Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • NearlyDone
    • By NearlyDone 7th Jan 20, 10:56 AM
    • 6Posts
    • 6Thanks
    NearlyDone
    Stopping at Robin Hood Airport going to court
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 20, 10:56 AM
    Stopping at Robin Hood Airport going to court 7th Jan 20 at 10:56 AM
    Hello all,
    Over 3 years ago the driver received a PCN for stopping at a bus stop whilethe driver reset the sat nav app on my mobile.



    the driver was visiting the Vulcan to the Sky trust for a prepaid tour. They were located at RH Airport site. The driver sat nav had directed me to the location via a different route that the driver had expected (the driver had previously used Street View to help me metally plan a route). The sat nav unexpectedly announced we had arrived and then crashed. At this point the driver was confused and disorientated about my location. the driver pulled over as soon as possible which was a bus stop. Rebooted phone and reset sat nav. The driver then worked out their location from the sat nav map and turned around and found the car park for the Vulcan exhibition. Both the exibition and exibition car park were not sign posted.



    I have files the AOS and will be using the above as a starting point for the Defendants Defence Statement.


    I did not see any signage (too busy looking for the venue while trying to work out were I was) but I know this is not a defence. But is the reason I needed to stop driving as I was not fully concentrating on the road.



    Can a PPC actually enforce a Stopping PCN? This is not a Parking issue.




    I suppose I am going to base my defence on the idea that I did not want a road traffic violation, due to mobile phone use while driving, trumps a Stopping PCN by a PPC. Any other ideas appreciated. Incuding am I wasting my and your time.



    Can I post my Defence here for review when I have compiled it?



    Any comments, suggestions and guidance on the next steps will be gratefully appreciated. I now have to stop ignoring these cowboys and put effort and time in to prepare for court.


    Thank you.
    Nearly Done.
    Last edited by NearlyDone; 09-01-2020 at 2:49 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Jan 20, 11:21 AM
    • 26,862 Posts
    • 35,155 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 7th Jan 20, 11:21 AM
    • #2
    • 7th Jan 20, 11:21 AM
    Only a judge can tell you if enforcement can be made by the claimant , hence the court case

    There is no S in defence , plus it's just Defence , no statement

    Post the issue date from the claim form plus the day the AOS has been done

    Read other VCS court case threads on here about RHA and do what they did , cribbing from their defences , then post your draft below for critique

    Email a SAR to the DPO at VCS attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D to obtain all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • NearlyDone
    • By NearlyDone 7th Jan 20, 3:09 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    NearlyDone
    • #3
    • 7th Jan 20, 3:09 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Jan 20, 3:09 PM
    Thank you. Spelling Noted.


    SAR sent.
    Issue Date 24/12/2019
    AOS 6/1/2020


    Next work up Defence.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Jan 20, 3:42 PM
    • 19,687 Posts
    • 25,130 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 7th Jan 20, 3:42 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Jan 20, 3:42 PM
    Issue Date 24/12/2019
    AOS 6/1/2020.
    Originally posted by NearlyDone
    With a Claim Issue Date of 24th December, and having filed an Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th January 2020 to file your Defence.

    That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Jan 20, 4:24 PM
    • 80,837 Posts
    • 95,498 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 7th Jan 20, 4:24 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Jan 20, 4:24 PM
    Can a PPC actually enforce a Stopping PCN?
    Yes. You need to read more threads like yours as this has all been said.

    VCS v Crutchley

    VCS v Ward

    You need to search for VCS defence Ransomes
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    TWO Clicks needed Look at the top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 7th Jan 20, 4:36 PM
    • 3,727 Posts
    • 5,685 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    • #6
    • 7th Jan 20, 4:36 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Jan 20, 4:36 PM
    You haven't indicated whether you have engaged in any of the appeals process so far. In particular, has the driver been identified? Your post kind of gives it away, so you MUST edit it, and make sure it refers only to the The Driver.

