We won today

bargepole

BelladonnaTook said:

I might find out if there's a campaign about the Limitation Act then and join it ! 

There isn't.

It's been statute law for over 40 years, and I don't believe there's ever been a serious challenge. 

The 6 year limit applies to any action based on contract. For Personal Injury, it's 3 years, and for Defamation it's 1 year. Whereas for property transactions, it's 12 years.

These are all arbitrary lines in the sand, but they have to be drawn somewhere.

BelladonnaTook

"It's been statute law for over 40 years, and I don't believe there's ever been a serious challenge."

So it has been statute law for 40 years - does that mean all parts of it are morally and ethically RIGHT?
Of course not.

Any alleged 'contravention', any alleged 'offence' - indeed any alleged crime - would be imho, far better served by putting it through a Common Sense, Truth and Integrity filter (I guess some would say that sounds more in line with Common Law) than an immensely clunky 'system' full of over-complex legalese designed by the Few for the ultimate benefit of the Few, much of it created merely to oppress than to achieve justice.
 
It is all a game. A rarely amusing game.

Umkomaas

far better served by putting it through a Common Sense, Truth and Integrity filter

I think Jeremy Kyle has a spare that he's no longer using. 

bargepole

Any new law which reaches the Statute Book has to go through three readings in the Commons and the Lords (our democratically elected and unelected representatives), with Committee Stages inbetween, usually involving some redrafting. All of this can take up to two years, so you could argue that is the common sense filter.

Then when it becomes law, there are usually cases argued in higher courts, and the Judiciary will need to interpret that law as it applies to a particular set of circumstances. That is the basis of the English common law system.

In 1980, when the Limitation Act was drafted by Government lawyers, PPCs didn't exist, so it was not within their contemplation that private parking tickets would fall under the six year rule. The MoJ were approached with a suggestion that these should be treated differently, with a 12-month limit on court action, but this was never taken up.

BelladonnaTook

Please could someone check over my WS before I send  it. I'm away on hols so it is a pain but there y'go
Thank you so much.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wof1zb9v7clxu4k/redacted%20FINAL%20WS.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Very good.

I think in para 5. remove the first sentence before the semi-colon because there is a level of obligation on a driver to read a sign they've seen and saying there isn't a need to go read a sign, is an easy point for the legal rep to seize on.  

I am concerned that you refer a lot to the new Govt Code.  You call it the 2019 Act but it isn't, it's the new incoming Code (published Feb 2022) that isn't even implemented yet.  As this wasn't in place at the time, the only way it makes sense to use it is to say (WHEN YOU FIRST REFER TO IT) that this Code - apart from banning the false debt recovery costs and declaring them as 'designed to extort money from motorists' brings in nothing new or different that CS were not already required to do.  It merely restates a combination of best practice, the two existing Codes and trite law (Consumer Rights Act 2015 re the requirement for both 'terms' and 'consumer notices' - signs AND letters - to be fair, clear and also, for the first time in 2015, there was a new requirement, that signs and terms MUST be 'prominent').

The example WS by @wobs2k has wording about why a Code that's not retrospective still matters, and about the DLUHC declaring the add-on to have been 'extortion' which is a clear steer for the courts.

I may have missed it but didn't see you add something (that was presumably in your defence) that you've seen no evidence of authority flowing from the actual landowner that includes enforcement of this particular area beside the Range, and what terms, grace periods and exemptions for paying customers were applicable at those bays, according to the landowner.

When you email it, send the bundle to the local court and VCS at the same time (cc'd into the same email) so VCS can't play their usual trick, as often reported, of the legal rep at the hearing pretending VCS were not served with it.

BelladonnaTook

Thank you, you are a star.
I have edited it =https://www.dropbox.com/s/3flooez1lhqzgbc/redacted%20FINAL%20WS.pdf?dl=0

1505grandad

Just checking  -  when you refer to another paragraph is it the correct number i.e:-

Para 34  -  "Also see paragraph 17 above for my previous point regarding ‘0 minutes maximum’"

Is the above correct as para 17 states:-

"17. The Private Parking Code of Practice 2019, states that signs must indicate clearly in

shared-use land whether and where different terms, conditions and restrictions apply

but VCS fails to comply with this and in fact, their signs stating, Welcome to Liverpool

Innovation Park Car Park actually indicate the opposite."

Should it in fact refer to para 20.  Therefore should the para in 20 be 34?

Also a heads-up -  your Costs schedule in exhibits is numbered 14 (should be 15?) 

.

Coupon-mad

Costs schedule should never be an exhibit anyway.  It isn't one.

BelladonnaTook

 Thank you!
I hope i've got it right finally...run out of time if i haven't... Zzzzzzzz  https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzu9ifnozjcncrj/redacted%20FINAL%20WS%202254.pdf?dl=0