Notice for stopping at temp red light Bristol Airport 104 - Lost appeal to IAS

LDast

@GwalchGwyn,  any progress on this?

GwalchGwyn

Hi @LDast, sorry, I was logged out for a while. I just received a Claim Form and now have 14 days to respond. Is this the N180 DQ stage or is that to come? It states that if I disagree with the claim, I must send the completed acknowledgement of service form or defence form to the court within 14 days. And If I do that, I must send a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service. So I assume this means I send the two example cases and the copy you previously provided? Edit: I see now I should send the short defence and short defence order at this stage, then follow up with the example cases yes?

Coupon-mad

GwalchGwyn said:

Hi @LDast, sorry, I was logged out for a while. I just received a Claim Form and now have 14 days to respond. Is this the N180 DQ stage or is that to come? It states that if I disagree with the claim, I must send the completed acknowledgement of service form or defence form to the court within 14 days. And If I do that, I must send a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service. So I assume this means I send the two example cases and the copy you previously provided? Edit: I see now I should send the short defence and short defence order at this stage, then follow up with the example cases yes?

Depends if you are using the short defence instead of the usual Template Defence. Also depends on the Claim Form.

Show us the Claim with these redacted:

Claim no
MCOL Password
Your name, address & QR Code
The VRM

GwalchGwyn

Here is the front page, hope there's enough info there, thanks

vacheron

Fruitcake said:

...State that stopping at traffic lights is mandatory as detailed in Bristol Airport Byelaws. The driver had no choice but to obey the red traffic lights.
Stopping is not parking as detailed in the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard. VCS had no rights to obtain and processing the keeper's details from the DVLA for a non-parking event.
The driver cannot be responsible for the actions of an adult passenger. The driver did not breach parking Ts and Cs by stopping as required at a red light. The parking contract does not apply to vehicle passengers.

I was looking for something like this and finally found it in @Fruitcake 's reply. 

• You as the driver must stop at a traffic light.
• You as a driver cannot prevent another passenger from alighting the vehcle when it is stopped. You could even be charged if you did. 
• You have no obligation to identify who the passenger was to the parking monkeys.
• The driver is not responsible for paying a penalty based on the actions of another adult.

Sounds to me like they won't have a leg to stand on in court.

LDast

GwalchGwyn said:

Hi @LDast, sorry, I was logged out for a while. I just received a Claim Form and now have 14 days to respond. Is this the N180 DQ stage or is that to come? It states that if I disagree with the claim, I must send the completed acknowledgement of service form or defence form to the court within 14 days. And If I do that, I must send a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service. So I assume this means I send the two example cases and the copy you previously provided? Edit: I see now I should send the short defence and short defence order at this stage, then follow up with the example cases yes?

No idea why I'd suggested a defence when you hadn't even received a claim at that stage. As pointed out by @Coupon-mad, it depends on whether the Particulars of Claim (PoC) adequately specify the reason for the claim. In this case, it states the reason as "Stopping to pick up/drop off in a restricted zone". 

Simply stating "Stopping to pick up/drop off in a restricted zone" in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) is not enough to satisfy CPR 16.4(1)(a). CPR 16.4 requires that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, and this should give the defendant enough information to understand the claim. This rule is intended to ensure that the defendant is provided with sufficient information about the case being brought against them. Here’s how it connects to CPR 16.4(1)(a):

1. Concise Statement of Facts: Under 16.4(1)(a), the claimant must provide enough detail in the PoC to form the basis of the claim. In this case, the PoC mention that the defendant stopped in a restricted zone to pick up/drop off passengers but do not detail the specific facts about:

   • The exact terms of the contract (the signage terms).
   • How the breach occurred, i.e., how stopping for pickup/drop off breached those terms.
   • Any evidence or factual specifics linking the defendant to the breach.

   These are critical factual details that the claimant relies upon but have not been provided.

2. Contractual Terms: For a parking claim based on breach of contract, the PoC should contain or reference the contractual terms relied upon, such as the specific conditions displayed on the signage. Merely saying "the signs (the contract)" does not suffice under CPR 16.4(1)(a) because it fails to give the defendant a clear understanding of what contractual terms are being claimed as breached.

Therefore, the lack of factual detail, evidence, and contract terms in the PoC ties specifically to CPR 16.4(1)(a), as the claimant has not provided a concise or adequate statement of the facts upon which they are relying to bring the claim.

In general, CPR 16.4 also requires compliance with other aspects, such as providing evidence or documents relied upon (e.g., photos, ANPR evidence), but the main deficiencies here fall under 16.4(1)(a).

However, all this may be academic because, unusually, VCS have handed this clam to DCB Legal rather than handle it themselves in-house. What this means is that they know they are on shaky ground and are unlikely to succeed if it ever went to a hearing. Instead they are hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and and will either capitulate and pay up now that litigation has commenced or will screw up and fail to defend and they will get a CCJ by default.

Of course, you are not low-hanging fruit or gullible because you are now here and getting the necessary advice to beat these scammers. As it is a DCB Legal issued claim, as long as you submit a defence, any defence no matter how absurd, you can guarantee with over 99% likelihood, that they will discontinue early next year before they have to pay the trial fee.

So, whichever defence you decide to use, the "long" or the "short", you will not be paying a penny to these extortionist.

GwalchGwyn

Bravo! *Applause*  
I'm certainly a stubborn individual that has a nose for corporate bullying tactics.
You are a true hero of the people and I thank you for your outstanding efforts with this.
Bendith

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

LDast

GwalchGwyn said:

Bravo! *Applause*  
I'm certainly a stubborn individual that has a nose for corporate bullying tactics.
You are a true hero of the people and I thank you for your outstanding efforts with this.
Bendith

Diolch gan gymydog Scouse.

GwalchGwyn

@KeithP it's Oct 3rd