Being taken to court for two PCNs from VCS for stopping at Liverpool Airport in 2018

Doddle1

Quick question if that's OK?

Seeing John3994's win today with an identical case ie under POFA the RK cannot be held liable on airport land I wonder whether I can complain that my judge got the law wrong?

If under POFA it's 100% law that the RK cannot be held liable on airport land how could my judge state that I was liable? Surely the law is the law. 

It would cost £120 to appeal and I've already paid the £317 fine but I wondered whether I could just complain to the court? Or am I being niave?

Coupon-mad

You can't just 'complain' to the court but you can try an application to appeal that the Judge 'erred in law'.

There was a clear error in your case, IMHO.

Your Judge didn't find as fact that you were driving, so there was no legal basis (at all) under which you, a keeper, could be liable.

Your Judge didn't need to see the byelaws to know this.  The POFA Schedule 4 tells him. It is not 'relevant land' so the POFA is not applied.

I doubt even VCS pleaded that POFA applies?

VCS know it doesn't. They probably 'assumed you were driving' which is the opposite of how Schedule 4 works, and that presumption was shown by your oral evidence to be wrong.

You were not driving.  Impossible to be held liable.

Doddle1

Coupon-mad said:

You can't just 'complain' to the court but you can try an application to appeal that the Judge 'erred in law'.

There was a clear error in your case, IMHO.

Your Judge didn't find as fact that you were driving, so there was no legal basis (at all) under which you, a keeper, could be liable.

Your Judge didn't need to see the byelaws to know this.  The POFA Schedule 4 tells him. It is not 'relevant land' so the POFA is not applied.

I doubt even VCS pleaded that POFA applies?

VCS know it doesn't. They probably 'assumed you were driving' which is the opposite of how Schedule 4 works, and that presumption was shown by your oral evidence to be wrong.

You were not driving.  Impossible to be held liable.

Thanks I think I'll look again at an appeal. In my WS I included signed letters by the passengers stating that I was not the driver and I wasn't even in the car at the time. I also included a very cute photo of the rescue dog that I was looking after that day and a statement from my husband that the dog suffered from anxiety and wouldn't let me leave his side for a minute so it would have been impossible to do a two hour round trip to the airport. The VCS rep must have thought it was his birthday as the judge opened by saying that my case was very weak!

Coupon-mad

Did VCS plead in their WS that you were liable as keeper under the POFA? I think they didn't and your Judge was clearly wrong on a point of law.

Doddle1

I've found the appeal form to ask the original Judge whether I can appeal which would mean that he would have to admit he was wrong - what a crazy system!

Would someone please look over the following to see whether it's accurate, strong enough and simple enough for this particular judge to understand this time!

 

In my Witness Statement I stated that I was not the driver on 28 October 2018, the date of the Parking Charge Notice. I provided signed statements from the two passengers confirming that I was not in the vehicle at any time.

I admitted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question however I denied liability as the Claimant failed to comply with the strict provisions of The Department for Transport Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 which states that Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability'

In my Witness Statement I confirmed that “driving and parking at Liverpool Airport is under the statutory control of Liverpool Airport Byelaws 2012”

The Judge stated that my case was weak and that I could not rely on the Department for Transport Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 as he didn’t know which  byelaws were in place at Liverpool Airport.

The specific byelaws were not a factor in determining whether POFA applied. The fact that byelaws exist means that, as stated in my Witness Statement “Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability'” 

It is a point of law that the registerred keeper cannot be held liable and I believe that the Judge erred in law in my case.

bargepole

Doddle1 said:

I've found the appeal form to ask the original Judge whether I can appeal which would mean that he would have to admit he was wrong - what a crazy system!

The form for an application to appeal does NOT go to the original Judge. It is looked at by the Circuit Judge, who will decide whether there are valid grounds to allow an appeal.

Your Grounds of Appeal should be written in the third person, in concise numbered paragraphs, and look nothing like what you have written.

bargepole

Here's one I did earlier (the appeal succeeded):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/botgka5mct8uf2o/N164 Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Doddle1

bargepole said:

Here's one I did earlier (the appeal succeeded):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/botgka5mct8uf2o/N164 Redacted.pdf?dl=0

That's really helpful thanks very much. Does this look any better? Is there anything else I should include as I feel I'm making the same point three times. 

1. The District Judge erred in law, in that he failed to recognise that the Appellant cannot be held liable as the registerred keeper for the actions of a driver under the  Department for Transport Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 which states that Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability'

2. The District Judge erred in law by stating the the Appellant could not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 because the Judge didn’t know which  byelaws were in place at Liverpool Airport. The specific byelaws are not a factor in determining whether POFA applies. Where byelaws exist such as airport land it is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability'” 

3. It is a point of law that the registerred keeper cannot be held liable and I believe that the Judge erred in law in my case.

 

Umkomaas

I don't think it's the Department for Transport's Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It covers many more larger issues than anything connected to transport. 

I'd describe it just as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

Snakes_Belly

Some of the DDJ's backgrounds are in family law or commercial. It's a broad church which is partly why it is such a lottery.

Hopefully when the new single appeal's service is introduced there will be adjudicators with specific knowledge and with the same discretion as the judiciary.