VCS - Court claim - Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited

Coupon-mad

Yes, keep the rest for the WS.  Yes that is stuff you can expand on later.

Maybe remove this from where it's buried and put it in paragraph 2, where I also think you should state the location because at the moment, you don't even explain early on that it's an Airport:

The Defendant understands that being lost and disoriented due to the roadways constitutes a reasonable excuse.  

B789

Coupon-mad said:

The existence of byelaws in the area also means that the land is not ‘relevant’ as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), paragraph 3 of Section 4. The vague particulars state the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle”, showing that the Claimant has failed to identify a clear Cause of Action.  It’s not obvious if the driver Claimant is pursuing the Claimant Defendant as the registered keeper, or the driver.  Since this is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle. 

Just correcting an error^^^

Coupon-mad

Yep I saw that too, but the entire section is removed so I didn't bother!  Good idea though because the OP might use that in the later WS.

spikeycacti22

Thanks B789 for pointing that out, I've updated my notes for potenial WS content.

I've now amended para 2 to set out the land in question and the Defendant's reason to be there:

2. The Defendant travelled to Leeds Bradford airport on the date to occupy pre-paid parking.  It is admitted that the Defendant was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.  The Defendant understands that being lost and disoriented due to the roadways constitutes a reasonable excuse for stopping momentarily.

I have also changed the point relating to the bye-law to not repeat the exact wording from above:

i. Byelaw 5.16. “No person shall without reasonable excuse when on foot or whilst using, driving or propelling a Vehicle, neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by: - A sign [...], Any road marking on such a road... ”. Being lost and disoriented can be considered a reasonable excuse. 

I have 30 different defence sections when including the additional template sections relevant template sections for no stopping. Is that too long?

Coupon-mad

No that's fine.  Your changes look great.

B789

spikeycacti22 said:

2. The Defendant travelled to Leeds Bradford airport on the date to occupy pre-paid parking.  It is admitted that the Defendant was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.  The Defendant understands that being lost and disoriented due to the roadways and confusing signs constitutes a reasonable excuse for stopping momentarily in order to verify directions.

Just wondering if it may be worth adding the highlighted bits above?

Fruitcake

I would still mention Jopson v Homeguard where the judge stated that stopping to attend to a vicissitude of some short duration is not parking, then quote the judges actual words in your WS. This was an appeal case and therefore persuasive on the lower courts, and stopping due to being lost would constitute a vicissitude of some short duration.

It only needs to be a short paragraph in your defence, but you cannot rely on it in your WS unless you have already mentioned it in your defence.

Due you have any images/video of the site or of the VCS camera van? The ANPR van at Bristol Airport bears the legend, Road Safety Unit but does not state what the clandestine images will be used for, which is a breach of the CCTV CoP.

spikeycacti22

B789 said:

Just wondering if it may be worth adding the highlighted bits above?

Thanks B789. I think these are good additions, particularly since the Government's new code that's under review specifically references a driver checking for directions as an exemption (even for no stopping cases). I will reference that directly in the WS.

Fruitcake said:
It only needs to be a short paragraph in your defence, but you cannot rely on it in your WS unless you have already mentioned it in your defence.

I'm wondering what's the right approach to use this in the defence? I understand the situation can consistitute a "stopping" rather than a "parking", but that aligns with what's apparently been breached here, i.e. "no stopping". I think the argument is that POFA and IPC Code of Practice doesn't have any guidance regarding these charges so it undermines the legitimacy? Do you have another suggestion for how it can be used?

This is my attempt at adding it back in:

In the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that stopping can be defined as  “[...] coping with some vicissitude of short duration.” The Defendant’s vehicle stopping for a period of less than 30 seconds can be considered a “stopping” event as opposed to “parking”. There is no reference to “stopping” charge terms within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), nor is there any guidance relating to such in the IPC’s code of practice. It would seem the Claimant is operating under its own assumptions and ruling when attempting to enforce such penalties.

 

Fruitcake said:
Due you have any images/video of the site or of the VCS camera van? The ANPR van at Bristol Airport bears the legend, Road Safety Unit but does not state what the clandestine images will be used for, which is a breach of the CCTV CoP.

I have the evidence they've provided from the NTK etc but not much else. Given the angle of the photographs (high up) it looks like it's taken from a permanent CCTV / ANPR camera positioned on the DOPU roadway rather than a camera van. I'm still waiting response for my SAR response.

I've checked Google street view to look for signs with T&Cs and also the specific car park sign, but didn't find any. However, the streetview images are slightly out of date (March '21).

I'm planning to visit the airport tomorrow to walk through the roads on foot and see what I can find. I've got to find a nearby road nearby that I can stop on first though.......

Coupon-mad

...particularly since the Government's new code that's under review specifically references a driver checking for directions as an exemption (even for no stopping cases). I will reference that directly in the WS. 

I was quite proud of getting that in! 

I think remove this (below) as they are not able to use the POFA (and are not trying to) and the IPC CoP does allow stopping to be treated as parking so VCS are not making it up.  AND it's not a penalty and they never claimed it was:

"There is no reference to “stopping” charge terms within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), nor is there any guidance relating to such in the IPC’s code of practice. It would seem the Claimant is operating under its own assumptions and ruling when attempting to enforce such penalties."

spikeycacti22

Coupon-mad said:

I was quite proud of getting that in! 

Certainly an appreciated and logical addition!

Okay so I think I could add that as point 3, so my defence would read:

2. The Defendant travelled to Leeds Bradford airport on the date to occupy pre-paid parking.  It is admitted that the Defendant was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, but liability is denied.  The Defendant understands that being lost and disoriented due to the roadways and confusing signs constitutes a reasonable excuse for stopping momentarily, in order to verify directions. 

3. In the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that stopping can be defined as  “[...] coping with some vicissitude of short duration.” The Defendant’s vehicle stopping for a period of less than 30 seconds can be considered a “stopping” event as opposed to “parking”.

I'm struggling with how I can expand on that point further in my WS. I can understand it more if the charge was for parking but because the charge is for 'stopping', then I'm not sure what the value is in the quote +  judgement. I'd really like to include it if it's going to stengthen the case but I feel like I might be missing something?!

I've removed reference to the following from the template defence as I don't think they are relevant to my particulars, since there's no claim that an additional clause has been added afterwards.

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded

Would you agree they're distinguished from my situation?