Bristol Airport - PCN for stopping at a traffic light.

Imnotpaying

I have followed the NEWBIES thread and drafted a response to the Letter of Claim that I received.  I'm very grateful to all forum members who have provided this advice and the discussions on this thread and I would very much welcome comments on my draft as follows:

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: xxxxxx xxxxxxxx Ltd

I refer to your formal Letter of Claim, dated 25 September 2024. 

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address(es) must be erased from your records:

Xxxxxxxxx

My preferred mode of correspondence is by email to xxxx@xxx.com. 

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.  

Your client has no current agreement with Bristol Airport Ltd. (BAL) to issue charge notices on its behalf.

No contract existed as the Vehicle was not parked. I find it disturbing that a firm of supposed legal representatives, claiming to be authorised and regulated by the SRA, does not understand this simple concept.

A parking charge notice has been issued for a non-parking event. Stopping is not parking (Jopson v Homeward, 9GF0A9E, 2016).   The Basis of Claim in your Letter of Claim reads as follows: 

“The vehicle with registration number xxx (“Vehicle”) was parked on private land (“Land”) managed by our Client.  The signs on the Land set out the Terms of parking (i.e. “the Contract”).  The Vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and as such the Contract was accepted and a PCN(s) was issued.”

The vehicle was not at any time parked on the Land and any signage at the location is prohibitory. Therefore, no contract was entered into.  The Basis of Claim, provided in your letter in accordance with the PAP is, therefore, invalid and misleading. 

At the time of the event, the vehicle did not park, but stopped at a red light controlling a pedestrian crossing, only because it was required by the bye-laws in force at the airport for the safety of pedestrians using it.  A driver cannot be held liable for the unexpected actions of an airport user outside his vehicle. Therefore, your client has obtained my data from DVLA on the basis of evidence which does not demonstrate reasonable cause.

Your client has shared my data with Excel Parking Services, contrary to the requirements of data protection legislation currently in force.

According to PAP, I am entitled to request specific information, and I ask that you provide clear answers to the following questions:I note that the amount claimed in the letter has been increased by £70. The UK Government has previously referred to such charges as “extorting money from motorists,” and I share this view. Is the additional sum of £70 being claimed as the costs of Debt Recovery? If so, is this charge inclusive or exclusive of VAT? If it is inclusive, please explain why I am being asked to cover the VAT liability of the operator.

1. 1. I note that the amount claimed in the letter has been increased by £70. The UK Government has previously referred to such charges as “extorting money from motorists,” and I share this view. Is the additional sum of £70 being claimed as the costs of Debt Recovery? If so, is this charge inclusive or exclusive of VAT? If it is inclusive, please explain why I am being asked to cover the VAT liability of the operator.
2. 1. Regarding the principal sum allegedly due under the PCN: Is this being claimed as damages, or is it intended to be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I draw your attention to paragraph 5.2 of the PAP which states that you must, within 30 days of receipt of a request for documents or information, provide such, or explain why it is unavailable. I formally request the following:

1. 1. Evidence of a contract, valid at the date of the Event, providing your Client contractual rights to issue charge notices on the Land.  
2. 1. Evidence that issue of a charge notice “104 STOPPING TO PICKUP/DROP OFF IN A RESTRICTED ZONE” falls within the scope of any contractual agreement, if such exists, for parking services provided by your client.
3. 1. All recorded visual evidence of the event which is alleged to have resulted in a charge notice being issued, including the signs referred to in the Basis of Claim.  
4. 1. Evidence that the driver’s intention when he stopped at the red traffic light was any other than to comply with the red traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing.

Yours faithfully

KeithP

You have shown us your vehicle's full registration mark.  

Imnotpaying

KeithP said:

You have shown us your vehicle's full registration mark.  

Oops! Sorry. I've edited.  Just avert your eyes.....

Coupon-mad

Remove everything after "liability of the operator." Stop there.

You DO NOT want evidence. 

Fruitcake

Where you say, "Evidence of a contract ..." you should add, "with or flowing from the landowner, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan ..."

Imnotpaying

Coupon-mad said:

Remove everything after "liability of the operator." Stop there.

You DO NOT want evidence. 

I will take your advice, but why don't I want evidence?

Le_Kirk

Imnotpaying said:

A parking charge notice has been issued for a non-parking event. Stopping is not parking (Jopson v Homeward, 9GF0A9E, 2016). 

It's Jopson v Homeguard

1505grandad

FYI  -  the case number actually starts with "B"  -  i.e. B9GF0A9E, 2016)

Imnotpaying

Le_Kirk said:

Imnotpaying said:

A parking charge notice has been issued for a non-parking event. Stopping is not parking (Jopson v Homeward, 9GF0A9E, 2016). 

It's Jopson v Homeguard

Thanks, @Le_Kirk That's auto spellcheck for you!...Should have checked.

Imnotpaying

1505grandad said:

FYI  -  the case number actually starts with "B"  -  i.e. B9GF0A9E, 2016)

Thanks @1505grandad.  I took the reference "9GF0A9E" from the heading of the judgement document.