VCS stopping charge at Liverpool Airport

fulty

Hi All,
Looking for advice.

I have received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre.  Claimant is VCS, wanting money from me as my car was pictured stopped on Speke Avenue in 2019 which they say contravenes the T&Cs of a contract I entered into with them.

I have read a lot of the threads on this topic on previous forums.

I have submitted a SAR (but not received any information back),

I have completed the AoS online and disputed the claim.  Claim form dated 5 Jan, so as I understand it, I have 28 days from 10 Jan = 7 Feb to submit the defence i believe.

I now need to submit my defence.  I intend to use the template from Newbies thread and need to tailor paras 2 & 3 with my particular situation.

I intend to  admit that I was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged stopping violation.  

I was hoping that if i describe the circumstances, the experts on here may be able to point out good points to include in the defence.

At the time of the alleged stopping violation:

1.      The driver was not from the local area and was totally unaware that they were entering private land and was totally unfamiliar with any local rules for stopping in the vicinity of Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA).

2.      It was the first time the driver had ever driven in this area and was looking out for a carpark where parking had been pre-booked.

3.      The driver was only in this area as they were looking for a carpark and thought they knew where the carpark was.  On arrival at Liverpool Airport Cheap parking carpark, the driver discovered that it was not the correct carpark they were looking for.  So, to try and find directions to the required carpark, the driver found an area at the side of the road on Speke Hall Avenue along from the wrong carpark entrance to where there were no double yellow lines or other stopping restrictions that they were aware of to use a phone to find directions to the required carpark. 

4.      The driver was stopped at the side of the road for maximum 2 minutes.  No-one got out of the car, no-one got into the car.  The driver than drove off to the required carpark.

5.      The driver was not aware of any signage indicating there was no stopping in the area. After receiving the LBC, I (the vehicle keeper) became aware that there are no stopping signs at LJLA.  But they are not in the normal “No stopping” format as per the highway code. The signs were not clear and did not stand out to the driver.  Unless familiar with the area and localised no stopping rules, the driver would not have been able to digest any information on unfamiliar signs whilst driving.  The driver remembers it was a dull overcast winter day at the time of the alleged stopping violation and doesn’t remember seeing any signs about no stopping.

My thoughts: 

I cannot see that that a driver can be classed as entering into a contract by placing signs at the side of the road.  How could a driver be expected to read and understand the terms and conditions on an unfamiliar sign whilst a car is underway.  In order to read and understand the information included on the signs, the driver would have to stop the car and read the signs.  And by stopping the car, the driver would be in breach of the terms and conditions.  It is a ridiculous situation.  It’s a different matter, if the driver had previous knowledge that they were entering private land and were aware of the terms and conditions. In that case, it could be said that the driver had entered into a contract and they are deliberately and knowingly breaking the terms and conditions.

The driver was obeying the highway code regulations and pulled up at the side of the road where there weren’t any “No stopping” restrictions.

The driver never entered into any contractual agreement with VCS.  Nor did I enter into any contractual agreement with VCS.

The original PCN, showed a picture of the back of my car which has tinted windows.  So the driver could not be seen.  No-one got in or out of the car.  Don't VCS have to prove I was the driver before they accuse me of breach of contract?

Any pointers in creating the defence would be appreciated.

Redx

Ownership of the vehicle is irrelevant , it's about keeper , driver ( or possibly hirer , but not owner ) , claimant and defendant. The Court are not interested in knowing who owns the vehicle , be it you , or Toyota finance or Barclays Bank

All signs bind a driver to a contract , this is no different , the act committed by the driver can bind a driver to a contract , unless it's a forbidding contract , so a contract has , offer , consideration , and acceptance

As to all those legal questions , that is for a judge to decide , In Court !

Read what Bargepole posted about the arguments as to admitting who was driving , or not

The balance of probabilities as to who was driving applies in this case , unless categorically denied by the keeper or defendant , so a judge will decide OTBOP , not necessarily on proof. It will be assumed that the keeper and driver are the same entity , unless proven otherwise , a reasonable assumption if not denied

I suggest that you read a dozen or more recent JLA cases , for clarity , instead of just assuming things that aren't true

Especially read the thread by router66 , because their Defence is almost complete , plus read similar cases for other airports like Bristol and Southend and RHA Doncaster etc too

All the good points are already in those already completed defences , there is nothing to be added , anything useful is already in the ones you have been reading or replied to

Le_Kirk

fulty said:

I was hoping that if i describe the circumstances, the experts on here may be able to point out good points to include in the defence.

At the time of the alleged stopping violation:

1.      The driver was not from the local area and was totally unaware that they were entering private land and was totally unfamiliar with any local rules for stopping in the vicinity of Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA).

2.      It was the first time the driver had ever driven in this area and was looking out for a carpark where parking had been pre-booked.

3.      The driver was only in this area as they were looking for a carpark and thought they knew where the carpark was.  On arrival at Liverpool Airport Cheap parking carpark, the driver discovered that it was not the correct carpark they were looking for.  So, to try and find directions to the required carpark, the driver found an area at the side of the road on Speke Hall Avenue along from the wrong carpark entrance to where there were no double yellow lines or other stopping restrictions that they were aware of to use a phone to find directions to the required carpark. 

4.      The driver was stopped at the side of the road for maximum 2 minutes.  No-one got out of the car, no-one got into the car.  The driver than drove off to the required carpark.

5.      The driver was not aware of any signage indicating there was no stopping in the area. After receiving the LBC, I (the vehicle keeper) became aware that there are no stopping signs at LJLA.  But they are not in the normal “No stopping” format as per the highway code. The signs were not clear and did not stand out to the driver.  Unless familiar with the area and localised no stopping rules, the driver would not have been able to digest any information on unfamiliar signs whilst driving.  The driver remembers it was a dull overcast winter day at the time of the alleged stopping violation and doesn’t remember seeing any signs about no stopping.

No one is going to write your defence for you but if you turn the standard defence template into your first draft of a defence using your points as above, we will critique it for you.  A lot of what you have written is more useful to you at witness statement (WS) stage, just keep your defence to short, punchy legal/technical arguments that you can flesh out with the narrative (story) of what happened on the day in the WS.

Coupon-mad

You should admit to driving if it was you because this sounds like you are trying to hide behind 'the driver did this/that' and a Judge might just ask 'were you driving?'.

If the answer is yes, then it makes your defence look a bit shifty.  Where the main defence is that the signs & lines were not conspicuous, therefore no contract was known or agreed by your actions, it is better to admit to (or deny, if you were not) driving.

I'd remove this as it's not needed or relevant and just adds words

 It’s a different matter, if the driver had previous knowledge that they were entering private land and were aware of the terms and conditions. In that case, it could be said that the driver had entered into a contract and they are deliberately and knowingly breaking the terms and conditions.

fulty

Thanks for all input so far.  I am going to create my para 2 & 3 of defence template based on @Router66 and @IGW and @N3uR0 and will post on here for critique.  

KeithP

fulty said:
I have received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre.

I have completed the AoS online and disputed the claim.  Claim form dated 5 Jan, so as I understand it, I have 28 days from 10 Jan = 7 Feb to submit the defence i believe.

I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 7th January, in which case you are right with your Defence filing target date. Please confirm. Anything else could reduce the amount of time you have to file a Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you do indeed have until 4pm on Monday 7th February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

fulty

KeithP said:

fulty said:
I have received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre.

I have completed the AoS online and disputed the claim.  Claim form dated 5 Jan, so as I understand it, I have 28 days from 10 Jan = 7 Feb to submit the defence i believe.

I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 7th January, in which case you are right with your Defence filing target date. Please confirm. Anything else could reduce the amount of time you have to file a Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you do indeed have until 4pm on Monday 7th February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

From MCOL site:

A claim was issued against you on 05/01/2022

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 16/01/2022 at 14:26:54

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 17/01/2022 at 01:08:13

fulty

Hi all,  here is my defence.  It is based on the @IGW  defence with some ideas from @Router66 and some of my own words.  If anyone would like to critique and provide any constructive input, it would be gratefully accepted.

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the material date, but liability is denied.  The Defendant denies entering into any contract with the Claimant. The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. The Defendant asserts that they have no liability to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

No agreement of terms/no contract

3. The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for a breach of contract, however not at any point in material time was any contract agreed. It is denied that the Defendant breached any advertised terms and conditions that were specifically detailed on signage.  It is disputed that the signage constitutes the making a contractual offer.

3.1  As the signage is forbidding, it does not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case, neither the Claimant, nor their principal, the landowner, is offering anything to the defendant. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.  The aforementioned point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims on these grounds.

3.2 Furthermore, it is disputed that the signage is clear and prominent. The signage is inadequate and thus incapable of binding the driver. The font size is too small and the words too many.  As demonstration of the inadequacy of the signage, it falls far short of the requirements for road signs as detailed in the UK government’s  “Traffic Signs Manual”. 

3.3 The details given on the signage are inadequate to form the basis of a contract. -

·        No offer is defined.

·        The geographical area over which any contract would apply is not defined, thus rendering compliance impossible.

