VCS Claimform - No Stopping PCN - Liverpool Airport

[pixelhouse]

I got my Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track and my date for court .. yikes!!

vcsCourtDate.pdf

[dx100uk]

so witness statement time

[ericsbrother]

Yikes? why yikes, they have been given a [telling off] already for writing a rubbish claim and have a month to rewrite it or lose by default.

 

You want to be on top of that as soon as the clock chimes midnight for the 23rd May.

 

In the meanwhile you have until at leastthat day to get your thoughts together and generally you axchange documnts 14 days before the hearing unless otherwise instructed. They often file late so again you sned a complaint in to court if they do. that wont win hands down but it all goes to help persuade the judge whose evidence they prefer, a serial abuser of the courts process or the individual who manages to get things right first time

Edited April 24, 2018 by DragonFly1967
Edited to add spacing/paragraphs and remove swearword

[pixelhouse]

Thanks for your words of encouragement .. I'm thinking yikes because I'm a little terrified of standing in front of a judge without having your brains and knowledge inside my head

 

Is that how you read it ericsbrother?

I simply read it as they hadn't yet paid the trial fee of £25 and they need to either pay it or submit an application for help with the fees or as the letter reminded them their claim would be struck out.

 

So, regarding the witness statement .. is there a template for this or should I write it in my own words?

[ericsbrother]

What you havent done is actually read and understand the latter.

You must read everything carefully and not jump to conclusions.

 

Witness statement?

You have a month to think about what you want to say

as said, they lose automatically if they dont pay the fee and are hoping you brick it and make an offer to settle when they know full well they are going to lose a defended claim.

 

Only thing you need to do in the meanwhile is read loads of other threads which have got to court and in particular the relevant cases commented on in detail on the Parking pranksters blogspot. His web pages has all of the info on compelling and persuasive judgements including several cases from JLA

Edited April 24, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[pixelhouse]

So they've paid the £25 fee and today they've sent me their evidence .. all almost 100 pages of it!

 

So, now I'm writing my defence .. any suggestions?

indexBundle.pdf

[dx100uk]

you've already defended the claim...……………………

post 52

[dx100uk]

don't dither too long you must send it to the court by the 5th

[DragonFly1967]

I can see the Judge tearing chunks out of them for wasting their time with that little lot.

 

Pretty much all you'll need is a copy of the LJLA bye-laws

[brassnecked]

The cases they have relied on especially Beavis cannot apply to this as they have no claim to begin with, the Byelaws apply not their mickey mouse signage. EB. DF and DX have given you all the ammunition you need, now go bite them on their sorry jive backsides

[pixelhouse]

The cases they have relied on especially Beavis cannot apply to this as they have no claim to begin with, the Byelaws apply not their mickey mouse signage.

 

Hi fella,

 

What do you mean by this?

Sorry if I'm being a bit dim but I'm trying to write up my defence and don't quite follow you

[dx100uk]

use the search CAG box of the red toolbar

 

no stopping VCS witness statement

[DragonFly1967]

I have the document on my PC, but unfortunately, my PC is fried until tomorrow (hopefully, if the parts arrive). However, these are the full bye-laws for Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/198654/response/495713/attach/html/4/Byelaws%20for%20Liverpool%20John%20Lennon%20Airport.pdf.html

 

The parts that are relevant to your case are Section 5, which deals with motor vehicles on airport property, and Section 12 which deals with the penalties.

 

Now, the important part is, because that document exists, the land is under "statutory control" and is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the POFA 2012 which is covered in the POFA at Schedule 4. Section 3 (and it's subsections), and therefore keeper liability does not and cannot apply.

 

Only the driver can be fined (proper fined, not this Mickey Mouse type that VCS have sent you), not the keeper, and that fine can only be handed down in a Magistrates Court.

 

 

VCS know this very well, so will probably pull out of the case at the very last moment, as per normal, because those bye-laws completely destroy their case and their claim.

[pixelhouse]

Hey thanks,

 

I saw and downloaded this document but VCS never mentioned bye-law in their paperwork so I was wondering why it was relevant:

 

Now I know

 

^^ When I say "this document" I refer to the one you linked to DragonFly1967 and not the one I attached

defense.pdf

[DragonFly1967]

Ha! They wouldn't. They want you to pay up, not know how to beat them at their own game

 

There are lots of ways to beat them of course, but they hope that you never find out about any of them.

[brassnecked]

Hi fella,

 

What do you mean by this?

Sorry if I'm being a bit dim but I'm trying to write up my defence and don't quite follow you

As DF indicates the LJA Bylaws are precedent VCS have no case, they put those cases in to try to ground an impossible. and scare you into submission as in we cite cases that are not relevant to bamboozle you and the judge, when we know there can be no Keeper Liability as byelaws trump our claim.

[ericsbrother]

you cannot work in isolation, raed about this elsewhwere such as the Parking pranksters blogspot. Plenty of great advice and previous cases published there, use them against VCS.

VCAS know they dont have a claim, they have had their backside kicked often enough but they also bet that you dont know about this so once they see what you intend to raise they are likely to drop the claim and concentrate on the next poor sap

[pixelhouse]

Now, the important part is, because that document exists, the land is under "statutory control" and is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the POFA 2012 which is covered in the POFA at Schedule 4. Section 3 (and it's subsections), and therefore keeper liability does not and cannot apply.

 

Question:

 

I basically admitted to them that I was the driver when I initially made an appeal, would they not just use this confession?

[FTMDave]

Question:

 

I basically admitted to them that I was the driver when I initially made an appeal, would they not just use this confession?

 

The most important point here is that the land is subject to bye-laws. Drivers who break the rules should be prosecuted and fines paid to the state. VCS have no interest in the land whatsoever.

 

Every case is different.

 

Admitting who the driver was is always a bad idea, but it's not really that important in your case.

[ericsbrother]

have you read the Parking Pranksters blog on JLA and the failed claims of VCS from here? they replaced their signage a while ago because they kept getting hammered in court, they tried to get a change in the byelaw to allow them to go after peopel and lost that so they knwo they dont have a leg to stand on and just use the legal process to coerce or harass people into paying money they dont owe.

Use the other cases as part of your evidence, is is what is called persuasive so a jdge doesnt have to take it into account but will find it difficult to think of reasons not to.

[pixelhouse]

Sorry to be cheeky but do you have a link?

I did do a search for VCS JLA on his blog (top left search box) but only found one item entitled "How much does John Lennon Airport make from outsourcing parking?"

 

Many thanks for all your help.

[ericsbrother]

no.

go to google and look up his web site not blogspot. Simples.

[DragonFly1967]

Here's the one about VCS/LJLA trying to have the bye-laws changed, and failing miserably http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/dft-block-byelaw-at-john-lennon-airport.html

 

Have a good long look at VCS v Phillip as well. Although this occurred on the adjacent site, the defence fits your case almost to a tee. As does the counter claim