Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Coupon-mad · 4 March 2019 at 9:37PM

I think contesting jurisdiction is the best route but if it were me I would send an amended AOS by email*, and mention the phone call to the CCBC and quote what the clerk said, that it is OK to contest jurisdiction regardless of the tick box on the first AOS, but that this one is filed & served, for clarity, so that the court and claimant know your intentions.

All say the same thing if this is how everyone wants to go, even if you didn't all phone, still refer to the phone calls made by two of you, so the CCBC knows you are acting based on what their staff have said (they don't 'advise' though, so don't use that word).

*email to the court and the Claimant's Solicitor.

Redx · 4 March 2019 at 9:41PM

as a layman with no legal training I couldnt think of a legal term so used "class action" because that is what it seems to me if the whole group does it, whereas one person being the guinea pig and the rest hanging on to their coat tails may be something else

so just to clarify, I have no legal training and so only refer to this in very broad terms, so dont quote me, its just my way of saying that one or more of you are the initial test, like BEAVIS was in his first court case but the other guy capitulated and threw in the towel (so whatever the legal terms are)

until that case went through 3 courts, nobody had been there and so any speculation was mere speculation, with everyone thinking they knew the score, until he lost 3 times and we have the SC ruling to contend with

you have an ACTION GROUP, so lets see "some action" , somebody grow a set like Beavis did

[Deleted User] · 4 March 2019 at 10:54PM

This will never be subject to a GLO (group litigation order).

With only 11 of you there is in theory no reason why claims could not be consolidated and heard at the same time - but only if convenient and cost effective to do so, with very similar facts/defences.

1x trial for 11 cases with unrepresented defendants where the correspondence needs to go to multiple addresses (rather than a handful of firms) may make that relatively unlikely too.

grimnog · 4 March 2019 at 11:27PM

Redx and Browntrout - come on, please, cut us some slack here. We’re 15 laymen trying our best to decide what course of action to take in completely untested waters where even the most qualified QC could be found to have taken the “wrong” route. It seems to me the outcome of all this is going to pretty much depend on which judge hears the case(s) and what their own subjective viewpoint on the matter is. To either accuse us of dithering or pressuring us down a certain path is grossly unfair. None of us has a quick £100 to potentially throw away on top of a potential £250 for losing. We’re after the best advice as to how to get the best outcome for all of us at the lowest risk and lowest cost possible. Please help us, but don’t assume this is our crusade or that we have bottomless pockets to fund it. Thank you.

twhitehousescat · 4 March 2019 at 11:32PM

ok get the claims heard as one and between you hire a skilled person to argue your case

that is not going to cost you 11 x £100

Redx · 4 March 2019 at 11:57PM

until this is tested by a judge, nobody can tell you the best way forward

but it seems that until one of you puts your head above the parapet and takes one for the team, you are all definitely dithering, so we cannot give you a definitive answer, just a strategy that needs to be tested in court

you all seem to want a painting by numbers approach where the outcome is known, but you are being told that there is no precedent until one of you sets the precedent

this isnt a legal aid forum, its a consumer advice forum , but you are asking about penalties and bylaws and contracts etc, that is legal , not "parking" per se

if you asked MARTYN LEWIS about this on a roadshow, he would tell you to consult with a lawyer, to get legal advice, he wouldnt tell you anything else either, because his opinion does not count (he isnt a lawyer)

the whole point of it being an airport with bylaws is what sets your cases (plus RHA and LJLA etc cases) apart from the known "norm"

cut you some slack ? you are expecting to get the lottery numbers guaranteed before you even place your ticket and get your wallet out to pay for it

club together if you have to, start a crowdfunding page like happened when we backed BARRY BEAVIS and the nurses at UHW in CARDIFF

I contributed to those funding campaigns, I dont think that any of you did , nor have I ever had a pcn from a private parking company either, be it asda or Newcastle airport, but at least I paid up to back those in trouble

its all of you that need to get real, sorry to say

this is all hot air at the moment , but you have had extremely good advice on what to do, so at least one of you needs to get on with it (or more), this is a forum and you asked for views, so I have aired mine, which we are entitled to do, this isnt a pat on the back session

you were all in this from the get go when you ignored the letters demanding payment, this was what you have signed up to, ifs and buts until some court decides (or not)

also , bear in mind that some "bylaws" cases have already gone to civil court for places like LJLA, so jurisdiction wasnt contested and a judge decided the outcomes, one of which was a broken down vehicle or something similar, so VCS lost that one in civil court

this jurisdiction issue is something different then the usual civil court route that is taken for parking on asda or morrissons car parks etc

Caoimhe · 5 March 2019 at 12:01AM

Still weighing up the options after looking at the byelaws again.

3.1 states that any person contravening the byelaws shall be liable to pay a fine, on summary conviction:

3.1 Any person contravening any of the following byelaws or anyone assisting or
procuring others to do so shall be liable on summary conviction...

It goes on to discuss the scales of fines, then 3.3 states:

3.3 Where any person parks or leaves a vehicle in contravention of any of byelaws 6.2 to
6.6, 6.10, 6.16 to 6.18, 7.1, 7.2 or 7.7, or otherwise contravenes any of those byelaws
in relation to a vehicle, the Company or its agents may (in its/their absolute discretion)
either...

This then discusses PCNs, clamping etc.

This would appear to be a seperate penalty to 3.1. As 3.1 states any person contravening the byelaws shall be liable to pay a fine, and 3.3 states that a person may also be subject to a PCN, at the Company's discretion - are contraventions punishable by both? And who enforces the PCN if this is separate to the summary conviction?

Is the PCN (3.3.1) the alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates court (3.1) which UKPPO have stated?

Is it clear that a PCN, is not enforceable by the county court?

Also, 3.3 is listed twice in the byelaws - is that normal? No other numbers are listed twice. It's like the bit about PCNs has been jimmied in there after the fact.

twhitehousescat · 5 March 2019 at 12:10AM

PCN ?

who by ?

PS bylaws are very old , who is licenced (private) to clamp?

under UK law you are innocent until delt with by magistrates

is the PCN (3.3.1) the alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates court (3.1) which UKPPO have stated?

there is no alternative , bylaws take president

twhitehousescat · 5 March 2019 at 12:25AM

I suspect you are a one of a batch of claims sent out in bulk ,(first time UKPPO/BW have tried this) say 100 or even 500 , cost each was £25 , if we go for the higher number I bet 400 + have now paid up or will do before court , many will simply not reply (moved house) or "goof it"

very few left now (lots of money in bank) , and if any of you stumble on the holy grail in there contract and fight them they will simply discontinue

so 500 x say £180 inc court costs = £90,000 , less the ten or 20 that "click" and argue = about £86,000 ,

Coupon-mad · 5 March 2019 at 2:35AM

Also, 3.3 is listed twice in the byelaws - is that normal?

No, it is odd. Not sure why that has happened.

I can see that the byelaws are confusing, but surely for those of you who prefer to defend and rely on your local Judge(s) at a full hearing, the important point is that UKPPO stated (to at least one of you) that their charges were not for breach of contract, yet the POC on the claim form says that this was, therefore the cases are misleading in the extreme and poorly pleaded and should be struck out.

Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free