vcs pcn claimform - JLA Liverpool Airport-no stopping ***Claim Dismissed with Costs*** judge said VCS can't enforce no stopping

[brassnecked]

There will be a way to ridicule it at any hearing anyway

[FTMDave]

Yes, you can ask the court to discount it, but the judge will decide.

 

Please post up Ambreen 2 when you get a minute so we can have a laugh during our long day.

[Didusha]

 

I am not sure what she is on about in paragraph 4 - 8, and what is that in relation too.

the rest I understood as follows:

• the idea that there is no right of way with the two cases from 19th century supporting this
• and that byelaws are arbitrary, and the airport can pick and choose which ones to apply, or that both ( their scheme and byelaws) can apply.

Questions:

1. You say I can ask the judge, but should I( what do I gain), and if so, when and in what form( email, post, and do I have to send copy to VCS ) or is it at the hearing?
2. Do I have to send a reply to this, in case the judge decides to accept their supp WS, then they should accept mine, if i decide to send one?
3. Where/when does it end, do we keep on sending supplements to the judge until the very date of the hearing trying to make a point? It seems nothing is stopping them submitting whatever they want at any date.

supp WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

What Ambreen has written is laughable, and TBH it doesn't make much odds if you reply to it or not.

 

However, I would suggest knocking up a couple of paragraphs this evening and replying with your own SWS.

 

I'm very busy at work today but will be on the thread about 10pm with suggestions.

[brassnecked]

They are scraping the barrel with those cases, involving rights of way for hotel Porters and  They are at 15 attempting to go behind any Bye laws which are superior to any contract they deem to have with someone .  Breach of Bye law is criminal, Contract is Civil and as with Elliott V Loake  which is criminal cannot apply as Excel/VCS found out, this is why they have dug out these two arcane cases.

[Nicky Boy]

Didn't you stop them from serving you documents by email?

Edited January 9, 2023 by Nicky Boy
Missing word

[Didusha]

I told them not to send me emails the first time they did( when they had to re-submit their PoC ).

Since then they have posted the original WS.

I have never sent them anything via email (apart from the email instructing them not to serve me documents via email).

Today they just served the court via email and copied me in. 

I don't think they care or remember.

 

[Nicky Boy]

Well, to my mind, their latest submission should be deemed as not served because you blocked further communications from them and "didn't receive it" and "won't know about it" until the day of the hearing.

You could ask for it to be disallowed by the judge on the day. Show a copy of your email instructing the fleecers to desist using email and explain that you blocked any further emails.

 

Let's what the experts think...

[Didusha]

Let's see if I receive anything in the post.

 

I thought the date for submission is set and should be respected, but it seems similarly to the bylaws, everything is arbitrary and open to interpretation in VCS world .

 

[FTMDave]

OK @Didusha quick decision time.

 

I was going to knock up two or three paragraphs to reply to Ambreen's bilge, but @Nicky Boy has brought up a damn good point that you "never received" the SWS, and if they admit in court they e-mailed you it you'd have your letter prepared to show the judge you'd told them not to use e-mail.

 

It doesn't make huge odds either way as Ambreen's witterings are worthless. 

 

It depends on how you wish to humiliate them, by showing they can't even be bothered to note how to contact a defendant or laughing at the illiterate rubbish they write.  Your choice!

[Didusha]

Thanks for the advice.

I am going to look out for anything in the post this week.

 

I can prepare on the points they make regarding the byelaws and the right of passage. Have them ready just in case.

Could you drop a few links if you know any, I will search as well.

 I am sure I have seen these paragraphs used by them before .

Not sure what her first few points 4-8 are though.

Something to do with her PoC. I feel like she has forgotten to delete them, after copying and pasting. I mean, we all do it, but she should make it make sense, she gets paid to do it.

 

Also, I don't want the hearing adjourned if I can help it.  Three years of thinking about VCS is enough .

 

[FTMDave]

You know how to format a WS, so the new one would be exactly the same except for calling it a SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS STATEMENT rather than a WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I'd just write a few paragraphs.

 

1.  That if the court allows the SWS written by Ambreen on xxx date you respectfully request the court to allow your own SWS.

 

2.  Regarding para 10 where Ambreen states that "byelaws are not compulsory" or para 15 "the byelaws are therefore arbitrary", such a statement is ludicrous, a law is a law is a law, otherwise criminals in court would be stating continuously that the law they were charged under was not compulsory or was arbitrary.  JLA is covered by byelaws and the proper procedure in case of a traffic violation is for the driver to be prosecuted in a Magistrate's Court and a fine paid to the state.  Not for a private company to enrich themselves.

 

3.  (Given she's put "strict proof" attach a copy of the byelaws and ridicule her for not knowing if they exist or not).

