Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

This scumco and the airport use byelaws to try to scam people...so the money they do scam [under the guise of a fine] should be going to the court...but the scumco keeps it.


I'm certain they do not want that airing in front of the courts....

Swinnas and pcnwarrior - i’ll Pm you

I am about to print and submit my defence, mostly based on Bounty Hunter’s great work above. I have however added more information regarding why Byelaws were not breached and made it specific to my case of a passenger alighting from the vehicle, which was not the case for Bounty Hunter. I’d really appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: Xxx

BETWEEN:

UK PARKING PATROL OFFICE LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

M xxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE

I am xxxx, Defendant in this matter and registered keeper of the vehicle registration Xxxx on the material date.

1. The Defendant acknowledges that the driver of the vehicle stopped momentarily on a driveway at the barrier to the Doubletree Hilton Hotel complex adjacent to Newcastle International Airport on the material date. The Driver read the terms and conditions displayed on the sign next to the barrier and ultimately decided not to enter. The driver then safely reversed away from the barrier and drove away, eventually entering the Medium Stay Car Park and in so doing accepted the terms and conditions associated with entry to that car park, compliance with which is not contested by the Claimant. The Defendant further acknowledges that whilst the Driver was momentarily stopped at the Hotel barrier, a passenger alighted from the vehicle.

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

3. In the Particulars of Claim (POC) the Claimant states that the alleged sum owed is:
“monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on Xxxxx in a controlled parking zone”.

The contents of the POC suggest that the Claimant is basing the claim on a contractual obligation concerning parking, however the nature of the claim has been changed from the original PCN issued to the Defendant on Xxxx which alludes to a breach of byelaws:

• “breach of the byelaws at 1315 - Roads surrounding Newcastle Airport that we are authorised to enforce”
• “The reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is as follows: 6.3 - Parking in Prohibited Area.”
• “UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd have been authorised to enforce the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009 and issue parking charge notices as an alternative to prosecution. Unlike a parking charge notice issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act, under Byelaw 3.3.1 the registered keeper is immediately held liable for the sum due.”

4. To fully address the changing nature of the claim, this defence will set out 3 main counter arguments:

i) That in fact no material contravention of Byelaws took place.

ii) That the alleged contravention took place on a public road that is not covered by Airport Byelaws.

iii) That no contract could have been formed with the Registered Keeper for “stopping”.

5. Newcastle International Airport Byelaw 6.3, provides as follows:

6.3 Parking in Prohibited Areas
Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice.

The word "leave" in byelaw 6.3 is not to be understood in the sense of "get out of a vehicle" but is instead to be understood in the sense of "abandon a vehicle". This is made clear by the use of the word "leave" in the other byelaws. Byelaw 6.2, for example, would make no sense if the word "leave" was interpreted as "get out of a vehicle", but makes perfect sense if interpreted as "abandon a vehicle".

For this reason byelaw 6.3 does not prohibit a person getting out of a vehicle. There being no suggestion that the car was actually parked or otherwise left in a prohibited area, there is no breach of byelaw 6.3.
6. In their reasons for rejecting the appeal, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd state that the PCN was correctly issued because of the presence of signage prohibiting unloading / dropping off. In support of this point they include a photograph of the relevant signs. UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd do not state that there was a breach of byelaw 6.3, which is what the PCN stated. An appeal against an alleged breach of one byelaw cannot be rejected on the grounds that the conduct was a breach of another byelaw. UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd go on to give reasons that would suggest a breach of byelaw 6.9, which provides:

6.9 Observe Signs
Without reasonable excuse either when on foot or whilst using, driving or propelling a vehicle, neglect, fail or refuse to comply with an indication or direction given by:
6.9.1a traffic or pedestrian sign erected and displayed by or with the consent of the Company placed on or near a private Airport road;
6.9.2 any road marking on such a road; or
6.9.3 an Airport Official or Constable for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic or pedestrians.

Whether or not the driver or passenger of the car was in breach of byelaw 6.9 is immaterial. This is because there is no power to award a PCN for breach of byelaw 6.9. The breaches that can be dealt with by way of PCN are limited in byelaw 3.3, which relevantly provides:

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: [issue a PCN]

Byelaw 6.9 is not included in byelaw 3.3 as a byelaw in respect of which a PCN may be issued.

7. For these reasons:
(i)there is no breach of byelaw 6.3;
(ii)there is no power to deal with breaches of byelaw 6.9 by PCN.
The PCN is therefore void.

8. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has authority to enforce Newcastle International Airport byelaw 6.3 on a public highway in order to bring this claim. Both the Airports Act 1986 and the Newcastle Airport byelaws state that byelaws only apply to roads to which the Road Traffic enactments do not apply. The public highway, including the Hotel driveway, is not a private car park, and not considered “relevant land” therefore the Newcastle Airport Byelaws do not apply.

9. Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest on a public highway to issue a PCN and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. In the event that the court considers this alleged breach of Newcastle International Airport byelaw 6.3 to be considered as “relevant land” and within jurisdiction; as outlined above, the actions of the driver and passenger do not meet the criteria for issue of a PCN anyway as the vehicle was not neither parked nor left in a prohibited area. The Defendant therefore denies that byelaw 6.3 was breached by stopping briefly at a barrier.

11. The Claimant has not provided the Defendant with any valid reason to indicate that this is a claim for breach of contract. The Claimant’s standard response to individuals who have appealed comparable PCNs (all for “stopping” on the periphery of Newcastle Airport Carparks) clearly states that:
“The charge is not issued under contract law and is not an attempt to recover damages for breaching a contract. The charge is an alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates Court for breaching the Airport Bye-laws”.

12. It is further denied that the Defendant, or driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

13. The terms of the “No Stopping” and “No Loading/unloading” signage displayed on the site and surrounding roads of the Airport are inadequate to form a contract with the driver. The position and size of the first signs make them difficult to read whilst driving, and text that forbids the motorist to act does not represent a contractual offer and since the location was not a car park, and the vehicle was not parked, no contract was established.

14. Further, the Defendant challenges whether the Claimant is eligible to issue PCNs for “stopping” or “unloading” as this falls outside the remit of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (COP), of which they are a member. Furthermore, the actions of the driver and passenger do not meet the definition of “unloading”, which is not taken to include alighting from a vehicle.

15. The PCN states that the claim is for a “a parking contravention”. This is denied as the Driver did not “park” but stopped momentarily. Should this claim be concluded as a parking contravention, the IPC COP also states that “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs”; time which was not afforded to the Driver in this case.

16. The Claimant has not complied with the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper; in that they lack any reasonable cause to obtain keeper data from the DVLA. The event did not take place on “relevant land”, and stopping a vehicle is not the same as parking.

17. The PCN did not include an invitation to name the Driver, and the Claimant has not ascertained the name of the driver by other means. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle.

18. The Defendant denies that there was an agreement to pay any sum or parking charge, or that a contract was formed.

19. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the claim includes a further £60, for which no calculation is given, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This additional £60 has been variously described as a “Initial Legal Costs” and “Total Debt Recovery Costs”.

20. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. POFA Schedule 4, at paragraph 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) in this case £100.

21. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is misleading and discloses no clear single cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

thanks coupon mad, will have to have a look later as just on lunch break, but probably won't qualify, can you PM me as have been ordered not to post on here again???