaughter in the car who was born with a cleft palate (MEDICAL RECORDS AVAILABLE), which in itself caused various complications with her being able to swallow and breathe normally. During the journey the child had vomited and was struggling to clear the vomit on her own due to the hole in the roof of her mouth so the driver had no alternative but to carry out an Emergency stop so the defendant could get into the car to assist with the child. An Emergency stop that is allowed in the Airports own Terms and Conditions.

3.1. Liverpool John Lennon airport operates under byelaws. Bylaws that have not been revoked and take precedence as confirmed by the DLUHC’S new Parking Code of Practice.

VCS operates under Liverpool John Lennon airport byelaws. The unexpected choking issue the driver encountered that afternoon, fits the criteria specified in LJLA’ byelaws.
Below are the relevant byelaws:

PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD
TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road
Traffic Enactments do not apply:

“5 (3) Obstruction:
except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”

and

“5(12) Parking of Vehicles
without reasonable excuse! Park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.


3.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The airport confirmed in a recent case that VCS’ authority does not extend to roads. It is only INSIDE car parks that VCS have authority.

3.3. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
There are various signs present along the roads around Liverpool John Lennon Airport, the first sign placed almost 20 meters into the ‘red route’ with no laybys present to enable drivers to be able to pull over to read them fully. These signs therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle, driving at the speed limit of 30mph. Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the area without knowing what those terms and conditions are. Terms and Conditions that can only realistically be read by stopping in the very areas the Claimant is classifying as being prohibited areas, thus creating what could almost be described as an Entrapment zone for motorists. The only signs that mention anything regarding Said Terms and Conditions are placed at locations where they are impossible to read without leaving the vehicle due to their size and location.

3.4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Rileymark1

Hi 

Could someone look over my last post and let me know if that's any better. Or am i still putting too much in paragraph 3.

Thanks

Fruitcake

I think 3.2 to 3.4 are already covered in the template. If so, they do not need to be repeated.

Rileymark1

Fruitcake said:

I think 3.2 to 3.4 are already covered in the template. If so, they do not need to be repeated.

Thanks Fruitcake

I will have another read through the template and check. I am just trying to put things in that people have suggested but think i am over cooking it in parts . Just want to get it right as I've never dealt with any of this legal stuff before so I'm miles out of my comfort zone at the minute.

Rileymark1

Hi 

Could some of the regulars check my amended defence please. I have cut it right down after Fruitcake said i was repeating points already covered in the defence template. I have literally just tried to make paragraph 3 what happened in my case , any help is appreciated.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver on the day of the alleged contravention. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

3. The defendant supplies the following statement:
“On the date of alleged contravention, the defendant had arrived from France and had arranged to be collected off the Airport grounds due to the driver being unfamiliar with the Airport roads. Whilst on the journey to the Airport the driver had the defendants 7 month old Granddaughter in the car who was born with a cleft palate (MEDICAL RECORDS AVAILABLE), which in itself caused various complications with her being able to swallow and breathe normally. During the journey the child had vomited and was struggling to clear the vomit on her own due to the hole in the roof of her mouth so the driver had no alternative but to carry out an Emergency stop so the defendant could get into the car to assist with the child. An Emergency stop that is allowed in the Airports own Terms and Conditions.

3.1. Liverpool John Lennon airport operates under byelaws. Bylaws that have not been revoked and take precedence as confirmed by the DLUHC’S new Parking Code of Practice.

VCS operates under Liverpool John Lennon airport byelaws. The unexpected choking issue the driver encountered that afternoon, fits the criteria specified in LJLA’ byelaws.
Below are the relevant byelaws:

PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD
TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road
Traffic Enactments do not apply:

“5 (3) Obstruction:
except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”

and

“5(12) Parking of Vehicles
without reasonable excuse! Park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.