Bristol Airport VCS - Stopping to Drop Off Charge Notice - Pedestrian Crossing

Fruitcake

That's some really useful research and arguments.

Include it all plus all the other points previously mentioned, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. 
VCS have to win on every single point whereas you only have to get one to stick, including, stopping at a zebra crossing is not a byelaws offence.

You could also ask the VCS rep, who may even be SRS himself, to explain why the parking operative did not shout a warning to the passenger when they saw the rear door open.
Look up the "toothbrush case" and see the judges comments about the claimant in that case failing to mitigate their loss by warning the motorist not to leave site.
Don't forget to include a costs schedule and ask for costs at the end if you win, even if it means, saying "Judge, what about my costs?" just as the judge is getting up to leave.

Im_tired_of_this

Thanks @Fruitcake I will. Costs are already in. 

Im_tired_of_this

Evening all. Attached is first draft Witness Statement. Exhibits not in it yet. Any pointers, omissions, etc. very welcome. It is a PDF hosted on Google Drive. Click here.

I have commitments on Sunday, but on Monday evening I can finish it off and email it over to the court and to the claimant on Tuesday daytime; deadline is 4pm. 

I'm super grateful for the input of @Coupon-mad and @Fruitcake to date. 

Mouse007

Im_tired_of_this said:

This is the Google Street View photo of the first sign you see as you enter Bristol Airport. It is definitely not an offer of contract, to my non specialist reading. All the others are variants of this, mostly smaller with less content on them.

Is it possible it has changed between whenever Google took this photo and May 3rd this year, when the charge notice was issued?

 

I think you are correct, there is no offer in that sign. It is forbidding and there can be no breach of contract.

Good to see Jopson in your WS, but I didn't see this No Offer therefore No contract point, did I miss is?

OK I see it now 8.3 but I think you could perhaps be a bit clearer.

The Claimants claim is for breach of contract but they have failed to produce any contract. If their claim is that the sign created a contract I refute that claim because the sign contains no offer. Without an offer there can be no contract and therefore no breach.

It's a point which I think you should drive home

Otherwise to my quick read that looks quite promising.

Im_tired_of_this

Thank you @Mouse007 I will make a clearer emphasis on the contract point.

Regarding the sign, the event happened in April, so this is a view of the sign at the time. I've been since and it is still the same. 

ParkingMad

A couple of suggestions/amendments:

Jopson v Homeguard is claim number B9GF0A9E. I think the first B is missing in your WS.

Could you add a blank line in between each main paragraph number, to break up the text and make it easier to read?

Fruitcake

With regards to a contract, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance.

With no offer, there is nothing to consider, therefore nothing to accept, therefore no contract can be formed, therefore there can be no breach.

Half_way

As wella s the Jopson argument, another aspect is:

 Did the driver stop to allow someone to get out, Or

did the driver stop somewhere - such as a pedestrian crossing, fuel station, barrier  etc at which point the passenger exited the vehicle ? the only way to stop this would be to plough on through and over pedestrian crossings, traffic lights an so on regardless of the colour of the light or if people are walking over a crossing

1505grandad

Also is the SoT complete?:-

"I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true........"

Im_tired_of_this

1505grandad said:

Also is the SoT complete?:-

"I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true........"

Thanks @1505grandad I'll double check before submitting, that it is of the correct format and content.