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

KeithP

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

GwalchGwyn said:

@KeithP it's Oct 3rd

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, you have until Tuesday 22nd October to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but 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 Tuesday 5th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's 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'.

GwalchGwyn

Ooh, I was just writing my Defence via the MCOL but haven't submitted it yet. Lucky I saw your reply just now! OK I will do as you suggest and abandon the MCOL option. Thanks

Le_Kirk

Lucky escape there, I hope you didn’t put anything in the defence box on MCOL, not even a full stop, as that would be taken as your defence! 

GwalchGwyn

No, deleted it and did the acknowledgement instead. Now to build my short Defence; have to say, I'm enjoying the process and learning a lot here.

Coupon-mad

Why a short defence?

VCS AIRPORT defences are normally pretty detailed and you can pretty much copy one by searching the forum.

GwalchGwyn

Happy to make a long defence. I'll get it done this weekend

GwalchGwyn

Here's the part of my draft ready for critique as instructed.

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. 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 and driver.

3. 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 Terms and Conditions by stopping as required at a red light. The parking contract does not apply to vehicle passengers.

Q: Am I using adequate case examples here with regards to Jopson v Homeguard and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]? 

Coupon-mad

I'd copy from a VCS Airport defence.

Search the forum.

There's so much more to add about the byelaws in fact allowing (requiring) stopping at a red light.

Why are you admitting to driving?  Oh, I see now: you admitted driving at appeals stage so are stuck with that position now of course.

GwalchGwyn

Yes unfortunately I did admit to driving. Right, I finally found more relevant posts thanks to @RRTechie and all the help of the other regular contributors. So my longer defence now reads:

 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. The driver did not breach parking Ts and Cs by stopping as required at a red light.

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. 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.

9. Neither the keeper nor the driver can be held liable for the unexpected actions of another person whilst the vehicle was stationary. The parking contract does not apply to vehicle passengers.

10. The Claimant will concede that...etc (I'll renumber each para from here)

Fruitcake

It looks okay to me. There is a question about the ownership, but my personal opinion is that it should be challenged as you have done above, and let a judge decide who owns what.