VCS CCTV PCN - No Stopping - Outside entrance to southend airport SS2 6YF (Lay Rep too) ***Claim Dismissed***

[nightnajjers]

Hello

 

We can chalk up another triumph over VCS.

 

There was some confusion over whether having someone represent you is allowed,  It is allowed. 

In supplying my WS to the Court I asked permision for my partner to represent me as Lay representative. On the day the Judge did ask VCS if that was ok with them, which they agreed to.

 

The VSC representative approached us prior to the hearing saying that she was authorised to settle for £185, we said in our favour? She said no to that.

 

The hearing was a bit odd.

 

First the judge did not have the VCS WS, I thought the judge would end the case there and then. However the VCS representative gave the Judge her copy. The VCS representative did not have my WS. There was a discussion about adjourning the case, the judge asked the VCS representative if she was happy to continue, she said was. Judge asked VCS why they thought I should pay. Then asked me why I thought I should not.

 

My partner went through as best as possibly could with POFA

Airport By-laws,

Planning permission

lack of contract,

signage illumination,

location etc.

 

I think that the judge said as only 30 minutes had been allowed she would not get too involved with digging too deep.

 

In summing up the case was decided on the lack of evidence showing the signs created a contract, the signs were unlit (the stopping event took place at night) .

 

The judge commented on the first entrance sign that it was under a tree and in the shadows and that the tree blocked out the street lamp.

 

Lastly the photos supplied by VCS of the stopping event did not show any signs showing where the event took place.

 

I asked for costs and for unreasonable and LIP costs. Judge said that she thought that VCS had a legitimate claim.

I did not get any costs.

the judge did not comment or judge on anything except the signs.

 

From the VCS point of view it was a complete lashup.

They did not provide their representative with anything like what was required. 

The judge was a bit nonplussed by the lack of VCS paperwork.

 

For anyone in the same position, be forewarned I have ended up with almost a Kilo of paperwork.

 

Was it worth it? Absolutely.

Happy to have stumped the parasites.

One can live in hopes that the new parking code will come into force sooner rather than later.

 

Thank you all who contributed..

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

What a great result-well done to you both. A weight off your mind plus no money paid to VCS. happy days.

I don't know if you had read other VCS threads where the say they have not received the WS from defendants. If it is true [which is very doubtful] you would have thought that might have worked out what happened to them. I think they are always hoping that the Judge will award the case to them but if that is the reason that would appear to be very much an abuse of process.

[nightnajjers]

Hello. It was the Court that had not received the VCS WS. I doubt that the VCS reresentative will want to act for them again , all she had was  Jolly  Jake"s WS and she had to give that to the Judge. I think even the Judge was feeling a bit sorry for her.

[lapwing_larry]

Well done! Great result.

 

Showed them up for the clowns they are.

 

No surprise that the judge focussed on the signage at that site even though you also had plenty of other winning arguments.

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[nightnajjers]

Thank you. It was a good team effort.

 

One thing I forget to to mention, although no example were given the judge said that it was long proven that lack of Planning permission for signs  was not a defence.

[brassnecked]

Well done great result. Don't know where the judge got that idea as lack of Planning Permission is a criminal offence.

[nightnajjers]

I have a feeling that it is not a criminal offence. As if you do not have planning permission the local council can issue an enforcment notice and if you do not comply or appeal against an enforcment notice then it becomes a criminal offence

[dx100uk]

it is and its won numerous cases and has also caused PPC's to cancel speculative invoices and discontinue live court claims.

 

 

 

dx

[FTMDave]

A good case for @Hobnailto ponder upon.  If you produce a Witness Statement (as opposed to being too lazy to do so) and actually turn up to your informal court hearing (as opposed to being too scared to do so) you tend to win!

 

It seems the advice here is excellent (not poor) and the site is not in bed with the fleecers ... this evening Simple Simon will be very narked with both nigthnajjers and CAG.

 

 

[FTMDave]

dx is spot on.

 

What we tend to find is that judges will not decide on just one element of the case and will try to be fair to both sides, so might decide that lack of PP is not enough on its own to throw out the fleecers' case - but it's always worth including to show a pattern of the charlatans not bothering a toss to get the most basic legal permissions to run their rip-off operation. 

[nightnajjers]

I was a bit miffed that there was no financial consideration towards us, did not even get the £4.00 parking fees we had to pay to go to the Court. I think in this case as there was only 30 minutes allowed the Judge just opted for the easiest route for her.

 

The only pleasing part was the Pieman had to cough up the Court fees which I think would have been £35 application fee and the hearing fee £25.00. Plus the cost of the representative which although it was not made known assuming she was a Solicitor hopefully that would have cost maybe £150. to £200. The tragic part is that while he was losing that money he probably issued another ten PCNs At the Airport during the hearing.

