Didnt pay to drop someone off at Gatwick airport: Do I have a defence?

MothballsWallet

@Fruitcake yet Companies House doesn't check what data is given to it by businesses, so that mistake could have gone unnoticed for a long time.

1505grandad

Suggestion  -  if the OP is still progressing this thread  -  in view of the facts stated in the last sentence in above para 3 (to be signed under a SoT) perhaps the posts on the first page should be amended accordingly?  

Coupon-mad

Other way round.  If this OP was the driver they MUST remove the untruth!

bamme89

Coupon-mad said:

bamme89 said:

Ah okay, to avoid messing up the rest of your layout I can put it like this?

3. Neither the Defendant or the driver of the vehicle noticed any clear signage around the stopping point. There was no parking meter or payment facility, or anything suggesting payment was required. Therefore no party in the vehicle was aware there was a charge. Given the road layout, nor would there have been a possibility of turning the vehicle around regardless - in essence it would have been impossible to read any terms and decide against them. This makes it (arguably) the imposition of a contract term unfairly. Furthermore, as a matter of fact and law, the Claimant (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the POFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'.  If the Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because the Claimant is not the Airport owner and their 'parking charge' was not and never attempted to be a penalty.  It was created for their own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and the Claimant has relied on contract law allegations of breach against a driver only. The Defendant was not that driver and cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

That is pretty much there but just needs splitting from 'Furthermore' into para 4, then renumbering the template below.  

EDIT: Your first post told us who was driving.  If you know it was you, no lying about it in a court submission.  The whole of the above will need re-writing, if you were driving, as you MUST tell the truth.

I wasn’t driving - I have an airplane ticket to prove it. I just thought for simplicity’s sake to write in first person as I didn’t think at that point that it made any difference if I was driving or not, I assumed I was still liable - I will edit the first post if my forum membership allows me to, it hasn’t thus far as I am new

1505grandad

Yes  -  I too would never suggest lying to the Court so I made my suggestion based upon the OP's post on page 2 here:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79418147/#Comment_79418147

which stated:-

"I picked up on this point and actually was not driving, I had a flight that day and pretty sure I can provide the ticket. I assumed I was still the one responsible for paying hence me writing in first person."

bamme89

KeithP said:

bamme89 said:

KeithP said:

bamme89 said:

KeithP said:

bamme89 said:

ah.. I have found 

"The CCBC can be contacted by sending an email to ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk "

I will try this...

I don't know where you found that address but it is out of date.

All the CCBC's email addresses are at @justice.gov.uk and have been for several years.

Strange I got it from the moneyclaims website

As you say... strange.

I've looked and I can't see it there. But as you haven't given a link I guess I haven't looked where you have seen it.


But all that aside, why on earth are you fiddling about with posting your Defence?
The guidance on the Parking Board, - and indeed in your very own thread on the Parking Board - explains exactly how to file a Defence, and it doesn't rely upon Royal Mail's postal services.

And I'll say it again as it looks like you may have missed my earlier post...

KeithP said:

Is this related to your existing NCP thread on the Parking board?
If so, it's probably best to keep all discussion about that one incident in one thread - or at least on the same board. 

Ah sorry here https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/ccbc.aspx

That website you have shown us clearly is nothing to do with HM Courts Service.
It says at the bottom of that page...

...and they appear to have not updated it for several years.

How did you find that? What is missing from the guidance you have already been pointed towards?

Is this related to your existing NCP thread on the Parking board?

hi so sorry yes it is - I notice coupon mad also mentioned this one is in the wrong place, may I ask how to move the thread? or do I just stop posting here and continue with my original one?

MSE_ForumTeam5

We've merged the two threads

bamme89

hi guys apologies for not updating sooner - I tried emailing my defence to both email addresses detailed above in the thread from a different email address, I got an auto response instantly to acknowledge. So I guess for some reason the initial email from my first account went into the junk and if anyone else experiences this issue it might be useful to just send an email from a different email address.

I also received some data in response to my SAR from NCP. It contained some images of my car entering and exiting as well as some letters. I just want to check these 2 points below as being valid for bringing into my hearing to support the defence (the main point being I was not the person driving so not liable to pay the charge)

1. An image of the car driving in shows a person in the passenger seat (me, a small built girl) and a larger person in the driver seat. The image of the car driving out clearly shows a male with a grey beard driving with nobody in the passenger seat (as I have left the vehicle and gone into the airport).

2. The timestamp on the photo of the car titled 'North terminal forecourt entry' was 13:37, and 13:41 on the photo of the car titled 'North terminal forecourt exit'. This assumedly is a record of the car entering and exiting within just 4 minutes. I feel this supports the following point of the defence:

'Neither the Defendant or the driver of the vehicle noticed any clear signage around the stopping point. There was no parking meter or payment facility, or anything suggesting payment was required. Therefore no party in the vehicle was aware there was a charge. Given the road layout, nor would there have been a possibility of turning the vehicle around regardless. In essence it would have been impossible to read any terms and decide against them. This makes it (arguably) the imposition of a contract term unfairly. 

It indicates that the car was barely there long enough to have noticed or read any signage if it was present and/or confusion around the road layout and the impossibility of turning the car around, as the car barely stopped at all - only just long enough for me to get out of the car with my case.

Coupon-mad

Add this:

The British Parking Association are known to be currently investigating several complaints about the lack of prominent signage and lack of any grace period to read the terms at this site, where NCP are attempting to run it as if it is an instant ticket 'no stopping zone' (absurd for a drop off area) with no consideration period nor methods of payment conspicuously available.

Your main point will be the fact that this is not 'relevant land' (POFA 2012 definition) being an Airport under statutory control of byelaws.  As such, there is no provision in law to support any cause of action against the registered keeper. Given that the photographs clearly show a male driving and the female Defendant can also evidence that she actually took a flight (she was the passenger being dropped off) the claim must fail.  The Particulars of Claim are misconceived. It is denied that the Defendant is liable as keeper on Airport land.  It is denied that she was driving.  The claim should be struck out upon the first review by a Judge following allocation.

bamme89

Coupon-mad said:

Add this:

The British Parking Association are known to be currently investigating several complaints about the lack of prominent signage and lack of any grace period to read the terms at this site, where NCP are attempting to run it as if it is an instant ticket 'no stopping zone' (absurd for a drop off area) with no consideration period nor methods of payment conspicuously available.

Your main point will be the fact that this is not 'relevant land' (POFA 2012 definition) being an Airport under statutory control of byelaws.  As such, there is no provision in law to support any cause of action against the registered keeper. Given that the photographs clearly show a male driving and the female Defendant can also evidence that she actually took a flight (she was the passenger being dropped off) the claim must fail.  The Particulars of Claim are misconceived. It is denied that the Defendant is liable as keeper on Airport land.  It is denied that she was driving.  The claim should be struck out upon the first review by a Judge following allocation.

Thanks so much this is great news. I will now be preparing my witness statement. My hearing is on the 30 May 2023, but the the notice of allocation letter details the 3rd Jan 2023 as the deadline for submitting my documents. This is over 4 months in advance. I read on this forum that the deadline will usually be 14 days prior to the case and sometimes earlier but this seems very very early.

I ask because I have another hearing for a separate PCN (surprise surprise) on 14 Jan, and in this notice of allocation, I am asked to submit my documents the day before (13 jan). 

Am I misreading something here?