VCS Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) No Stopping Court Date

JustLooking90

DisruptiveLad said:

VCS have NO authority to issue these demands OUTSIDE of a car park at LJLA. 

I will be using this as the main argument. Do I just point out they haven't provided me with anything that states they have the authority to issue the demands outside of a car park at ljla? 

Also, the contract they have included in their pack was signed in 2013, and it says its for a duration of 24 months. If they haven't included a renewed contract, does this mean its too late for them to use it in court? 

Fruitcake

If you have a copy of the contract, does it say they can operate outside car parks? If not, then you say that the contract does not give them authority to act on airport roads where the alleged event occurred, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Similarly, you say the same thing about the contract having ended after 24 months, and put the claimant to strict proof that it was renewed, and was in force at the time of the alleged event.

With regards to the surface markings/double lines, state that stopping is permitted on single or double yellow lines and put the claimant to strict proof that the lines are red, and that the vehicle was actually stopped on double red lines, and this is clearly identified on signs at the airport entrance and signs within sight of the driver at the material location.

JustLooking90

Fruitcake said:

If you have a copy of the contract, does it say they can operate outside car parks? If not, then you say that the contract does not give them authority to act on airport roads where the alleged event occurred, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Similarly, you say the same thing about the contract having ended after 24 months, and put the claimant to strict proof that it was renewed, and was in force at the time of the alleged event.

With regards to the surface markings/double lines, state that stopping is permitted on single or double yellow lines and put the claimant to strict proof that the lines are red, and that the vehicle was actually stopped on double red lines, and this is clearly identified on signs at the airport entrance and signs within sight of the driver at the material location.

@Fruitcake Thanks for this. It says "...land at Liverpool John Lennon Airport..." but doesn't specify clearly what land. Also, the images are from the rear of the car, so there is no clear evidence of red lines under the car, or in front, and no location stamp. The images also show no clear signage regarding the "No Stopping" area. I know it's been mentioned before that VCS have no legal right to issue these PCNs outside of car parks but I'm running out of time so need to back up my argument on other fronts also. I've attached the contract images below. Might be useful for others. 

Fruitcake

I see no mention of a rolling contract. It does say at 5.3 that the client or company may enter into negotiations regarding renewal. If no such renewal contract has been provided then you should aver that it was never renewed and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. Note that the judge may say that the fact that VCS are there, the airport operator must know about it, and therefore VCS must authority to act, but if you don't ask, you don't get.

The contract says VCS can operate on non-adopted roadways, so you need to determine if the place where the alleged event occurred is or isn't an adopted road. Is the location within the contracted area shown on the contract map?

Parking/waiting on a roadway is covered, but not "stopping". I would argue that the Jopson case applies as loading unloading of people and/or goods is not parking or waiting, (nor stopping for that matter.
Did the NTK and particulars of claim say the alleged infringement was stopping, which is not covered, or did it specifically say parking/waiting?

You should double check my findings, but I have had a look at Companies House records and as far as I can tell,  Lucy "O'Shaugnessy?" nor anyone with a similar name has ever been an officer (director/company secretary) of Liverpool Airport Limited, nor has anyone of that name or similar ever been a person with significant control.

In other words, they never had the authority to sign a contract in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 Section 43, and the contract document was never validly executed in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 Section 44.
Let the judge make of that what they will.

TM74

Hi I'm in the middle of my own ( highview case ) but just saw this and thought I'd add that after using this forum back in 2018/19 VCS took me to court in Sheffield, they even sent me a letter saying my case looked weak and they were confident of winning despite trying to offer me a reduced rate .

They lost in court and when the all suited guy suggested can they appeal the kind madam judge also ruled against it.

Must admit I need all sorts of help from here and it's invaluable but my case wasn't the best in terms of what I wrote and the Judge was absolutely brilliant!

DisruptiveLad

Fruitcake, Lucy O'Shaughnessy is the Commercial Director at LJLA and in 2013 signed the contract with VCS as Retail Director. LJLA's own parking Ts and Cs state categorically that VCS have authority ONLY when a car enters a car park. I won for my step-daughter on that very point. The contract has NOT been renewed because VCS' rep was unable to produce it in court on March 10. 

DisruptiveLad

The question is now: Which section of the Companies Act 2006 takes precedence? Sec 43 - Contracts - LO'S was entitled to sign it; Sec 44 - Executed docs - still entitled to sign, but needed second signature and witness? Any thoughts?

Fruitcake

DisruptiveLad said:

Fruitcake, Lucy O'Shaughnessy is the Commercial Director at LJLA and in 2013 signed the contract with VCS as Retail Director. LJLA's own parking Ts and Cs state categorically that VCS have authority ONLY when a car enters a car park. I won for my step-daughter on that very point. The contract has NOT been renewed because VCS' rep was unable to produce it in court on March 10. 

Unless I have missed it, her name does not appear in the Companies House lists of Officers, or Persons with significant control, irrespective of what her job title purports to be.

As for your other question, I have already answered that to the best of my ability. I believe it would need a judge in a higher court to decide, which is why I suggest always quoting both sections in a defence.

DisruptiveLad

She doesn't need to be 'listed' to sign a document. See Sec 43 Companies Act 2006.

JustLooking90

I've just been going through the agreement with a fine tooth comb trying to identify some points to bring up with VCS, and think I've found a major one. 

On all PCNs and NTK I received it states the contravention as being 

"46) Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited"

However, in the 2013 agreement provided by VCS (images above), they quote Schedule One of their parking policy. If you look at code 46) it actually states:

(46) Parking/Waiting on a roadway where stopping is prohibited

Firstly, if those two statements don't match, there should be clear grounds for a discontinuance. And secondly, if there is no discontinuance, surely the mention of the Jepson case is enough to get this quashed.

Let me know your thoughts