We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Bristol Airport no stopping fine - Case success and £724 cost - DCB Legal
Natedog
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hello
I just wanted to say thanks for the advice on here and to say the case against me was dismissed today and I have been awarded over £724 in costs as a litigant in person based on £24 per hour.
It's very case specific but basically my ex-partner stopped at a junction in a "no stopping" zone at Bristol Airport to let a car go past. He stopped for what they deemed to be an excessive period (just over a minute) as the van struggled to get into gear and then when he was ready to move off a bus was coming in the other direction so he waited for that to pass before moving off. I did not name him due to pressure from him that they would not pursue it, but as I was concerned about the fine being in my name, I did appeal twice explaining what he had said and both were rejected.
The DJ was very critical of the Claimant and awarded costs as he considered that their action toward me was unreasonable, not just because they lost but because they failed to engage to discuss the issues and the only contact I had with them was when they were seeking settlement. I had asked for details of the supervising solicitor and had asked during phone calls whether any one was able to discuss the defence in detail. The DJ also took issue with the fact that in the witness statement and case summary the Claimant referred to my use of a "templated" defence rather than deal with the substantive issues. He considered that this was inappropriate behaviour as I was entitled to undertake research and had raised all issues relevant to my matter. He considered this was an attempt by them to undermine my legitiate arguments which should have been addressed by the Claimant at an early stage.
A couple of points that might help others:-
1. The contract term was deemed void as it cannot prevent a vehicle from stopping when being required to do so. As they had not argued in the POC (but did in the witness statement) that it was because it was stopped for an excessive period this was not considered.
2. The DJ considered that they could not enforce against me as registered keeper due to Schedule 4 only being applicable to "parking" and at no point had they made any reference to the vehicle parking, merely stopping. The advocate could not define parking and even the initial correspondence with me was titled "Charge Notice" not parking charge notice.
3. Their witness was not in attendance so they were unable to confirm that the signs exhibited to the statement were in place at the date of the incident, and they failed to highlight where the incident took place in reference to the map attached. Jake Burgess also failed to state in his statement the source of his information so it was deemed to be at best to be second hand heresay.
4. The DJ considered the Consumer Rights Act breach in deciding whether the contract term, if not void for being illegal, would be "fair". He concluded that the no stopping term was unfair.
Thanks again!!
I just wanted to say thanks for the advice on here and to say the case against me was dismissed today and I have been awarded over £724 in costs as a litigant in person based on £24 per hour.
It's very case specific but basically my ex-partner stopped at a junction in a "no stopping" zone at Bristol Airport to let a car go past. He stopped for what they deemed to be an excessive period (just over a minute) as the van struggled to get into gear and then when he was ready to move off a bus was coming in the other direction so he waited for that to pass before moving off. I did not name him due to pressure from him that they would not pursue it, but as I was concerned about the fine being in my name, I did appeal twice explaining what he had said and both were rejected.
The DJ was very critical of the Claimant and awarded costs as he considered that their action toward me was unreasonable, not just because they lost but because they failed to engage to discuss the issues and the only contact I had with them was when they were seeking settlement. I had asked for details of the supervising solicitor and had asked during phone calls whether any one was able to discuss the defence in detail. The DJ also took issue with the fact that in the witness statement and case summary the Claimant referred to my use of a "templated" defence rather than deal with the substantive issues. He considered that this was inappropriate behaviour as I was entitled to undertake research and had raised all issues relevant to my matter. He considered this was an attempt by them to undermine my legitiate arguments which should have been addressed by the Claimant at an early stage.
A couple of points that might help others:-
1. The contract term was deemed void as it cannot prevent a vehicle from stopping when being required to do so. As they had not argued in the POC (but did in the witness statement) that it was because it was stopped for an excessive period this was not considered.
2. The DJ considered that they could not enforce against me as registered keeper due to Schedule 4 only being applicable to "parking" and at no point had they made any reference to the vehicle parking, merely stopping. The advocate could not define parking and even the initial correspondence with me was titled "Charge Notice" not parking charge notice.
