Liverpool Airport VCS PCN: Some questions re: Defence

VeryOldBailey

Thank you again, @KeithP.

By evidence I presume you mean the exhibits attached to the WS? If so, that's all sorted.

I'd forgotten about costs - something to look at tomorrow.

VeryOldBailey

I've now received the Claimant's WS. In it they cite six cases or pieces of legislation to support their claim, sometimes quoting paragraphs, sometimes simply summarising. Transcripts of these cases do not appear in their exhibits.

This in contrast to the advice given in this forum to include full transcripts of cases and or legislation (e.g. in my case Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords, BP v Crosby, Excel v Wilkinson, etc.).

I am perfectly willing to compile and print a Parking Charge equivalent to War & Peace if it serves the purposes of my case but equally loth to waste time and effort if it is unnecessary.

What advice would you give me?

Coupon-mad

So your WS trumps theirs?  Good.

Anything in their so-called evidence you want to add to your WS to debunk it? 

Things like a heavily redacted landowner authority, or undated or old signage photos and a heavy reliance on stock images and an unverified Google Earth mock up with dots on it that intends to suggest there are more signs than there really were...

Go through it with a fine tooth comb.

Have they misquoted out of context from the words of Roch LJ in Vine v Waltham Forest?  If so, search the forum to find what's been said umpteen hundred times over the years, to debunk that.  Miss Vine won. She was held not to have seen the signs and parking firms cherry pick words from the losing case, making it sound like it was the finding of Lord Roch.

john3994

@VeryOldBailey, how are they forming their case especially around the PoFA and the transfer of liability to you as the keeper.

As I understand it, the presence of a byelaw means statutory control is in place which in turn means it isn't relevant land within the PoFA?

VeryOldBailey

My case was heard on Monday and the judge decided in my favour.

I willingly acknowledge the help and advice freely offered by members of this forum and am immensely grateful to you all. I could not have assembled a winning defence without you.

Although I believe I had a good case anyway, I believe some other factors played their part in our success. VCS had employed an inexperienced solicitor to represent them but had not sent her a copy of my WS. I let her have a look at a copy before we went in. Secondly, the exhibits in the VCS WS were woeful: pages of a contract signed in 2013 that was stated to last 24 months; maps of the airport, many of which were irrelevant; two pages of photos without captions, taken over the course of two years, and some taken of the signage which were illegible. Finally, the solicitor had never been to LJLA and could not identify the location at which the PCN/NTK photos had been taken.

The case was heard in a formal courtroom before a judge who took pains to explain to me how she intended to proceed. She asked us both to state briefly the main points of our cases and then asked the solicitor to make her case. Solicitor cited breach of contract, multiple clear signs as indicated on maps & photos, VCS v Ward, disapplication of byelaws. As she had not been responsible for drawing up the WS I was not allowed to cross-examine her.

My turn and I wasn't sure what I should do. Was I expected to go one by one through the points in my Defence? Or my WS? Or both?

In the end I started on the VCS WS & exhibits. The judge had already picked up on the contract date, so I made the points that:

1. The assumption that the keeper was the driver was unsound - other people were insured to drive the car.

2. No parking event had taken place.

3. LJLA entrance signs did not conform to DoT guidelines on legibility.

4. All of the repeater signs (denoted by red dots on the map) were fastened to fences parallel to the road and therefore impossible for a driver of a moving car to read.

5. The inclusion in their WS of the paragraph quoted in the Ward case had omitted the footnote: Such as, for example, being obliged to stop by someone crossing the road.(particularly relevant to my case).

6. POFA is statute law (is that the right term?) which trumps byelaws.

I then made reference to (but without going through WS or quoting specific cases) fairness, addition of £60 to sum claimed. Double Recovery, abuse of court system.

Judge's summary: claimant not proved authority to act, poor quality bundle, double red lines do not appear in PCN/NTK photos, £60 not mentioned on signage, Caernavon case pesuasive. Case not proved.

In the hope that the following might be of help to anyone else, the main points of my case as stated in my WS were:

• Signs, Forbidding nature, DoT guidance, IPC CoP.
• POFA irrelevant, byelaws in place.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 Unfair terms
• Double Recovery / Abuse of process

and these are the cases and exhibits used in my WS:

• Exhibit WS01 – Junction of Dunlop Rd and Speke Hall Avenue
• Exhibit WS02 – LJLA No Stopping sign
• Exhibit WS03 - p171 of Chapter 7 of the DfT's Traffic Signs Manual.
• Exhibit WS04 - International Parking Community Code of Practice V6 April 2017
• Exhibit WS05 - Approach to the pick up/drop off car park.
• Exhibit WS06 - VCS photographs from the PCN/NTK
• Exhibit WS07 - Paragraphs 30-36 of VCS v Ward, Leeds, 19 December 2018
• Exhibit WS08 - Liverpool Airport Byelaws 1982
• Exhibit WS09 - Transcript of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432
• Exhibit WS10 - The sign which featured in the Beavis case.
• Exhibit WS11 - Transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19)
• Exhibit WS12 - Paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 of the Beavis case
• Exhibit WS13 - Transcript of Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V
• Exhibit WS14 - DJ Hickinbottom's Judgement against VCS, Bradford, August 2020
• Exhibit WS15 - Caernarfon Judgement against VCS - abuse of process

These are the resources which are mentioned in my Defence:

• Section 4 POFA 2015
• ParkingEye v Beavis
• ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores
• Semark-Jullien
• Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case)
• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2,
• Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,
• IPC Code of Practice
• Consumer Rights Act 2015
• F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019

Many thanks again to all who have helped. I hope that recent changes to the law will mean cases like mine will be a thing of the past but if I can be of assistance to anybody, drop me a PM.

Fruitcake

Well done, and thanks for providing us with such a detailed court report.

Umkomaas

Great result, great report, well done. 👍. Thank you for letting us know. Getting feedback is important to us in knowing how Judges are currently thinking, and gives us further motivation to continue fighting this scourge. 

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST. 

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news - very well done you!