    This is all because POFA and keeper liability will not apply, as the Airport is not Relevant Land. That will be a key part of the defence. It could also be said you were never "parked", so POFA is irrelevant, as it only applies to parking.
    • NearlyDone
    • By NearlyDone 8th Jan 20, 2:36 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    NearlyDone
    • #7
    • 8th Jan 20, 2:36 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Jan 20, 2:36 PM
    I identified my self as the driver when I initially got the ticket when I wrote to them arguing that I should not have got a ticket. So I have shot myself in the foot for POFA and Keeper liability.

    After their reply, I decided that there was no further point in going through their appeal system.

    I did contact RHA via there web site and via registered post to apeal and protest but did not receive any reply (or acknowledgement of my correspondence).


    I will be spending some time now researching Coupon-mad suggestion list.
    • NearlyDone
    • By NearlyDone 14th Jan 20, 4:21 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    NearlyDone
    • #8
    • 14th Jan 20, 4:21 PM
    Defence
    • #8
    • 14th Jan 20, 4:21 PM
    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    (Claimant)

    -and-

    (Defendant)




    Defence


    1. The Defendant was visiting the Vulcan Experience which was located in a hanger close to Sheffield Doncaster Airport.
    2. The Defendant did not access the Airport Approach roads via the main entrance (from the Great Yorkshire Way and Hurst Road roundabout).
    3. The Defendant entered the site via Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue. Passing the Vulcan Experience hanger because there was no identifying signage. The Satellite Navigation application running on the phone reported that the Defendant had reached their destination. The Defendant was expecting to have arrived via the airport approach roads before arriving at the Vulcan Experience.
    4. Fourth Avenue is shown as a cul-de-sac but access to First Avenue was available through an open gate. Somewhere around this point the Satellite Navigation application crashed and the Defendant had no further guidance.
    5. The Defendant had used Google Street View, on the day before, to view the journey from the main approach roads using the directions given in the Vulcan Experience booking confirmation. The defendant therefore became confused and disorientated on entering the Doncaster Sheffield Airport approach roads as the layout and route did not match the images seen from Google Street View.
    6. The Defendant had to find somewhere to stop safely without impeding traffic so as to remove the phone from its cradle to reset the Satellite Navigation application so that the map data could be accessed.
    7. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    8. The approach Signage is too small and poorly positioned to be read whilst driving on Fourth Avenue.
    9. There was no signage at the bus stop forbidding stopping.
    10. There are no clear signs posted where public driveway becomes private property on which Doncaster Sheffield Airport by-laws apply, neither are there reminders to all drivers, which are clear and readable from a moving vehicle when approaching from Third Avenue.
    11. No contract with Defendant.
      If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be
      able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions. A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of
      business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever; no consideration was capable of being offered to the Defendant. The Defendant who was, in an emergency, accessing map data on their phone and reorientating themselves acted under 'The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003' prohibits motorists using a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, while driving.
    12. Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 states (see 5(4)), “Except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”. As per section 5(4) above, the Defendant’s situation should be regarded as an emergency, as it was an unexpected and serious situation requiring an immediate action, whereby stopping at the bus stop was the said immediate action taken by the Defendant.
    13. Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 5(1)b states, “without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using that part of the Airport;”. Handling a mobile phone while driving would be driving without due care and attention.
    14. The Claimant is not the land owner so they cannot take out a case of trespass. Also the Claimant has suffered no loss.
    15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.


    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    Last edited by NearlyDone; 14-01-2020 at 6:28 PM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Jan 20, 4:33 PM
    • 16,474 Posts
    • 17,405 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 14th Jan 20, 4:33 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jan 20, 4:33 PM
    Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

    Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

    Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 14th Jan 20, 5:00 PM
    • 8,058 Posts
    • 9,159 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Presumably you will number the paragraphs instead of bullet points when submitting? Defences are written in the third person and you have an errant "my" in your third paragraph - could say "on the defendant's phone" or just "on the phone"
    • NearlyDone
    • By NearlyDone 14th Jan 20, 6:20 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    NearlyDone
    It was on my list of things to do. I was going to wait until it I knew what the final result was. Perhaps I should bring it forward.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 20, 6:23 PM
    • 80,837 Posts
    • 95,498 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That defence is a good start and the inclusion of the byelaws is vital.

