attached, hope that works VCScasepdf.pdf Split it into 3 bits: WS, and 2 x exhibits Looks redacted again to me? If someone confirms it I'll add the other 2 VCredacted2.pdf

Thanks I'll make those changes. I actually received the WS from VCS when I returned home from being away yesterday. It makes interesting reading. They make some quite bizarre errors and factual inaccuracies e.g. wrong name and dates in places, refer to me by the wrong sex at times (expect they have just copied and pasted from Websters case over on pepipoo). I don't expect these error to be fatal for their case but looking forward to pointing them out. Perhaps the most interesting is the way they have worded some of their claims, they seem to be pursuing the argument that the signage permits access to the land only under the T&C provided in that sign. I assume this is to allign themselves with the FGW vs Jones/Tighilt case to get around the Byelaws issue but it really does leave them open on signage as that is clearly not what the signs say, and if they lose this case I presume they would have to need to change all their signage. Is anyone else suprised they are taking that approach/risk?

I have condensed the arguments (abit) and added in some cases I've read about and seem to be relevant: PCN vs BULL CEL vs Maccafferty Pace Recovery & Storage vs Lengyel I've got photos of the signs, which I'll include in the documents I send. I notice in Crutchley, the Judge didn't pay very much attention to the small signs and how it's impossible to read them without stopping. Is it worth me pre-empting VCS use of Crutchley in their WS by putting something in about the size of those signs? Or just waiting to take it on in court? Found some statements on LJLA website where they refer to it being the same airport for 80 years so I've included that as well Witness statement 1. My name is xxxxx of xxxaddressxxx. 2. I perceive a number of issues with the Claimants claim against me and I have attempted to outline them in my witness statement. Driver/Keeper issue: 3. On the DATE the keeper of the vehicle in question received a “parking charge notice” from the claimant. This notice actually referred to a supposed stopping episode rather than a parking offence. 4. I read the notice and felt it did not comply with POFA 2012 regulations that apply in these circumstances for establishing keeper liability. 5. There was clearly a number of other issues with the notice, however with the notice causing distress to the keeper, I offered to write an appeal on her behalf. 6. I received an email stating that the appeal had been rejected based on the “assumption” I was the driver. 7. Complicating this, the claimant repeatedly confuse whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper, see Particulars of Claim, thereby affecting my ability to file a full defence. Relevant land 8. The land in question is governed by Byelaws made by the Merseyside County Council in pursuance of Section 3 and Section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968 and Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1978, and Section 26 of the Civil Aviation Act 1980, in respect of Liverpool Airport. 9. Section 5 refers to Control of the Motor Vehicles. 10. The Byelaws have at no stage been revoked. 11. The Byelaws do not make any provision for the creation of a contractual condition as expressed by the Claimant. 12. The airport has previously tried to change the Byelaws. see Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee Friday, Additional Papers. 13. The airport was unsuccessful in these attempts. 14. It now seems that, having unsuccessfully revised the Byelaws the airport (and the Claimaint) now claim that Byelaws do not apply to the land and the Byelaws only applied to a previous Airport – see Liverpool Airport Consultative Committee Friday, Additional Papers. 15. Baroness Kramer (Minister for Transport at the time) answered a written question in Parliament, confirming that the aforementioned Byelaws are still currently in force. See Parliamentary written question HL5109 16. The fact the Byelaws are still in place has also been confirmed by the Information Commissioner. see FOI request 17. It is worth noting the airport has in fact not moved, simply moved terminal. The runway in use was built in 1966 - See newspaper article 18. The airport has had the same International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) code throughout it’s history. - see ICAO document 19. Liverpool John Lennon’s Airport’s own website makes reference to the fact the airport has been in continuous service for over 80 years. – see LJLA 80th birthday celebrations press release 20. The Byelaws are therefore relevant, cover the issue of controlling motor vehicles in the airport, including parking, and therefore a civil contract cannot supercede this. Was a contract formed at all? 21. The signage on approach to the airport is insufficient to form a contract. 22. It has too many words to be read when driving past. –see attached photo 23. The signage is forbidding, stating only “No Stopping” and therefore a contract cannot be formed. See PCM (UK) v Bull (B4GF26K6) 24. However, to understand the sign and in particular, who the contract is with, one must stop their car, immediately contravening the supposed contract. 25. The signage makes no reference to formation of a contract nor any Terms & Conditions. 26. The sign states “£100 charge if you stop”. This does not appear to be an offer or an agreement, but more like a deterrent to discourage drivers to stop their vehicles. Reliance is placed on CEL vs Mccafferty (3YK50188) where a deterrent penalty clause was deemed not recoverable as it did not form part of a genuine offer. 27. Smaller signs are present but are so small that they cannot be read from the road whilst driving – See attached photos If a contract was formed it is a contract demanding the impossible 28. Even if a contract could be formed under such circumstances, it is demanding the impossible as stopping at the subsequent roundabout is required at times to give way to oncoming traffic. 29. A contract must therefore be invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance. See Pace Recovery & Storage vs. Lengyal C7GF6E3R 30. If the contract is not deemed impossible, it must be therefore be considered acceptable to stop in some circumstances such as to allow reasonable compliance with the highways code in instances such as turning and giving way at roundabouts, but not in other circumstances. Was the vehicle stopped in a “stopway”? 31. The photographs provided by the claimant do not show the vehicle stopped in the “stopway”.

