Appeal rejected for private parking fine - what next?

Coupon-mad

Copy the EMA one from a couple of weeks ago where I wrote extra paragraphs including one about the Traffic Management Act.

para 32 needs to be higher up - a good point!

Not_A_Hope

I can provide evidence of the flight taken though it did land an hour before the 'breach'. Is it worth mentioning that in my defence or would that come as witness/evidence stage? 

Whilst continuing not to state who the driver was I would mention that you were not the driver and can evidence that you were on an inbound flight that day. Don’t mention landing an hour before the breach. It might be another defence point that might make them back out before a hearing. 

In your WS you can state travelling through the airport, queuing through passport control and waiting for baggage took an hour. Though you should win on POFA alone all you are trying to do is make sure on the balance of probabilities the judge believes you were not the driver.

nopcns

The judge cannot just "believe" you were the driver or not. The judge has to make a decision based on fact. There is no need to evidence that fact at this stage as it can be expanded on at WS.

If you deny being the driver, and only the driver can be liable for the charge, the burden is on VCS to prove you were the driver. There is no burden on you to prove otherwise. However, should this vexatious claim ever make it in front of a judge, you would be the only witness there to give evidence and your denial will have much more weight that a witness statement from an office-bound paralegal who has, in all likelihood, never even driven to the location.

Just like the Claimant cannot "presume" or "assume" or even "infer" that you were the driver whether you emphatically deny it or just refuse to answer the question, nether can the judge. As has already been stated, there is persuasive precedent that disallows any other way of interpreting it other than the Claimant is the party that must prove their allegation. It is not for the Defendant to disprove it.

VCS have form for abusing the process and should know better. Any action brought by them based solely on the "presumption, "assumption" or "inference" that the Defendant was the driver can be nothing but  unreasonable behaviour. 

Ange1402

Thanks for your comments all. Some great feedback which I will incorporate into my defence. Will submit and keep you posted. Can anyone advise how long it takes until I hear back re the next stage?

Ange1402

Ok, so i've read that it can take 2-3 months for the next stage following submitting my defence but @Coupon-mad can you please point me in the right direction for for the EMA defence with the paras from on the traffic management act. I have searched the forum and browsed the latest threads but can't see it. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Just search for Airport Traffic defence or similar

Ange1402

Ok, I think i've found the airport traffic defence!  Following feedback I've edited my defence, making the following changes: 

Para 31 and 32 (lack of standing or landowner authority) have been moved to be new paras 3 and 4 (so above no keeper liability).

I've added in the airport traffic defence (the text below) between no keeper liability defence and exaggerated claim:

Road Traffic Act (is there a better sub heading?)

12. Further and by way of alternative defence: Airport approach roads are subject to road traffic enactments (public highway).  The Claimant is also put to strict proof that this access road is not part of the public highway. A 'public highway' is any road maintained by public expense where the public would normally have a right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle. It is averred that the Airport approach road is 'public highway' and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

13.  The Defendant believes that the approach road comes off a roundabout and is not clearly demarcated as 'private land', nor is it a private car park and thus, any parking/traffic contraventions on this roadway would be a matter for the local authority. Such roads are subject to the rules of the Road Traffic Act and statutory instrument and any 'PCN' must be a proper penalty charge notice issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. As such, the claimant is put to strict proof that this approach road is a part of 'the Airport' site where road traffic enactments do not apply.

14.  The roadway referred to is in fact subject to road traffic enactments rather than airport byelaws, as per the Airport Act 1986:

''65 Control of road traffic at designated airports -

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.''

Both the Airport Act 1986 and the airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply. This location is publicly accessible and therefore the Road Traffic Act applies.

What do you think? Any further edits needed before I submit?

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

That's the one!

Ange1402

Can I double check something please, I emailed over the n180 yesterday evening ( deadline tomorrow) copying in elms legal but received an email to say they don’t accept service via email.  Can I ignore or shall I post them a copy? I’ve seen mixed info on the forum when searching. Thanks! 

Coupon-mad

Ange1402 said:

Can I double check something please, I emailed over the n180 yesterday evening ( deadline tomorrow) copying in elms legal but received an email to say they don’t accept service via email.  Can I ignore or shall I post them a copy? I’ve seen mixed info on the forum when searching. Thanks! 

Answered 4 minutes ago, similar Q:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80741156/#Comment_80741156