PCN for stopping at Liverpool Airport - help with defence

Stripy_Jim

Hello Everyone

I received a 'charge notice' from VCS for allegedly stopping in a no stopping zone.  I made an initial appeal, didn't name the driver and got a load of bluster in response.  I've ignored their demands and threatening letters since then.  ELMS Legal are now trying to take me to the Small Claims Court, I have had the Claim Form and I have filed an acknowledgement of service and now have until 24 Oct to file my defence. 

I have spent hours researching this matter and read the guidance in the forum plus other threads from similar cases, I'd like to call on your good nature and ask you to cast an eye over my defence. 

Reading the template defence and other material I could add more so would welcome your comments on that, but my defence hinges mainly around no keeper liability and bylaws covering the land, I added para 3 as the driver tells me he didn't stop, may have stalled when attempting to turn the car around in a dead end road but the charge notice only shows a couple of pictures of the car on a road at a particular time of day (no indication of the length of time allegedly stopped)
Here goes, this is what I have so far (personal details omitted):

Denial of Claim

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. The Particulars of Claim (‘the POC’) appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4 and the Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand what heads of cost are being pursued. 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.

No Keeper Liability Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012

2. While the Defendant admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time, it is denied that they were the driver. The vehicle is insured for multiple drivers, and it is well established in law that a registered keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver (VCS v Edwards 2023)

No Proof of Stopping in a Prohibited Zone

3.  The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited. The Defendant contests any allegation of stopping, parking, or otherwise breaching the terms claimed by the Claimant. Without clear evidence of a breach, the claim is without merit and should be dismissed.

Land Subject to Bylaws 

4. Liverpool John Lennon Airport is governed by specific bylaws that regulate the use of its land. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 explicitly states that land governed by bylaws is not considered 'relevant land'. Therefore, the Claimant cannot seek to impose liability on the registered keeper in this case, as PoFA does not apply. Any claim based on an alleged breach of bylaws must be pursued by the relevant statutory authority, not the Claimant.

7. Unenforceable Penalty and Lack of Standing

The Defendant asserts that the Claimant’s parking charge constitutes an unenforceable penalty, as it does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss but is rather a disproportionate and punitive charge. The purpose of the charge is evidently not to compensate for any financial loss but to penalise motorists. Moreover, the Claimant has not demonstrated that they have the legal standing to bring this claim. As a third-party agent, the Claimant does not have a proprietary interest in the land and therefore lacks the authority to pursue the charge in their own name.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all personal detail hidden of course.

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Stripy_Jim

POC:

AoS filed 26th September, acknowledged 27th September

Stripy_Jim

Sorry, pressed Post too soon!  Issue date is 24th September

KeithP

Stripy_Jim said:

AoS filed 26th September, acknowledged 27th September

Stripy_Jim said:

Issue date is 24th September

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 27th September, you have until 4pm on Friday 25th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Le_Kirk

(VCS v Edwards Edward 2023)

See above

genuine pre-estimate of loss 

This is not used any more

1505grandad

• Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws
• https://www.liverpoolairport.com/liverpool-john-lennon-airport-byelaws
  

You will notice the spelling of "Byelaws"

LDast

The PoC mention that the claim is for a breach of contract. What sign was the contract based on? Does a sign that says "stopping prohibited" capable of forming a contract? What was the contractual offer?

Stripy_Jim

LDast said:

The PoC mention that the claim is for a breach of contract. What sign was the contract based on? Does a sign that says "stopping prohibited" capable of forming a contract? What was the contractual offer?

I had thought not to bother going down the breach of contract route after reading other threads on the subject and it being chucked out in court. However, as it is specifically mentioned in the PoC I feel justified.

Good point and thank you!

Stripy_Jim

OK, worked my defence a bit further and now have this:

DEFENCE

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').

Facts as 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.

No proof of stopping or parking and sequence of events

3.       It is admitted that the vehicle was in the vicinity of Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the date in question, but it is denied that the vehicle was stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited.  The vehicle was in an incorrect location and was being turned around, the driver having no choice but to do so as the road in question leads to a dead-end. 

4.       The original parking charge and Particulars of Claim fail to state the start and end time of the parking or stopping event and despite the Defendant’s requests during the appeal process, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the vehicle was parked or stopped.

Not relevant land, no keeper liability

5.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver at the material time.  The vehicle is insured for other named drivers and the Claimant will be aware that it cannot be assumed that the keeper was also the driver (VCS v Edwards).  As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle. 

6.       Each of the ‘debt recovery’ letters sent by the Claimant in the last 12 months clearly state: “the driver of the vehicle at the time this charge was issued is responsible for payment of the charge.  However, in certain circumstances set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), liability for the payment of the parking charge may be transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.  This applies to tickets issued in England and Wales and only if certain conditions have been met.”

7.       The land in question is covered by Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws 2022 and as such is not relevant land as defined in paragraph 3, Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It is not accepted that the conditions for transfer of liability to keeper have been met.

No standing to litigate

8.       DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

No valid contract formed

9.       The three main elements of a valid contract are: 1. Offer, 2. Acceptance, and 3. Consideration. The signage at Liverpool John Lennon Airport is prohibitive in nature and does not present a clear offer of value to the driver. Without offering something of value in return, it is impossible to establish consideration, which is essential for forming a legally binding contract. Consequently, it is denied that a valid contract was formed between the parties.

 

 

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Calling once again on your kind nature, any comments to make? omissions, ideas or corrections?

Coupon-mad

By removing all of the middle of the Template Defence you have not argued against the added fake fee.

The case you are referring to is not 'VCS v Edwards' it's VCS v Edward.

If you weren't driving, say so clearly. Otherwise it reads as if you were and are trying to hide it.