    I would add this stuff and definitely remove the assertion about 'no loss'!:


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    (Claimant)

    -and-

    (Defendant)



    Defence



    1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant asserts that it will be common ground that this claim relates not to any agreed parking licence under contract, but instead to an assertion of 'stopping' at a site where byelaws apply to the roadways. If the Claimant is of the view that byelaws do not apply to these publicly accessible roadways, then they are by definition, part of the public highway and the usual rules of the Traffic Management Act 2004 must apply.

    3. In either case, this is not 'private land' under the definition intended by Parliament in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA'). It is worth noting that multiple cases involving Newcastle Airport have reportedly been struck out in the past year, when another parking firm attempted to twist the facts to suggest that a contract had somehow been 'agreed' by a driver who did not actually park, but was just involved in the minor vicissitudes that can interrupt the action of driving around a sparsely-signed airport site.

    4.
    The Defendant was visiting the Vulcan Experience which was located in a hanger close to Sheffield Doncaster Airport. The Defendant did not access the Airport Approach roads via the main entrance (from the Great Yorkshire Way and Hurst Road roundabout).

    5. The Defendant entered the site via Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue. Passing the Vulcan Experience hanger because there was no identifying signage. The Satellite Navigation phone app reported that the Defendant had reached their destination. The Defendant was expecting to have arrived via the airport approach roads before arriving at the Vulcan Experience.

    6. Fourth Avenue is shown as a cul-de-sac but access to First Avenue was available through an open gate. Somewhere around this point the Satellite Navigation application crashed and the Defendant had no further guidance. The Defendant had used Google Street View, on the day before, to view the journey from the main approach roads using the directions given in the Vulcan Experience booking confirmation. The Defendant therefore became confused and disorientated on entering the Doncaster Sheffield Airport approach roads as the layout and route did not match the images seen from Google Street View.

    7. The Defendant had to find somewhere to stop safely without impeding traffic so as to remove the phone from its cradle to reset the Satellite Navigation application so that the map data could be accessed. The driver did not park or leave the car, and within minutes, worked out their location from the sat nav map and turned around and found the car park for the Vulcan exhibition. Both the exhibition and the adjacent exhibition car park itself, were not sign posted.

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

    8. The approach Signage is too small and poorly positioned to be read whilst driving on Fourth Avenue. There was no signage at the bus stop forbidding stopping, and under the normal rules of the TMA 2004 a bus stop can also have limited use as a lay by, and is not automatically a 'no stopping zone' applicable 24 hours a day, if not adequately signed to be so.

    9. There are no clear signs posted where public driveway highway purportedly becomes private property land, or (in the alternative) land on which Doncaster Sheffield Airport by-laws apply. Neither are there reminders in the form of any 'repeater signs' facing the oncoming traffic, to all drivers, which are clear and readable from a moving vehicle when approaching from Third Avenue.

    No contract with Defendant.
    10. If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions and the conduct must be a deliberate act of parking and accepting clear signs, and this was not. This Claimant will no doubt adduce two appeal cases that their legal representatives managed to win some years ago, with convoluted arguments where the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was not even considered, namely VCS v Ward and VCS v Crutchley. Both are fully distinguished from this situation and both involved business parks/private land, not Airport roads which always remain under statutory control.

    11. In case the Claimant tries to point to VCS v Ward and suggest that the driver should have stopped earlier, got out and walked in on foot to read the signs, that is ludicrous and would have resulted in a parking charge or a penalty charge, in any case. At this site, due to the road connections, a driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. And as there was nothing to suggest it was private land, the Defendant was reasonably entitled to rely upon the normal regulations that relate to public highways such as this, and/or the Airport byelaws which cover the entire location.