Actually don't know who was driving, for a number of reasons. Happy to let VCS try and show it was me, if the court decides on balance of probs that is was me (and I can see there is a chance of that) would it likely impact negatively on the rest of my arguements? I have seen in some court transcripts the judge ruling on one part of the case first as that affects the rest of it, do I have to ask the judge to do that? Or is that just part of their remit as judges, wouldn't want to patronise them

Yes I've made a list of cases I've seen around the net, just wondered if there was a publicly available court databases for the official report etc. I'll start collating documents and reference them. Re the driver issue: So they claim I said I was the driver when I appealed on behalf of the keeper. They sent me a copy of the text of the appeal, which doesn't say anything about being the driver. However, they have manually added a line at the top of the document that says something along the lines of "Note: driver was selected option". Now, I don't recall ticking that, it's nearly 18 months ago but I vaguely remember ticking something along the lines of appealing on behalf of someone else. Anyway my main error was getting involved and putting my own email, and not just getting the keeper to respond as they had lost POFA at that point due to time-frame. Anyway, we are where we are and I'm quite looking forward to it. Thanks for the advice as always

Thanks, useful feedback, I will condense the arguements a little and add in the evidence as you suggest. Apologies, not sure where is best to look for all these cases. Is there a collection of VCS losses anywhere or is there a resource I can search? Re: above, they are pursuing me specifically as they seem to think I was the driver. They said so in correspondence and although their Particulars of Claim is keeps mentioning they are pursuing me as driver/keeper, I clearly am not the keeper and they must know this.