 

4.  You agree (paras 20 & 21) that the Claimant's trade association allows fictitious, made-up charges to be added to the PCN amount.  You would expect no less.  Until 2013 there was only one trade association for the industry, the British Parking Association.  Its independent appeals body cancelled too many tickets for the likes of VCS, who “jumped ship” and joined a new, rival association, the IPC.  The IPC and its appeals body the IAS are run by the same people, in a blatant conflict of interest.  Of course it is of no surprise that a breakaway, biased parking association allows such unlawful practices.  That is irrelevant.  What is important is what the law in England & Wales considers as reasonable and lawful.

[lookinforinfo]

Ambreen is playing a dangeros game asking for strict proof of Liverpool airport Byelaws since she knows that they are in apparent limbo since new Byelaws were drawn up back in 2016 which still have not been confirmed by the Secretary of State as they must.

 

However if we look at the Airports Act 1986 S63 Airport Byelaws we find

"(1)Where an airport is either—

(a)designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State, or

(b)managed by the Secretary of State,

the airport operator (whether the Secretary of State or some other person) may make byelaws for regulating the use and operation of the airport and the conduct of all persons while within the airport."

 

The Secretary of State must ratify the Byelaws  by whoever makes the Airport Byelaws  before they can come into force. Until they are signed by the S OF S. the previous Byelaws are still in operation. Once the Sof S signs the new Byelaws, the previous ones are revoked.

 

In situations where some one other than the S of S drafts the Byelaws, before they can become Law, they still must be signed by the S of S.  This is covered by the Airports Act 1983 Schedule 3 "Airport Byelaws made by Persons other than the Secretary of State"

3] "At least one month before application for confirmation of the byelaws is made to the Secretary of State, "......

 

Therefore all airports covered by the Airports Act 1986 come under the auspices of the Secretary of State and thus all those airports come under statutory control.

 

In PoFA Section 3 [1][c]  referring to the meaning of relevant land not covered by PoFA "(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control."

 

It beggars belief that a paralegal who has at least for two years handling legal work for VCS, who have several clients that own  airports, is unaware of the status of airport Byelaws. They are mandatory and she must know that and her handlers must also know that. So to aver that they may not be compulsory is  completely disingenuous and calls into question her signing of  the Witness Statement.

If you include that last piece of mine in your supplementary WS Ambreen might not be so keen in putting motorists to strict proof in future. [She should also be asked to come to Court with her toothbrush ].

 

Ambreen seems to forget that while the land may be private it is also an airport with motorists going to catch a plane or collecting passengers so VCS cannot pick and choose who enters the land.

 

There are no photos of your car that pinpoints where on the airport you were stopped [not parked] nor have they marked on their map where you were stopped. It should be self evident that "Liverpool airport" is not sufficiently precise a location to comply with PoFA.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

And obviously, a photograph cannot possibly show whether a vehicle is stopped or moving...

[brassnecked]

So maybe in your supplemental using LFI and FTM Dave's suggestions rubbish the arcane cases Ambreen has dug up and indicate she is trying to go behind and thereby usurp the Statutory legal Binding of the By Laws regarding Airports, which although are Private land they come with in the Statutory Control of the Secretary of State.  Should be enough to give Ambreen squeaky cheeks if  ever she is called to attend.

[Didusha]

11 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Ambreen is playing a dangeros game asking for strict proof of Liverpool airport Byelaws since she knows that they are in apparent limbo since new Byelaws were drawn up back in 2016 which still have not been confirmed by the Secretary of State as they must.

 

However if we look at the Airports Act 1986 S63 Airport Byelaws we find

"(1)Where an airport is either—

(a)designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State, or

(b)managed by the Secretary of State,

the airport operator (whether the Secretary of State or some other person) may make byelaws for regulating the use and operation of the airport and the conduct of all persons while within the airport."

 

The Secretary of State must ratify the Byelaws  by whoever makes the Airport Byelaws  before they can come into force. Until they are signed by the S OF S. the previous Byelaws are still in operation. Once the Sof S signs the new Byelaws, the previous ones are revoked.

 

In situations where some one other than the S of S drafts the Byelaws, before they can become Law, they still must be signed by the S of S.  This is covered by the Airports Act 1983 Schedule 3 "Airport Byelaws made by Persons other than the Secretary of State"

3] "At least one month before application for confirmation of the byelaws is made to the Secretary of State, "......

 

Therefore all airports covered by the Airports Act 1986 come under the auspices of the Secretary of State and thus all those airports come under statutory control.

 

In PoFA Section 3 [1][c]  referring to the meaning of relevant land not covered by PoFA "(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control."

 

It beggars belief that a paralegal who has at least for two years handling legal work for VCS, who have several clients that own  airports, is unaware of the status of airport Byelaws. They are mandatory and she must know that and her handlers must also know that. So to aver that they may not be compulsory is  completely disingenuous and calls into question her signing of  the Witness Statement.

