VCS County Court Letter for Liverpool Airport parking fine from 2018!

Router66

Sorry, I am not an advisor but in a similar predicament to you with a case almost 3 years old. I just wanted to make you aware that my photos show double red lines around the gate at Wynne Aviation.  Perhaps one of the regulars can advise if it the error can be rectified in the witness statement? Good luck with your case...  

antpro26

Thanks for the heads up! I've amended based on this to the following:

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

3. The Defendant was struggling to find the 40-minute free parking car park and couldn’t see anyone to ask. The only visible people were in the Enterprise Rent-a-Car car park and so the Defendant attempted to pull into their car park, but this was clearly signposted for car returns only. Therefore, rather than proceeding through the barrier which the Defendant thought wouldn't be allowed as they were in their own car, the Defendant instead reversed back onto the road. Upon noticing there were double red lines on the road, and again to avoid any wrongdoing, the Defendant pulled into an entrance for Wynne Aviation Services. There was a locked gate, however it was set back from the road. The Defendant did check to see if there was any signage to advise they couldn't wait there, which there wasn't. The passenger then left the car to ask the Enterprise office where the 40-minute free parking car park was and returned to the car minutes later to so the Defendant could move the car to the correct car park as advised by the staff there. The passenger can clearly be seen leaving the car and returning minutes later once they had asked where the car park was so the Defendant could move their car to the designated drop-off, rather than just dropping the passenger there as they were conscious to avoid this very scenario.

As far as the Defendant is concerned, there was absolutely no warning that their actions above were in breach of any parking violations. All their decisions that day centred around not wanting to breach any parking restrictions which was the reason for not entering the Enterprise car park, as well as for pulling into the entrance to the business which was set back away from the road, and finally the Defendant was conscious not to just drop the passenger there and rather move the car to the 40-minute free parking car park once the passenger had asked where this was.

There were no visible signs where the Defendant had pulled up to advise they couldn't wait there whilst the passenger asked the staff at the Enterprise Rent-a-Car location where they could park. The Defendant cannot understand where else they could have waited whilst the passenger requested assistance as it wasn't clear where they needed to go. 

It has been signed again ready to send so please let me know if there is anything glaring obvious which needs changing. Thanks again for all the help! 

Redx

Seems ok to me 🤔🤔👍👍👍

Coupon-mad

Except every paragraph needs a number and would this read better, and is it true?

There was a locked gate, however it was set back from the road and the Defendant did not pass this gate and the area was not marked or signed as private land.

antpro26

Hi, 

Thanks for everyone's help to date. We have completed the N180 questionnaire ready to send tomorrow which is the deadline. Couple of quick questions if possible:

1) Can this be emailed as neither of us have access to a printer whilst off work? 

2) My wife is pretty adamant she wants to take the option for settlement/mediation but I have tried to explain that we need to follow the advice of this forum. Should we avoid the option for mediation at this stage?

3) What are the next steps involved after sending the N180 back, and how likely is it that it will result in her having to attend court as she wants to avoid that at all costs? 

Thanks again! 

antpro26

I should add - they have since sent another letter advising Elms Legal are no longer representing them, and instead VCS are representating themselves. Also, they have offered to settle for a reduced sum of £185. Due to the pressure from my wife not to pursue this with the court, I am tempted to call them tomorrow to discuss this. Are there any issues in doing so? I would rather follow the guidance on here, but again she is very reluctant to do so and will do whatever is necessary to avoid court. Thanks! 

KeithP

antpro26 said:

Hi, 

Thanks for everyone's help to date. We have completed the N180 questionnaire ready to send tomorrow which is the deadline.

That seems rather quick. Are you sure?
You only filed your Defence two weeks ago didn't you?
Check your dates.

Anyway, there is good guidance about filing a Directions Questionnaire in that list you were following when you filed your Defence.
Go back to that list and read items 7, 8, 9 and 10 on it.

Umkomaas

antpro26 said:

I should add - they have since sent another letter advising Elms Legal are no longer representing them, and instead VCS are representating themselves. Also, they have offered to settle for a reduced sum of £185. Due to the pressure from my wife not to pursue this with the court, I am tempted to call them tomorrow to discuss this. Are there any issues in doing so? I would rather follow the guidance on here, but again she is very reluctant to do so and will do whatever is necessary to avoid court. Thanks! 

From memory, the number of VCS/LJLA stoping cases that have got as far as court I can count on the finger of one hand of a sawmill operative. This is all a game of chicken, and your wife is trying to make you cluck, VCS receiving the golden egg from you!

antpro26

Yes it was received on 13th December with a deadline of 30th December to send back. I followed those steps which is what helped me complete the N180 as advised.

Do you have any advice regarding contacting them directly now they are representing themselves rather than using Elms Legal? 

Thanks again. 

Umkomaas

Do you have any advice regarding contacting them directly now they are representing themselves rather than using Elms Legal? 

Yes I do. DON'T!