Charge notice from John Lennon Airport for “No Stopping” - ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th September, you have until Monday 13th October to file an Acknowledgment of Service.  Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 28th September, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 28th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Wilkes1402

Thank you for the responses it is very much appreciated, I have been reading as much as I can on this forum and have the standard defence points prepared, what I am struggling with is how best to approach this for point 3 (EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS).

It is relatively clear from the pictures that the vehicle was stopped for a pickup, there are mitigating circumstances but I dont believe these will be relevant? or do I mention this now it is going to court.

I am confused about if I should tell them who the driver was at the time.. I have been reading it might be best to admit this as the judge could ask this directly?

The driver didnt see the signage and it was dark but upon checking google maps it is on the lead up to where the vehicle was stopped.

Any pointers would be great.

Many thanks

LDast

Have a read of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on your claim form. Are you being sued for a breach of contract? What "contract" do you imagine you have breached? How was that contract formed?

It is not for the judge to ask you whether you were the driver, even though they could do so. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver, even if a judge asks. Whilst some will quiver and blab, the judge has to base their decision on the facts. Balance of probability only comes into it if there are no other facts on which to make a decision.

The burden of proof is on the claimant to identify the driver. How do you imagine they could do that?

Wilkes1402

I will read into the "contract" part and prepare some points regarding this.

Ah so hold ground on the driver point then! makes sense

Thank you LDast

Coupon-mad

Why not just read & learn from the other VCS airport case discussed tonight?  I think they are working in their WS but the specific paragraphs used could be part of a defence.

No link: that would involve us going looking at the thread titles and that's what you need to do, to find it

Wilkes1402

THanks Coupon-mad, I have had a read over that and the other posts and come up with the following:

The facts as known to the Defendant

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Claimant fails to state a Cause of Action, offering only boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ("the POC") that are characteristic of the bulk claims submitted by this Claimant. The Claimant sets out a menu of choices claiming that the Defendant was “the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle”. As such, the Defendant is unable to determine whether the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as registered keeper or driver. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

No keeper liability

3.    As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the breach, it must be presumed they are claiming against the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle.

4.    Keeper liability is denied. The Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (“POFA”) Schedule 4 states that a creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of a vehicle if the driver is not known. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that land is not 'relevant' where byelaws apply. The land entered is land subject to byelaws enacted in Liverpool John Lennon Airport and is therefore not ‘relevant land’. POFA cannot be used by the Claimant to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

5.    Further, the vehicle keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm.  Had this been the intention of Parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter and this has been tested on appeal more than once in private parking cases and the following transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

(i).   In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii).     In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be held liable outwith the POFA and no adverse inference be drawn, if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..."   Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.

No valid contract formed

6.    The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for a breach of contract by the Driver, however not at any point in material time was any contract agreed. It is denied that the neither the Driver or Defendant breached any advertised terms and conditions that were specifically detailed on signage. It is disputed that the signage constitutes the making a contractual offer.

6.2 As the signage is forbidding, it does not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case, neither the Claimant, nor their principal, the landowner, is offering anything to the Defendant. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. The aforementioned point was tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims on these grounds.

6.3 Furthermore, it is disputed that the signage is clear and prominent. The font size is too small and the words too many ie it falls far short of the requirements for road signs as detailed in the UK government’s “Traffic Signs Manual”.

6.4 The details given on the signage are inadequate to form the basis of a contract. -

6.4.1 No offer is defined.

6.4.2 The geographical area over which any contract would apply is not defined, thus rendering compliance impossible.

6.4.3 The specific circumstance under which stopping would/would not contravene the contract are not defined. Within an area open to public access by vehicles, there clearly needs to be provision for vehicles to stop in specific circumstances. For example, if way were blocked by pedestrians, in such case compliance would be illegal. Furthermore, as this is an airport access road the vast majority of the traffic will be using the road to conduct business at the airport and this will in most cases entail stopping.

6.5 These inadequacies in signage render any motorist attempting to safely travel through the site at 30mph, whilst navigating traffic, wholly incapable of even reading/understanding any alleged terms offered by said signage. It then follows that the formation of any contract based upon these terms is impossible. It is an ironic fact that the only way any sign could be read, would be to stop.

6.6 On the material date, the Driver was unaware that they were entering private land and was unfamiliar with any local rules for stopping in the vicinity of Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA). The Driver was not alerted to this fact by any signage and thus could not have entered into any contract. The Driver appears to have stopped at the side of the road for less than a minute as they could not locate the free drop off zone. The driver only became aware of the local rules for stopping when a PCN was received after the event.

 

7.     The Claimant does NOT appear to have any responsibilities or any authority outside of the car parks. The images provided by Claimant clearly show the vehicle outside the car parks. Here is the relevant extract from Liverpool Jon Lennon Airport’s terms and conditions,

“1.5 In addition to these Terms, our parking enforcement operator, VCS Control Services Limited, also have terms and conditions, which apply once you have entered a car park at the Airport.  They relate to our requirements for the parking of vehicles in our car parks, and how such requirements are enforced if not met.  Their terms and conditions are located at the entrance of our car parks, and within each car park itself.  If you are not prepared to comply with their terms and conditions then please do not enter the car park.”

The full terms can be viewed at,
www.liverpoolairport.com/parking/terms-and-conditions-car-parks

Liverpool John Lennon Airport is private land. VCS do not have authority from the landowner to issue parking charges on roads that are covered by airport byelaws. It was confirmed in a recent court case that VCS' authority does not extend to roads - it is only inside car parks that VCS have authority. LJLA's own parking T&Cs state categorically that VCS have authority only when a car enters a car park.

 

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss....

Gr1pr

Typo in 7. Jon. !

Le_Kirk

6.    The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for a breach of contract by the Driver, however not at any at no point in during the material time was any contract agreed. It is denied that the neither the Driver or nor the Defendant breached any advertised terms and conditions that were specifically detailed on signage. It is disputed that the signage constitutes the making of a contractual offer.

You might want to rewrite that paragraph.

Coupon-mad

Looks good. I would add here:

the following transcripts involved this same Claimant and their 'sister' firm and will be adduced in evidence:

Wilkes1402

thank you all, Coupon-mad, not sure if there is a missing image or two in your post? not sure I am following sorry.