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

deficit

Le_Kirk said:

At least one of them, MET Parking Claim Form/Stansted Starbucks..... has this text included if you click on it and read the whole thread:

Coupon-mad said:

Jolly good. It is there.  I just looked.

At least one of those 15 results has not just the wording about Edward but also the wording about Smith.

Many thanks, I have now found it, for future reference the wording is found at:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80358797#Comment_80358797

deficit

Is there anything else or are we done now?  I've updated the draft of the defence, which is in the dropbox folder
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/7q0tzi7izipkv4pnfs1o6/h?rlkey=3102neviaguzhx21xazxt2mns&dl=0

• Should I have references to the signage being forbidding and there therefore being no offer and therefore no possibility of a contract?  As suggested on this page of the same thread? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6358384/bristol-airport-vcs-stopping-to-drop-off-charge-notice-pedestrian-crossing/p9d

• The DLUHC Parking Code Of Practice 2022 is very useful, especially as it specifically references my situation in one of its annexes, but I can see no reference online stating that it is now 'live' after being temporarily withdrawn.  Its status is still shown as 'temporarily withdrawn' on the government website.  Paragraph 11 in my defence comes frm the template defence on MSE Forum and I have left it in, however, what basis do we have for saying it is now 'live'?

• Does the Chan wording still apply and is it appropriate in my case?

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

4. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Fruitcake

Include anything that will assist your case, so yes, refer to the signage being forbidding.

The new mandatory CoP is not yet live. It was stalled for a judicial revue and public consultation on (only) the level of charges.
Although not live, everything else contained therein is the government's intent, the will of parliament.

You cannot use the Chan case if the PoC specified the cause of action, for example if it states, Stopping in a no stopping zone or stopping where stopping is prohibited.

Fruitcake

I'll have a look at the draft defence now, but a couple of minor points to mention. The site is jointly owned by a number of shareholders. OTPP is the major shareholder/owner, not "the" owner.

Since I don't think you can use the Chan case, you need to amend para 2 amongst others.

Para 4. The vehicle in question was stopped in a queue at a zebra crossing, perhaps the second or third car back. At that point, the number plate could not be seen because it was obscured by the vehicle(s) in front. When the image of the car with VRM showing was taken, it was not stopped at the crossing, but had passed it, and there was no indication of anyone getting in or out. 
Whist there may be a video of the vehicle that shows a car door opening and closing, and possibly "something else happening," whilst the door was open, the still images do not show this. Indeed, they do not show that the vehicle that may have its door open is actually yours because the number plate is not visible, let alone readable. The images are grainy and in monochrome. The identity of the vehicle can not be determined in the first two images shown on the NTK, and the third image does not show a breach of Ts and Cs, since a single image is not proof the vehicle was stopped.

The claimant may produce a video as an evidence exhibit in their WS later in the process, but at the moment there is no proof your car was stopped at all (in a queue) at a zebra crossing or that the location is at Bristol Airport, nor that anyone got out. The only proof the three images show is of your car driving along an unidentified road at an unknown time..

Fruitcake

Para 5. I think "illegitimate" would be better replaced with "unreasonable," and a repetition that stopping is a byelaw mandatory requirement.

Para 9. This, "be assumed to arrive 2 working days later," should accompany an explanation that it is deemed by the Interpretation Act 1978 in conjunction with the Practice Direction [1985] 1 All ER 889 to have been delivered two working days later if sent first class, or four working days later if sent second class.

Para 34. VCS are not "an agent of a principal." They are an agent of a sub-contractor to a principal (the landowners). There is no proof the landowners are even aware that their sub-contractor agent has employed an unregulated private parking company to operate at the site, nor that they have a direct contract with the claimant, nor a contract indirectly flowing indirectly to the claimant via the cub-contractor, Bristol Airport Limited.
If there was such a contract, it is reasonable to believe the claimant would have at least referred to it, if not provided a copy during the pre-action protocol stage in order to narrow the issues between the two parties.
Since no such contract with or flowing from the landowner has ever been mentioned, let alone produced, it is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that it does not exist.
The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true, and that the contract between the landowner and their agent, BA Ltd, includes a clause that permits a third party to issue charges and court claims in their own name.

Para 35. The IPC only allows 21 days for a motorist to make an IAS appeal, whereas true ADR as defined by the Thee Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 states the appeal period must be not less than 52 weeks.


I can't see anywhere that you have stated stopping (in a traffic queue at a zebra crossing) is not parking as defined by Judge Harris in Jopson v Homeguard, B9GF0A9E, a persuasive appeal case.

In all paragraphs where you have used acronyms and abbreviations, you should state the full meaning with the abbreviation afterwards in brackets the first time it is used, and then just the abbreviations thereafter.

For example, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the first time, then just ADR afterwards

deficit

Fruitcake said:

Include anything that will assist your case, so yes, refer to the signage being forbidding.

The new mandatory CoP is not yet live. It was stalled for a judicial revue and public consultation on (only) the level of charges.
Although not live, everything else contained therein is the government's intent, the will of parliament.

You cannot use the Chan case if the PoC specified the cause of action, for example if it states, Stopping in a no stopping zone or stopping where stopping is prohibited.

Thanks.  Rather than calling it 'live' (which is the word used in the template defence but I believe it is incorrect at present and relying on that wording may actually harm a defence), I have simply said it is 'available'.

Fruitcake

You haven't queried the discrepancy between the claim the images were taken from a mobile vehicle, which would have been at just above ground height, and the fact that they were actually taken from a fixed camera high up on a pole. The claimant seems confused how the images were generated at this unidentified time and location.

Have you checked with the local council to see if there is planning permission fort a pole mounted scamera at that location? It won't amount to much if they haven't, but every single mention of VCS's disregard for rules and regulations should be made in my opinion.

Coupon-mad

The DLUHC Parking Code Of Practice 2022 is very useful, especially as it specifically references my situation in one of its annexes, but I can see no reference online stating that it is now 'live' after being temporarily withdrawn.  Its status is still shown as 'temporarily withdrawn'

But this is already explained in the Template Defence itself.

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

The DLUHC Parking Code Of Practice 2022 is very useful, especially as it specifically references my situation in one of its annexes, but I can see no reference online stating that it is now 'live' after being temporarily withdrawn.  Its status is still shown as 'temporarily withdrawn'

But this is already explained in the Template Defence itself.

Not very clearly imo, hence the question.  Perhaps people don't usually look at it in much detail and just copy the words without questioning or even really reading them, or perhaps I'm just thick.  Either, I asked the same question on the template defence thread itself and the answer you gave there does help clarify.

deficit

any more for any more or shall I now submit the defence?

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/7q0tzi7izipkv4pnfs1o6/h?rlkey=3102neviaguzhx21xazxt2mns&dl=0