If you include that last piece of mine in your supplementary WS Ambreen might not be so keen in putting motorists to strict proof in future. [She should also be asked to come to Court with her toothbrush ].

 

Ambreen seems to forget that while the land may be private it is also an airport with motorists going to catch a plane or collecting passengers so VCS cannot pick and choose who enters the land.

 

There are no photos of your car that pinpoints where on the airport you were stopped [not parked] nor have they marked on their map where you were stopped. It should be self evident that "Liverpool airport" is not sufficiently precise a location to comply with PoFA.

 

 

with regards to the byelaws at JLA - they were signed by the Secretary of state on 11/12/2022 and as of 11/12/2022 are in place and the old ones revoked. Whether this is the complete process I do not know, but it is what is written on the second to last page.

In fairness, in January 2020 the old byelaws were in place, not the new ones, and maybe this is what she is trying to argue, I don't know. The old byelaws were even more specific about what happens when a car stops in a restricted area, I am going to try and find them again.

In her statements isn't she trying to argue that even if there are byelaws in place, the airport operator can pick and choose whether to apply them or the scheme, however they please. And that is why she is bringing that case with the railway company( even though that was taxi drivers not wanting to pay for permits or something like that, nothing to do with parking/stopping), with the judge saying both the scheme and the byelaws can apply simultaneously. 

 

I will include all you and FTMdave have suggested and upload for review hopefully later this evening.

I have 3 options:

1. Now, if I receive a copy in the post, I will send my sup WS  into court via post.

2. If I do not, then I will ask the judge not to allow it, but still prepare on the points.

3. Write and send my sup ws via email, because vcs clearly do not care about dates or method of serving documents.

[Didusha]

Byelaws at John Lennon Airport - a Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council - WhatDoTheyKnow

WWW.WHATDOTHEYKNOW.COM

---

Could you please confirm if byelaws are in force in regards to traffic management at Liverpool John Lennon Airport and if so could you please supply any documents in your response including any documentaion under...

 

just found this  - it has a copy of the byelaws from 1982 and there were still in place at 2018, as confirmed by Liverpool Council.

 

[brassnecked]

Yes she is trying to argue that but as LFI points out the By laws are Statutory and an operator can't pick and choose what applies they apply Globally to the Curtlege of the Airport including access roads.

[lookinforinfo]

This is the first time I have seen the new Byelaws from the airport itself. They do say that the Secretary of State has signed them but do not show their signature.

It still doesn't make any difference to the land not being relevant land nor the fact that their is no keeper liability. And as your alleged breach happened well before the new Byelaws the changes cannot be used against you.

[lapwing_larry]

The Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022 could be relevant here. It says:

 

"Where land is governed by byelaws, those byelaws cannot legally be set aside unless specific provision is made to do so, hence it is important that parking operators do not confuse the enforcement of byelaws with the contractual application of parking charges."

 

Ambreen can be put to strict proof that such specific provisions had been made to legally set the Byelaws aside. Of course, Ambreen won't be in court and there will be no such proof. She tried the same arguments in a case I was involved in but VCS were so confident of their case that no one even dialled in for the remote hearing. Case dismissed!!

[Didusha]

 

@lapwing_larry I have referred to the Code of Practice in my original WS, however I am not sure how strong my argument will be due to it being currently under review.

I have seen  the same arguments from her somewhere else. At the time I remember reading it and thinking 1856, what is she on about.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Although the new Government Private parking  regulations have been suspended the contents are already known and Judges should be taking them into consideration especially when they coincide with current legislation.

[brassnecked]

The indicator to how desperate VCS are is shown in that Supplementary WS they have used before pulling up Victorian cases to try to go behind  By laws. That missive from Ambreen does their case more harm than good.

[Didusha]

this is where  Ambreen copies her WS content from - her boss' linked-in page 

Private Rights Trump Railway Byelaws!

WWW.LINKEDIN.COM

---

The British Parking Association (BPA) is looking to seek clarification with Department of Communities, the Local Government and the DVLA regarding private enforcement on railway land where Railway Byelaws are enforced...

 

[FTMDave]

Well spotted!

 

Jake Burgess either works for VCS or at least does work for them, as his name has appeared on letters from their legal department and he has written WSs for them.

 

This part made me particularly laugh, as I know Ambreen quoted it for JLA - "This charge levied is used to police the Car Park and is heavily reinvested to improve the layout, the facilities and to alleviate congestion to the benefit of the users".

 

Really?  At JLA?  The charge is used to finance Simple Simon's flash house & cars!

 

If you do produce a SWS you can humiliate Ambreen for stealing an article referring to a train station where monies made from a parking scheme were used to improve the facilities and using it for JLA where monies made from the parking scheme are used solely for her company's profits.