VCS Ltd at Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at level crossing in no-stopping zone + passenger exit

KeithP

Earlier posts of yours today go on about POFA.

For clarity - forget all about POFA and byelaws if you are going to give away the driver's identity. 

deficit

Jenni_D said:

Have you admitted at any time (e.g. in your appeal) to the other party that you were driving? If yes then perhaps all the PoFA angles are shut down (but wait for confirmation or otherwise from @Fruitcake or @Coupon-mad first).

ID of driver never divulged at any stage of this case so far

Fruitcake

You must not lie, but you are not obliged to make the claimant's case for them. I suggest you remove information about the identity of the driver from your defence, and from this forum, and ask @KeithP to redact/delete his post of 3.57pm today. This will then allow you to include the findings in the VCS v Edward case, and include not relevant land and no keeper liability in your defence.

Specialist Small Claims Law Firm: Disputing Parking Tickets and More (contestorlegal.co.uk)

This was an appeal case and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts. Point out that since VCS lost this appeal case, they are already aware that it is inappropriate for them to state it is reasonable for them to assume the keeper was the driver. You need to get all these little digs nuances in so the claimant can't say they weren't aware of this finding.

deficit

Is anyone aware of a specific case that VCS have lost (not discontinued, actually lost in court) that proves that they already know that Bristol Airport, or at least the access road, is not POFA relevant land.

Similarly, is anyone aware of a specific case that VCS have lost (not discontinued, actually lost in court) that proves that they already know that their contract with Bristol Airport Ltd is not with or flowing from the landowner and that they therefore have no right to make contracts or issue charges on that land?

Coupon-mad

No I don't.  But it is a fact that it is not relevant land because it is under statutory control.

And the byelaws DO cover parking, so this phrase was wrong:  

"...and there is no evidence of statutory control for parking"

But you can easily put that right now.

However, IMHO it is not a good idea for a D who was driving to hang their hat so firmly on 'no keeper liability' which is easily shot down with one question at the hearing.

Which not only makes the D look silly (if they knew all along they were driving) but also might make the Judge sitting at the hearing 'against you' from the off.

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

And the byelaws DO cover parking, so this phrase was wrong:  

"...and there is no evidence of statutory control for parking"

But you can easily put that right now.

Yeah, I made a bad argument in the appeal, but thats not the end of the world because it would have been rejected even if it was a good argument, they pretty much just reject appeals by default.  Corrected in the defence, which is where it counts I think.

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

However, IMHO it is not a good idea for a D who was driving to hang their hat so firmly on 'no keeper liability' which is easily shot down with one question at the hearing.

Which not only makes the D look silly (if they knew all along they were driving) but also might make the Judge sitting at the hearing 'against you' from the off.

Fruitcake said:

You must not lie, but you are not obliged to make the claimant's case for them. I suggest you remove information about the identity of the driver from your defence, and from this forum, and ask @KeithP to redact/delete his post of 3.57pm today. This will then allow you to include the findings in the VCS v Edward case, and include not relevant land and no keeper liability in your defence.

My defence as it stands (latest version is always in the dropbox folder, I'm editing it as we go along, https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/7q0tzi7izipkv4pnfs1o6/h?rlkey=3102neviaguzhx21xazxt2mns&dl=0)
contains all the POFA stuff and also a statement that a driver cannot be held responsible for the actions of a passenger anyway and that they appear to be just stopped at a zebra crossing.  So it includes both angles.  Do we feel that's ok?

Coupon-mad

Getting there but still too wordy and repeats stuff already in the Template Defence lower down (e.g. the PoFA maximum).

I'd remove 7, 8 & 10 entirely and cut para 4 down to only the first sentence (it's all you need to make that point punchy).

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

Getting there but still too wordy and repeats stuff already in the Template Defence lower down (e.g. the PoFA maximum).

I'd remove 7, 8 & 10 entirely and cut para 4 down to only the first sentence (it's all you need to make that point punchy).

7 deleted

4 reduced to "The vehicles in the poor quality CCTV images included in the CN appear to be stopped at a pedestrian crossing, as mandated by the relevant byelaws at Bristol airport, as opposed to having parked or stopped to pick up or drop off a person.  It is not possible to discern times, dates, relevant vehicle registration number or a sequence of events from the evidence provided in the CN.  "

Why remove 8 and 10 (which have now become 7 and 9)?

Coupon-mad

Because the POFA doesn't apply so it makes no sense. The NTK wasn't 'non-compliant' with an Act VCS didn't even use.