 

Now there is the issue of The Pieman accessing keeper details without proper authority from DVLA?

 

Make of it what you will , but I find it curious that when asked for the information under cpr we were provided with a copy of the alleged contract which you may recall was between East Midlands Airport and Southend Airport , not between VCS and Southened Airport.  Jester Jakes WS did not include a copy of any Contract. I had mentioned here fairly early on the contract disparity!

[lookinforinfo]

Had the signage not been a problem the Judge would have ruled on the disparity in the contracts.

You had already won on the signage so no point continuing . However the more faults you include the better your chance of a victory

 

I think the Judge erred in not at least including your costs since they knew from your WS that there case was weak. No doubt they hoped you wouldn't turn up .

[nightnajjers]

That was the weird bit, the judge could not have ruled on the contract because VCS did not include a contract in their WS. 

[nightnajjers]

Hello

I have been pondering the VCS claim and I am wondering if would be a possibility to take them to task over the misuse of the POFA. As far as I see it VCS do not have the authority from the landowner at Southend Airport and the fact that they were not entitled to access the DVLA as the Airport is covered by the Bye-laws thus not relevant land, plus there was no evidence to show or prove that the keeper was the driver. From limited investigation it appears that VCS accessing DVLA under those circumstances was without authority and a breach of Data Protection. Act.

 

As you can probably imagine I am happy with the outcome of my case but I am far from happy that So much time and worry was spent defending the case and spoiling more or less a whole day for Court on a without merit case.

[lookinforinfo]

I think you would be on a very sticky wicket there. VCS are members of the IPC and entitled to use the DVLA data on motorists. While PoFA cannot be used on relevant land to transfer liability to the keeper, it can still be used to ask the keeper to provide the details of the driver.  In most cases the driver and keeper are the same person even though it cannot be assumed in Court.

 

On the question of the land owner and the contract, we do not know whether the actual land owner has authorised Southend airport to act on behalf of the actual owners nor whether there are limitations on their permissions. Just because no authority was included from the land owner does not mean it does not exist.

 

There is one avenue that you could explore though.  On the signage you showed at the  bottom they state "The London Southend Airport Bye laws 1987." They would not sue over bye laws because  bye law breaches are held in a different kind of Court and if found guilty, the defendant  owes the money to the Treasury not VCS.

The question is whether the 1987 Act ever existed and even if it did, there have been at least two  further Southend bye laws issued which revoke previous issued bye laws. I can find no trace of the 1987 version which is not to say that it didn't exist and perhaps the Wayback machine may locate it. But even if it did exist back then it no longer applies though the replacements while not specifically naming roads just says that it is an offence not to obey Notices. 

 

I did find the London Southend Airport bye laws 1997 which revokes the 1980 Southend Municipal Airport bye laws. 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/77143/response/195520/attach/3/SKMBT C28011071116080.pdf

That should have revoked the 1987 bye laws too if they ever existed as you could not have two separate bye laws running together.

I did find  The Airports Byelaws (Designation) Order 1987 but that would apply to all airports not just Southend and I have not been able to find out what is stated on those byelaws.

I have found the current bye laws in force-

Airport Byelaws - London Southend Airport

SOUTHENDAIRPORT.COM

---

Find copies of our current and proposed byelaws

 

They helpfully provide a map of the area but the map is rather unhelpful at the same time unless you are able to identify where the lines of demarcation are or maybe able to overlay a better map which includes reference points.

The Council may be the best contact to find out whether the road you were parked on is subject to bye laws and therefore on airport land, or whether the road you were stopped on was maintained by the Council. And if not maintained now, was it back in 2020?

 

You could ask the Council who would have erected a yellow traffic  sign with a mention of the bye laws below it and the legality of it. That one on your photo does not appear to be an RTA sign though.

[nightnajjers]

Hello

Thank you for your reply and  information. It sounds like it would be an uphill struggle  and require  a lot more legal prowess than I have, to mount any sort of claim against them.

I still find it crazy that they can carry on as they do, cheating lying and weaponising the Court system and with no redress for the victims of their at best unscrupulous behaviour.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Well it wouldn't be too difficult if the Council would confirm that the approach road does not come under the airport responsibility.

[nightnajjers]

You could not rely on the Useless staff at the council. I wrote three letters asking if VCS had applied  or gained  planning permission for the Signage. Absloutley ignored all three times. Poor things are probably still at home smoking and drinking coffee sitting on their behinds

[dx100uk]

What about TRO's? you should be able to find if they exist from the highways dept .

 

Dx

 

 

[nightnajjers]

Hello

The highways dept are just as useless as the council in my experience.  I think I will not continue as I have a few other bigger problems to deal with at the moment.  I will chalk up a success in this case and at least I know that I cost them a reasonably large sum and that decency and the law prevailed.