·        The specific circumstance under which stopping would/would not contravene the contract are not defined. Within an area open to public access by vehicles, there clearly needs to be provision for vehicles to stop in specific circumstances. For example, if way were blocked by pedestrians, in such case compliance would be illegal. Furthermore, as this is an airport access road the vast majority of the traffic will be using the road to conduct business at the airport and this will in most cases entail stopping.

3.4 These inadequacies in signage render any motorist attempting to safely travel through the site at 30mph, whilst navigating traffic, wholly incapable of even reading/understanding any alleged terms offered by said signage. It then follows that the formation of any contract based upon these terms is impossible. It is an ironic fact that the only way any sign could be read, would be to stop.

3.5 On the material date, the defendant was totally unaware that they were entering private land and was unfamiliar with any local rules for stopping in the vicinity of Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA).  The defendant was not alerted to this fact by any signage and thus could not have entered into any contract. The defendant stopped at the side of the road for maximum 2 minutes to use a phone to find directions to a carpark. There were no double red or yellow lines or any obvious signage to prevent the defendant stopping as far as he was aware.  No-one got out of the car, no-one got into the car.  The defendant only became aware of the local rules for stopping when a PCN was received some time after the event. 

3.6  The Claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice which states: “Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land.”  The defendant was not offered opportunity to consider the terms of the alleged contract or the opportunity to decline it.  The signage is located on a dual carriageway therefore any motorist approaching the signs has no legal option than to drive past them and therefore no opportunity to decline the alleged contract.

 3.7 The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

 

Trespass is a matter for a landowner only - the Claimant has no locus

4. The Defendant has cause to believe that the Claimant has no cause of action, given that the Claimant does not own the land in question.

4.1 If it is the Claimant's case that the area is intended as a 'no stopping zone' then they cannot also offer parking at a price if the landowner (Airport) in fact intends to prohibit stopping. If cars are never authorised to stop under any circumstances, then any breach would be a matter that falls firmly under the tort of trespass.

4.2 In the Beavis case it was reiterated that only a landowner can sue for damages/loss for alleged trespass, and ParkingEye could not have recovered monies for unauthorised parking/trespass. It was only because they were able to offer something of value (a parking space) and that the charge was part of that contractual licence, that ParkingEye could charge more than any nominal loss that a landowner could have recovered under tort.

4.3 If it is the Claimant's case that they were offering a parking licence or a space that had value, then they have produced no evidence to this effect and will be in difficulty if (as suspected) the signage in fact attempts to create a 'no stopping zone'. This would void any credible legal argument relying upon a 'legitimate interest' supporting the intentions of the landowner, because in a 'no-stopping zone' the landowner intends 'no stopping at all' on the one hand, and any driver conduct in breach of that rule could not on the other hand be allowed by a private company offering the prohibited behaviour under a pseudo contract.

4.4 It is believed that the contract this Claimant has with the Airport limits the parking firm to act as agent of the Airport who remain the (known) principal, in which case only the Airport can sue, not the agent in their own name.

4.5 The Claimant is put to strict proof of their locus and cause and right of action in their own name, and to disclose the unredacted contract with the Airport, before any hearing.

Airport approach roads are subject to road traffic enactments (public highway)

5. Even if the Claimant is able to overcome the difficulties they face in showing that:

(a) they have locus to sue in their own name regarding this location, and that
(b) they offered a parking space with value, and a licence to park there, and that
(c) the Defendant was afforded the opportunity to consider and accept contractual terms
(d) these terms were prominently displayed, and that
(e) this charge (described by the Airport as a 'fine') is somehow saved from the penalty rule,

the Claimant is also put to strict proof that:

(f) this access road is not part of the public highway. A 'public highway' is any road maintained by public expense where the public would normally have a right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle. It is averred that the Airport approach road is public highway and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

5.1 The road is not clearly demarcated as private land, nor is it a private car park and thus, any parking/traffic contraventions would be a matter for the local authority. Such roads are subject to the rules of the Road Traffic Act and statutory instrument and any 'PCN' must be a proper penalty charge notice issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

5.2 The claimant is put to strict proof that this approach road is a part of 'the Airport' site where road traffic enactments do not apply.

Coupon-mad

I'd get rid of that heading about trespass because the claim is not pleaded as damages for trespass.  Makes no sense to me to talk about something they have not pleaded.

fulty

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get rid of that heading about trespass because the claim is not pleaded as damages for trespass.  Makes no sense to me to talk about something they have not pleaded.

Thanks.  Do you mean remove the whole of section 4 or just the heading?  

Coupon-mad

"I'd get rid of that heading about trespass".