    12. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever; no consideration was capable of being offered to the Defendant. The Defendant who was, in an emergency, accessing map data on their phone and re-orientating themselves acted under 'The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003' prohibits motorists using a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, while driving.

    13. Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 states: (see 5(4)) ''Except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice''. As per section 5(4) above, the Defendant’s situation should be regarded as an emergency, as it was an unexpected and serious situation requiring an immediate action, whereby stopping at the bus stop layby where there was an absence of any 'hours of operation' or 'no stopping' information plate, was the said immediate action taken by the Defendant.

    14. Doncaster Sheffield Airport, Bylaws, 2005 5(1)b states: ''without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using that part of the Airport''. Handling a mobile phone while driving would be driving without due care and attention.

    15. The Claimant is not the land owner so they have no standing to sue under the tort of cannot take out a case of trespass, where only a landowner could pursue damages, or the rules of the byelaws would take precedence. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal and this is not a parking event on private land. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    Also the Claimant has suffered no loss.

    Exaggerated claim - serious repeated abuse of process
    16. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper. Even in cases where the driver is known, Courts generally pay regard to that legislation, just as the Supreme Court did in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. This claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which is an abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery.

    17. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred 60 costs to pursue an alleged 100 debt. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew, or should have known, that their double recovery attempt to claim a false 'principal debt' of 160, is expressly disallowed under the CPRs and with regard to Beavis, the POFA and the 'grey list' of unfair terms as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 ('the CRA 2015'). This Claimant is a serial litigator with an in-house Legal Department and there can be no excuse or justification for this exaggerated claim. Relief from sanctions should be refused.

    18. Claims from parking firms in the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit are frequently being summarily struck out. On 11th November 2019 in Southampton County Court, District Judge Grand heard a parking firm's barrister in person but refused an application to reinstate multiple 'struck out' parking charge cases. This was wholly due to the added exaggerated costs, similar to the instant case, with pre-written template witness statements and where a high percentage in false costs is set to be extracted from any Defendant who suffers a judgment against them. DJ Grand declared that these claims represent such a serious abuse of process that the entire claims are tainted, not just the added costs. There is no indication that this decision was appealed, and DJ Grand refused this when asked at the hearing, declaring that falsely exaggerated claims, which breach statute and case law, have no prospects of success.

    19. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Josephs sitting at Warwick County Court agreed, citing the POFA and the Supreme Court decision in Beavis and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

    19.1. A copy of that judgment is appended to this defence.

    20. The Defendant requests that this Court - using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. - recognises its duty under paragraph 71 of the CRA 2015 in the same way as the Southampton and Warwick courts recently have done, and opts to summarily strike out this claim.

    21. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating and misleading in terms of the falsely added 'costs' and the lack of prominence of clear terms on signage, which was incapable of being construed as a contractual offer by visitors who were de facto 'authorised'.

    22. If this meritless claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process - which has already caused this Defendant hours of wasted time in researching, reading and writing submissions - full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    Statement of Truth:

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.


    Name

    Signature


    Date





    The judgment to attach is the one in CrystalTips' or Jon8838's thread, either will do!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-01-2020 at 6:34 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    TWO Clicks needed Look at the top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • NearlyDone
    • By NearlyDone 14th Jan 20, 8:25 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    NearlyDone
    Not too sure if I can thank you enough for the above Coupon-mad.

    Awsome. Thank you for taking the time and thank you for your technical input. I believed that I had found an argument for my defence using your earlier feedback but I feel a lot more confident with my Defence now.

    I will read it more carefully tomorrow (I've had enough of working on this today) and then update my Defense and find/add the attachment.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,633Posts Today

8,561Users online

Martin's Twitter