Bristol Airport NTK - 104) Stopping to Pick-Up/Drop Off In a Restricted Zone

Umkomaas

@LDast - thanks for Dropbox links. Duly bookmarked. 😊

Coupon-mad

I think going by the latest draft defence, the OP should remove para 5 and 7.

Also para 8 is wrong because it's an Airport, so VCS are clearly not relying on the POFA.  So remove that too.

10 and 18 are repetition of the paragraphs above them, so delete those to make this defence more on point.

Move 14 and 15 up to become paragraph 3 and 4 (moving the rest down) because the fact that the driver had to stop at a zebra crossing is the main defence.

And if you were the driver, admit it in para 2 because VCS cases are likely to go to a hearing where you will have to give an honest witness account.  Don't try to hide who was driving.

 it is the judges view that this short defence for poorly pleaded claims,

Yes - I do see that could work for cases which fail to meet the requirements of Part 16 - but I don't agree that these POC (in this case) are so poor that the short defence should be tried.

These POC look substantially sufficient to me but remember that para 2 of the Template Defence does already mention poor POC, so that base is covered.

RRTechie

Also para 8 is wrong because it's an Airport, so VCS are clearly not relying on the POFA.  So remove that too.

@Coupon-mad:  VCS state in the PoC..

"4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4."

So in this instance they are relying upon the POFA? Do you still recommend to remove Para. 8 please?



The Claim is for two PCNs that are a week apart. Both PCNs detailed Pick Up/Drop Off in a Restricted Zone.
I checked over the images for the two PCNs for the alleged offences and noted the following:

Drop-Off:
Images time span 6 seconds during which passenger alighted due to car being stationary anyway.

No traffic infront of or behind me.

Traffic lights red throughout.

- Traffic Lights red, pedestrian cross lights red, pedestrians waiting to cross.

- Traffic lights red, pedestrians crossing.
At no time were the traffic lights green.

Pick-Up:

Images span a period of 16 seconds during which passenger got in.
No traffic infront of or behind me.
Traffic lights green throughout.
- Traffic lights green throughout
- Part way through pedestrians cross even though traffic lights are green presumably because they saw car was stopped.

RRTechie

My Defence no longer has any reference to inadequate signage and the fact that signage states no stopping but to read the signage you'd have to stop and stopping is forbidding. Is there any need to add this back in please? Has this ever had any benefit in any case with VCS please?

FYI: My intention is to email my Defence across tomorrow circa midday.

Coupon-mad

RRTechie said:

My Defence no longer has any reference to inadequate signage 

It would do, if you used the Template Defence.

@Coupon-mad:

Also para 8 is wrong because it's an Airport, so VCS are clearly not relying on the POFA.  So remove that too.
 

RRTechie said:

VCS state in the PoC..

"4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4."

So in this instance they are relying upon the POFA? Do you still recommend to remove Para. 8 please?

You should replace it with a paragraph pointing out that the C is trying to mislead the court and consumer Defendant about keeper liability under the POFA, which does not apply on land under statutory control (e.g. airports).

WAIT: you already have that in para 9.

RRTechie

Coupon-mad said:

RRTechie said:

My Defence no longer has any reference to inadequate signage 

It would do, if you used the Template Defence.

@Coupon-mad:

Also para 8 is wrong because it's an Airport, so VCS are clearly not relying on the POFA.  So remove that too.
 

RRTechie said:

VCS state in the PoC..

"4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4."

So in this instance they are relying upon the POFA? Do you still recommend to remove Para. 8 please?

You should replace it with a paragraph pointing out that the C is trying to mislead the court and consumer Defendant about keeper liability under the POFA, which does not apply on land under statutory control (e.g. airports).

WAIT: you already have that in para 9.

Ah yes, I was so used to just reading my edits that I had not included the template in my review.

Thank you @Coupon-mad.

RRTechie

Latest edition of my Defence currently stands as the following:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.    The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, 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 at the material time.

3.    According to VCS’ own photographs, the vehicle was stopped at pedestrian-controlled traffic Lights at a pedestrian crossing. Stopping at a pedestrian crossing is a mandatory byelaw requirement therefore there was no breach of parking contract.

4.    As evidenced by the still images provided on both charge notices, it is unequivocally clear that multiple pedestrians were using the crossing at the material times. Additionally, in at least one of the claimant’s images, the pedestrian traffic control light is green, indicating that pedestrians are crossing and the road traffic light is red, requiring vehicles to stop.

5.    VCS are not the landowner. The Bristol Airport website details the land ownership and states that the majority landowner shareholder is the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP).

6.    The airport is managed by a sub-contractor to the landowner, Bristol Airport Limited, (BA Ltd), and Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Limited are sub-contractors to this management company, not to the landowner.

7.    It is averred that no contract to manage or enforce parking on this land exists between or flowing from the Landowner. Further, it is averred that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents of a sub-contractor) has no standing to issue court claims in their own name.

8.    The site is not relevant land since airport byelaws apply as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, therefore the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable.