3. Their witness was not in attendance so they were unable to confirm that the signs exhibited to the statement were in place at the date of the incident, and they failed to highlight where the incident took place in reference to the map attached. Jake Burgess also failed to state in his statement the source of his information so it was deemed to be at best to be second hand heresay.
4. The DJ considered the Consumer Rights Act breach in deciding whether the contract term, if not void for being illegal, would be "fair". He concluded that the no stopping term was unfair.
Thanks again!!
11
Comments
-
Well done.
Could you please give us the the name of the court and the Judge's name, if you can remember.2 -
Of course it was Bournemouth and Poole County Court - Deputy District Judge Piddington6
-
Good result.!
And I dont wish to rain on your parade but dont be surprised if they try and appeal the costs element (hopefully they wont )4 -
Oh really? The DJ was fantastic and went into great depth as to why he was making his decision.
I'm not that bothered about the costs so will see what happens. I'm just glad its over and the months of stress have been justified with the win. I was speaking to the advocate today and said given the hassle and stress this has caused as well as having to take an unpaid day off work I wish I had just paid the £60 fine but the whole process is just so wrong. It was even acknowledged in their witness statement that there was a requirement to stop at the junction, yet no one at DCB could explain why my defence would not be successful (because they are just call handlers and not legally trained) and even when I suggested they discontinue with no costs (at an early stage) they refused.
I will keep you updated!6 -
Well done you .Natedog said:Oh really? The DJ was fantastic and went into great depth as to why he was making his decision.
I'm not that bothered about the costs so will see what happens. I'm just glad its over and the months of stress have been justified with the win. I was speaking to the advocate today and said given the hassle and stress this has caused as well as having to take an unpaid day off work I wish I had just paid the £60 fine but the whole process is just so wrong. It was even acknowledged in their witness statement that there was a requirement to stop at the junction, yet no one at DCB could explain why my defence would not be successful (because they are just call handlers and not legally trained) and even when I suggested they discontinue with no costs (at an early stage) they refused.
I will keep you updated!2 -
Looks like the judge was well aware of the main defence arguments
Keeper not liable on airport land
Keeper not liable because section 4 doesn't apply
No parking event occurred
Stopping is not parking
The WS by JB has too many template errors
The WS statement is more intent on his ego compared to Joe Public
Etc
Well done, an excellent spanking for VCS5 -
YES WELL DONE
That will prickle SRS and JB
They may well appeal but it could cost a lot more money. Bournemouth/Poole is on the same court circuit as Southampton and the Judges are not keen on parking companies
Another legal in another parking case found out to their cost sometime ago. It's a bit of a graveyard for parking companies
Let us know if you hear futher3 -
This is what they want you to do, they are only interested in your money, preferably as soon as possible. We know that many thousands of people do this every day, the likes of VCS and the other litigious companies mainly use the threat of court as a scare tactic/debt recovery method which takes up an unreasonable amount of court resources.Natedog said:Oh really? The DJ was fantastic and went into great depth as to why he was making his decision.
... I wish I had just paid the £60 fine but the whole process is just so wrong.
Well done for standing up to the "outrageous scam" and hitting them where it hurts most: in the wallet.
Always remember to abide by Space Corps Directive 39436175880932/B:
'All nations attending the conference are only allocated one parking space.'
Genuine Independent 247 Advice: 247advice.uk "The Gold Standard for advice on parking matters."6 -
2. The DJ considered that they could not enforce against me as registered keeper due to Schedule 4 only being applicable to "parking" and at no point had they made any reference to the vehicle parking, merely stopping. The advocate could not define parking and even the initial correspondence with me was titled "Charge Notice" not parking charge notice.Jake Burgess also failed to state in his statement the source of his information so it was deemed to be at best to be second hand heresay.The DJ considered the Consumer Rights Act breach in deciding whether the contract term, if not void for being illegal, would be "fair". He concluded that the no stopping term was unfair.Three very useful nuggets there.5
-
Doesn't the claimant have to ask for permission to appeal at the end of the hearing?ChirpyChicken said:Good result.!
And I dont wish to rain on your parade but dont be surprised if they try and appeal the costs element (hopefully they wont )1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.5K Spending & Discounts
- 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards