VCS/EXCEL/UKPCS - so who CAN litigate 'no stopping' PCN 's at Airports/Railway Stations/Port Authority with Existing Byelaws ?

[Peterbard]

It would also be able to demonstrate who should have enforced the contravention, local authority I suppose. An area I have never had an interest in.

 

I would be very surprised if there was no rational for their actions, however false.

 

So in fact the sign has nothing to do with making a contract,

 

The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to ‘adequately inform’ drivers of the stopping restrictions on the red route.

 This means that, provided drivers are not misled, the sign or road marking is valid.  

 

We regularly survey our signs and road markings to ensure they are properly maintained.  

We will always allow drivers time to check the signs but their priority must be to do this as soon as they have stopped

 

"The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to ‘adequately inform’ drivers of the stopping restrictions on the red route.  This means that, provided drivers are not misled, the sign or road marking is valid. "

 

Pointless arguing about the creation of a contract. 

 

That Which also said this

 

There is a 10 minute grace period before a PCN can be issued 
 
The grace period only applies to vehicles stopped in a parking bay.  

If a vehicle is parked legally in a designated parking bay when it is first parked, the ten minute grace period applies from the moment it becomes parked illegally. 

 

This means for example that, if a vehicle is parked in a bay that allows between 10am and 4pm, we may issue a PCN if the vehicle is still parked at 4.10pm.

 

 Remember that not all bays allow general parking and times may vary so always check the signs

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

the airport authority are the only ones that can ever enforce anything.

see the parking prankster site and blog re simon Renshaw-smith and ports,airports and their byelaws

[Peterbard]

A little more digging through the regs and company house.

 

The enforcement company who presented this are absolutely in locus standi, at least they are employed by the relevant creditor to enforce the collection of certain traffic offence charges.

So really the OP just has the identification of driver issue.

[FTMDave]

No they're not in locus standi, the area is covered by bye-laws.

 

If I see vandals smashing up lampposts, say, in my street, I can't go round handing out charges to them.  The correct procedure would be prosecution in a magistrates court and payment of a fine to the state.    

[ericsbrother]

you must understand that the RTA doesnt apply so there is no such thing as a red zone, double yellow lines etc, merely a convention as to what is wanted or expected.

 

If you park on a DYL in a private car park what offence have you committed? none.

 

What does the signage say about parking.

the agreement is that you park elsewhere and if you park on DYL's it costs you £100

so the sigange should clearly offer you that choice.

They dont.

 

the signs say things l;ike no stopping,

they should say stop here for £100 to create a contract but them the owners of the land will tell the parking co that they dont want peole parking there at all so the likes of VCS are stuck with telling lies and trying to enforce the unenforceable.

 

Now contract is based on offer and acceptance,

there has been no offer and you werent given the oportunity to read and consider the signage so no acceptance.

 

this is why VCS will not appeal one of these decisions becasue as soon as they do and lose

they cant issue another demand without seeing the inside of a prison cell.

 

they will take a few hits and continue to lie their way to make a profit

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, Peterbard said:

A little more digging through the regs and company house.

 

The enforcement company who presented this are absolutely in locus standi, at least they are employed by the relevant creditor to enforce the collection of certain traffic offence charges.

So really the OP just has the identification of driver issue.

 

[Peterbard]

Well DX. 

 

I think that this, just about sees to what little was left of your credibility.

[Peterbard]

19 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

you must understand that the RTA doesnt apply so there is no such thing as a red zone, double yellow lines etc, merely a convention as to what is wanted or expected.

 

If you park on a DYL in a private car park what offence have you committed? none.

 

What does the signage say about parking.

the agreement is that you park elsewhere and if you park on DYL's it costs you £100

so the sigange should clearly offer you that choice.

They dont.

 

the signs say things l;ike no stopping,

they should say stop here for £100 to create a contract but them the owners of the land will tell the parking co that they dont want peole parking there at all so the likes of VCS are stuck with telling lies and trying to enforce the unenforceable.

 

Now contract is based on offer and acceptance,

there has been no offer and you weren't given the opportunity to read and consider the signage so no acceptance.

 

this is why VCS will not appeal one of these decisions becasue as soon as they do and lose

they cant issue another demand without seeing the inside of a prison cell.

 

they will take a few hits and continue to lie their way to make a profitThe provision regardingten minutes leeway applies to car parks, this is not a car park. It is a zone where vehicles are not allowed to stop

 

There is no contract Eric, it is a warning sign, not an invitation to treat. There is an argument about it not being clear enough, but that is all. Also the 10 minute leeway applies to car parking, not no stopping zones. Provision to enforce is in regulations and the agency is operating under a permission to enforce given by the authority. Not some parking shyster.

 

[brassnecked]

No VCS take people to court in these cases to a County Court under Contract Law, read up on their LBA's and see the cases quoted, they will be stuff like Beavis.

[Peterbard]

Well they would under a civil offence or a contractual breach. Please show me a case and I will illustrate.

[dx100uk]

1. who put the red lines there...
2. who put the signs up...
3. are the signs reliant upon the red lines.

[Peterbard]

Hmm yes thanks dx.

 

Here is the LEGISLATION which brings the action.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/17

 

I will find the specific regulation if you wish. It is not about a contract in the case, It is a penalty charge brought about by breach of regulation. 

 

As I say parking is not one of my interests but law is.

[FTMDave]

I can't remember one airport VCS/Excel court case where Simon won when challenged on locus standi or prohibition.  One might of course exist, judges do get things wrong.  But can't think of one.

 

I can think of quite a few cases where Simon withdrew his case once the motorist defended on these points.

 

There are many, many threads on previous pages in this section where Simon didn't even bring a court case once challenged by an EB snotty letter.  Simon scuttled back under his stone.

 

I wonder why Simon keeps dropping cases against motorists despite apparently being in a strong position.  Maybe he's just a philanthropist wanting to save mere mortals money.

 

But, er, it's almost like, er, the advice that dx & EB have been giving for years on locus & prohibition is credible & spot on, and the way to see off Simon!  

[brassnecked]

Peterbard, why would Simple Simon seek  CCJ in a County Court if it should be dealt with by magistrates then?

[Peterbard]

6 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

I can't remember one airport VCS/Excel court case where Simon won when challenged on locus standi or prohibition.  One might of course exist, judges do get things wrong.  But can't think of one.

 

I can think of quite a few cases where Simon withdrew his case once the motorist defended on these points.

 

There are many, many threads on previous pages in this section where Simon didn't even bring a court case once challenged by an EB snotty letter.  Simon scuttled back under his stone.

 

I wonder why Simon keeps dropping cases against motorists despite apparently being in a strong position.  Maybe he's just a philanthropist wanting to save mere mortals money.

 

But, er, it's almost like, er, the advice that dx & EB have been giving for years on locus & prohibition is credible & spot on, and the way to see off Simon!  

Hi and I am sorry I dont have a clue what you are talking about, my fault. As I said I have never followed parking issues, just looking at the law. Much of what is said seems to be unclear to me.

I will say that in this case the claimant has right to pursue under legal instruction?

[brassnecked]

Op is setting aside a CCJ obtained by Simple Simon, the only way he could get a CCJ for this No Stopping is by suing for  breaching a contract entered into by parking .  Parking by stopping in a prohibited zone, As explained by FTMDave and EB above its under contract Law, and Simple has No Locus due to Bylaws being in effect there.

Its a legal oxymoron, as a prohibition cannot be contractural, yet that is the only way Simple can get a CCJ and a payday, by suing for breach of a Contractural term

from post #13

"The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.

The defendants vehicle was identified in the fuel station in 3rd quater of 2019 in breach of advertised terms and conditions.

Namely stopping in a zone where stopping prohibited.

 

At all material times the defendant was registered keeper and or driver.

 

The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.

 

The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct.

 

The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely the parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability."

 

Clearly CCJ obtained under Contract law, not   Legislation.

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, Peterbard said:

Hmm yes thanks dx.

 

Here is the LEGISLATION which brings the action.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/17

 

I will find the specific regulation if you wish. It is not about a contract in the case, It is a Penalty Charge brought about by breach of regulation. 

 

As I say parking is not one of my interests but law is.

 

you can't litigate on a Penalty Charge in county court.  

 

dx

[Peterbard]

No I am sorry but it is a breach of regulation nd nothing to do with contract law. This is what the guides say and thw legislation backs it up. 

 

There is obviously something else going on here, I will explore further.

[dx100uk]

But who made that regulation and what options are granted by said regulation to legally enforce i t and who can do that..

 

Dx

[Peterbard]

That was quick.

 

So firstly the ticket which the OP posted says" for contravention", so it is not a contractual issue it is a breach of legislation. 

 

However, are not these pursued under section 75 0r the civil procedure roles, in such a case the civil court will issue a judgement which , if no one attends will be in default?

[dx100uk]

What has been contraveened?

 

The byelaws

or

the civil parking contract?

 

Dx

[Peterbard]

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/note/made

 

Part 5 is concerned with the enforcement of penalty charges. 

 

Regulations 19 and 20 provide for the service of a notice to owner by an enforcement authority in respect of an unpaid penalty charge and specify the contents of a notice to owner and the time limit for service.

 

Provision is made by regulations 21, 22 and 23 for the service of charge certificates in respect of unpaid penalty charges (where a notice to owner or penalty charge notice under regulation 10 has been served and the avenues of appeal have not been pursued or have been pursued unsuccessfully),

 

for charge certificates to be enforced through a county court and for county court orders to be set aside where the respondent serves a witness statement stating one of the matters mentioned in regulation 23(2).

 

 

Anyway SORT YOURSELVES OUT

[brassnecked]

"The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.

 

The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct."

 

That was from the POC posted in Post#13  It was clearly an action for Breach of  a Contract,  VCS aver the OP entered into by stopping in the garage. irrespective of any Bylaws or Regulations.

[dx100uk]

discussion thread created.

 

please now post here.

[dx100uk]

peter,

even under a contract signed with the land owner...a private Parking company cannot issue  penalty charge notices.

these are a speculative invoices for breaking some imaginary parking contract the driver entered into by entering onto private land.

 

only the governing authority of the byelaws can issue a penalty charge notice.

and that can only be enforced via a magistrates court with the resulted awarded penalty going to the crown

 

geddit yet..??