Hi all, i've been putting together some arguments for the WS. Not sure if the stopping specifics should go in here? Or should they have gone in my defence? I hope I can still use them as arguements. I will elaborate on the airport byelaws and signage issues. Anything else that should go in or be omitted? thanks in advance Witness statement In the county court of liverpool VCS (claimaint) vs. liverpool33 (defence) 1. My name is xxxxx of xxxaddressxxx. On the DATE my wife, received a “parking charge notice” from the claimant. This notice actually referred to a supposed stopping episode. I read the notice and recognised it did not comply with POFA regulations. I then wrote an appeal on her behalf. 2. I received an email stating that the appeal had been rejected based on the “assumption” I was the driver. 3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claims to file a full defence. In particular they repeatedly confuse parking and stopping and also importantly whether they are pursuing me as the driver or keeper. 4. At no point have I received a charge notice personally – ? shall I put a bit about preaction conduct here? 5. The claimant has not provided me with any satisfactory evidence to show me that I was the driver, nor how they arrived at that conclusion in the first place. 6. I do not recall whether I was the driver on that evening – should I include the insurance policy at the time? 7. The photographs provided to me by the claimant do not show a stopped vehicle, each image shows the car in a different position. The car may therefore have simply been turning. 8. The original “PCN” sent to my wife refers to both parking and stopping. Neither are evident. 9. The “PCN” explicitly states the time of stopping to be directly before 21:45. 10. Only one photograph is time stamped prior to 21:45. One photograph cannot possibly be expected to confirm a vehicle is stopped. 11. In any case the other photographs provided by the claimant show the car moving between 21:44:59 and 21:45:03, and again in a different position a few seconds later. –Is this too much detail here? Shall I save this for court 12. The land in question is governed by bye-laws and hence a civil contract can not be formed – can elaborate here 13. The signage in question is inadequate to form a contract for a number of reasons. 14. Firstly, the signage contains too many words to be read safely for the speed. –I can put more detail in here 15. The wording is forbidding, makes no offer and therefore cannot offer a contract. ?do I need to reference PCM v Bull etc here? 16. Even if a contract could be formed under such circumstances, it is demanding the impossible as stopping at the subsequent roundabout is required at times to give way to oncoming traffic. 17. If the contract is not deemed impossible, it must be therefore be considered acceptable to stop in some circumstances such as to allow reasonable compliance with the highways code in instances such as giving way at roundabouts, but not in other circumstances. 18. The signage does not make this clear. 19. The line markings in the photograph provided by the claimant show that the turning/stopping episode occurred at a junction which is on the barred side of a barred double red line. 20. A bar represents the end of an area regulated by roadside lines. 21. It may therefore reasonable to assume that the double red line ‘stopway’ does not apply to the area in question. 22. The airport parking T&C (website) support this, in that they state the red routes i.e. “stopway” are clearly marked. 23. Given the stopways are “clearly marked” the barred end of double red must therefore represent an area which is not part of the “stopway” I believe the facts stated here to be true signed date

This case seems similar to mine, VCS appear to be attempting to use some new arguements at LJLA, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116961&st=480 Has anyone seen these arguments used before?

Ah yes, claimant not defendant, thanks

Date now received for Notice of Allocation Date is set for October at Liverpool As I understand it I am required to pay a £25 fee and provide all documents I'll use in court to the court and also VCS at least 14 days before. I need to change my address as I'm about to move house so would a letter to the court manager and VCS (recorded of course), suffice? thanks for your help as always, I'll start putting defence documents together. Is it just the documents I need or do I need to formulate a written outline of my defence as well?

Filed def within the initial 33 day window on MCOL. Have received and completed Directions questionnaire. Got a letter and phonecall asking about mediation even though I said I didn't want it. Got a letter saying it will be at Liverpool. No date yet.

Have had confirmation proceedings will be in Liverpool. Should I be actively doing anything else at the moment other thank thinking about a robust defence? I am moving house soon, is there a formal way of amending my address for the case moving forwards? Or shall I just ring up and get the details changed thanks

I said NO on the form to mediation

I submitted my defence and then my Directions Questionnaire. I requested my hearing in Liverpool. Do I also need to send a copy of the questionnaire to VCS as I haven't done that yet? I have received a copy of their questionnaire (strangely with a cover letter dated 27th March!) Presume it's a stock one they forgot to change the date on. They have requested Sheffield. Also had an email requesting mediation. Should I accept that or wait for court?

Updated, advertising consent removed. Just to confirm, bulletpoints are ok for this submission and then I would go into more detail in my WS? Defence: 1. The claim is denied. 2. The site is subject to byelaws governing the control of motor vehicles. Hence the claimant cannot offer a civil contract in this matter. 3. There was no offer of contract as the signage the claimant refers to is clearly inadequate to do so. 4. The defendant does not admit they were the driver and/or keeper as alleged by the claimant. 5. The is no keeper liability by the POFA 2012 in this case and hence the claimant must provide strict proof the defendant was the driver.