9.    In reference to an email letter the Defendant received dated 03/01/2024 from Excel Parking Services (Excel), a sister company to VCS, in response to the defendant’s appeal to VCS, the claimant responded that,

“Byelaws are not currently in use as the last set of byelaws published relate to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company.”
This statement is not true. Bristol Airport Bylaws are not Obsolete.

 

10. The Right Honourable John Penrose MP wrote to Bristol Airport Limited detailing that Excel had stated on behalf of VCS that Bylaws were obsolete and he (Mister Penrose) received the following response on 21/09/2023 from BA Ltd.
“Firstly, our Byelaws are definitely in place and are not obsolete. We have of course contacted our third-party parking enforcement provider who have identified an issue with the wording used in the response to the constituent, which does not align with their usual communication standards. The operative used incorrect phrasing with regards to Byelaws in this particular response. Excel Parking Services have assured us that this wording anomaly is not consistent  with the response typically used in other communications.”

11. The response received from BA Ltd clearly states that Bylaws “are definitely in place and are not obsolete’ and that Excel Parking Services had assured Bristol Airport that ‘this wording anomaly is not consistent with the response typically used in other communications’ however, clearly this is not the case because Excel recited the same incorrect statement to the Defendant some four months later.

12. Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 state the following: -
 “6. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PRIVATE AIRPORT ROADS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY On any private Airport roads or other parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply no person shall:”

13. “6.7 Road Traffic Enactments
drive or cause or permit to be driven any vehicle which fails to comply with any braking, steering, lighting, tyre or electrical requirements which apply to that type of vehicle if it were to be operated on a road to which the Road Traffic Enactments apply.”
Failing to stop as required would have caused the driver to commit a prohibited act.

14. Neither the keeper nor the driver can be held liable for the unexpected actions of another person whilst the vehicle was stationary.

Coupon-mad

I still say admit if you were driving.  You'll have a hard time at the hearing if you try to hide behind being the keeper.

RRTechie

@Coupon-mad forgot to make the change to add as driver...change added below to latest edition of Defence with only change being admitting to driving in Para 2...

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.    The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, 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 and driver at the material time.

3.    According to VCS’ own photographs, the vehicle was stopped at pedestrian-controlled traffic Lights at a pedestrian crossing. Stopping at a pedestrian crossing is a mandatory byelaw requirement therefore there was no breach of parking contract.

4.    As evidenced by the still images provided on both charge notices, it is unequivocally clear that multiple pedestrians were using the crossing at the material times. Additionally, in at least one of the claimant’s images, the pedestrian traffic control light is green, indicating that pedestrians are crossing and the road traffic light is red, requiring vehicles to stop.

5.    VCS are not the landowner. The Bristol Airport website details the land ownership and states that the majority landowner shareholder is the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP).

6.    The airport is managed by a sub-contractor to the landowner, Bristol Airport Limited, (BA Ltd), and Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Limited are sub-contractors to this management company, not to the landowner.

7.    It is averred that no contract to manage or enforce parking on this land exists between or flowing from the Landowner. Further, it is averred that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents of a sub-contractor) has no standing to issue court claims in their own name.

8.    The site is not relevant land since airport byelaws apply as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, therefore the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable.

9.    In reference to an email letter the Defendant received dated 03/01/2024 from Excel Parking Services (Excel), a sister company to VCS, in response to the defendant’s appeal to VCS, the claimant responded that,

“Byelaws are not currently in use as the last set of byelaws published relate to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company.”
This statement is not true. Bristol Airport Bylaws are not Obsolete.

 

10. The Right Honourable John Penrose MP wrote to Bristol Airport Limited detailing that Excel had stated on behalf of VCS that Bylaws were obsolete and he (Mister Penrose) received the following response on 21/09/2023 from BA Ltd.
“Firstly, our Byelaws are definitely in place and are not obsolete. We have of course contacted our third-party parking enforcement provider who have identified an issue with the wording used in the response to the constituent, which does not align with their usual communication standards. The operative used incorrect phrasing with regards to Byelaws in this particular response. Excel Parking Services have assured us that this wording anomaly is not consistent  with the response typically used in other communications.”

11. The response received from BA Ltd clearly states that Bylaws “are definitely in place and are not obsolete’ and that Excel Parking Services had assured Bristol Airport that ‘this wording anomaly is not consistent with the response typically used in other communications’ however, clearly this is not the case because Excel recited the same incorrect statement to the Defendant some four months later.

12. Bristol Airport Byelaws 2012 state the following: -
 “6. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PRIVATE AIRPORT ROADS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY On any private Airport roads or other parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply no person shall:”

13. “6.7 Road Traffic Enactments
drive or cause or permit to be driven any vehicle which fails to comply with any braking, steering, lighting, tyre or electrical requirements which apply to that type of vehicle if it were to be operated on a road to which the Road Traffic Enactments apply.”
Failing to stop as required would have caused the driver to commit a prohibited act.

14. Neither the keeper nor the driver can be held liable for the unexpected actions of another person whilst the vehicle was stationary

KeithP

As you are confirming that the keeper was driving, your paragraph 8 is superfluous.