Court Claim for PCN Advice

[Deemoo7]

Hi
I am looking for some advice on proceeding with the defense form for a claim that has been brought against me from Vehicle Control Services. (VCS)

Background of the claim is that VCS have CCTV of my car "stopping in an area where stopping is prohibited" between the times of 17.37 58sec and 17.38 14secs on the 31/01/2020.

What happened was that having got in the wrong lane on entrance to Liverpool John Lennon airport we came off at a roundabout which was the wrong exit, saw very clear signs a few meters ahead saying the road was a "red zone" and "stopping was prohibited" clearly we thought don't want to go down there and did a u turn in the road and came back onto the roundabout. The CCTV images clearly show the car stopped at the JUNCTION of the road the dashed lines of the junction are visible. But VCS seem to think that stopping at a junction on a busy airport road during rush hour for 16 secs an "unreasonable amount of time"

The Vehicle is a NHS fleet solution car.

Timeline of documentation ;

Contravention date 31/01/2020

PCN + HN received 16/03/2020

I sent a letter dated 01/04/20 with the standard decline of invitation to pay. Refused to name the driver of the vehicle, cited schedule 4 POFA (45 days till notice to keeper/HN) Liverpool airport land was at the time of writing the letter covered by Liverpool Council byelaws, 16 seconds at an junction is not excessive........

VCS replied on the 16/4/2020 stating they were "unable to accept my appeal" for the following reasons "signs at the entrance to the airport and access roads clearly state no stopping" "they have not cited POFA 2012 and the PCN went to the hire company first" ( I checked this and the NHS lease company received notice 28/02/2020) "vehicle stopped for an unreasonable amount of time" and that the byelaws pertaining to Liverpool Council roads are "not currently in use as these relate to the old airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport company"

10 debt recovery letters followed from May 2020 to Sept 2021 from various companies and with varying debt amounts.

Claim from from County Court services 3/11/2020

I completed the AOS 08/11/2020

Can anyone give me any advice on how to complete the defense form, what's important to put in and wording that sort of thing.

Thanks in advance.

[echat11]

Hi DEEM007

ostell Can you take a look and advise, many thanks.

[ostell]

With a hire car there is no requirement to deliver the NTH within 14 days. Only deliver the NTH together with a copy of the hire agreement and the original PCN. Did they supply? Probably not and therefore no hirer liability

Signs say "No stopping" a forbidding sign and incapable of creating a contract. Here's some similar text about permit holders only parking
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Byelaws exist, they moved when the airport moved and their can be no keeper liability, even so they have failed POFA

Has the driver been identified, yes or no? If they do not know the driver then they have to use POFA, and comply with its requirements, to transfer liability to the keeper. But, again, byelaws mean that POFA is not applicable

[Deemoo7]

With a hire car there is no requirement to deliver the NTH within 14 days. Only deliver the NTH together with a copy of the hire agreement and the original PCN. Did they supply? Probably not and therefore no hirer liability

Signs say "No stopping" a forbidding sign and incapable of creating a contract. Here's some similar text about permit holders only parking
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Byelaws exist, they moved when the airport moved and their can be no keeper liability, even so they have failed POFA

Has the driver been identified, yes or no? If they do not know the driver then they have to use POFA, and comply with its requirements, to transfer liability to the keeper. But, again, byelaws mean that POFA is not applicable

Hi Ostell,

They did supply a NTH/PCN (combined one sheet of paper), but no copy of the hire agreement or the original PCN

The Driver has not been identified, They have invited me to name the driver as VSC have stated "it is unclear from the footage who the driver is."

For my defense should I bullet point the following on the online form ; No original PCN, No copy of Hire agreement, and the detail about the Forbidding signage.?

As the Byelaws are in-place POFA isn't applicable so is it a matter for Liverpool Council not the airport? But as VSC say they don't recognize the byelaws then they have to follow POFA which they haven't, is this correct?

Is it worth arguing VCS's point of "stopping for an unreasonable amount of time" ? That seems a bit like making up the rules as you go along.

Thanks for your help in advance

[ostell]

You deny any liability to the claimant

The signage is prohibiting and incapable of creating a contract with any driver. To claim that a contract to park was created when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. The correct claimant is the landowner, for trespass

The land is subject to byelaws and not relevant land for the purpose of POFA therefore they cannot transfer liabity to you the hirer/keeper

Even if it were relevant land you are the hirer of the vehicle and VCS failed to comply with POFA 14 (2) (a), namely failed to produce the required documents.



Find other examples of a defence to add other items. Post here for critique before sending.

Have you acknowledged the claim?

[echat11]

You deny any liability to the claimant

The signage is prohibiting and incapable of creating a contract with any driver. To claim that a contract to park was created when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. The correct claimant is the landowner, for trespass

The land is subject to byelaws and not relevant land for the purpose of POFA therefore they cannot transfer liabity to you the hirer/keeper

Even if it were relevant land you are the hirer of the vehicle and VCS failed to comply with POFA 14 (2) (a), namely failed to produce the required documents.



Find other examples of a defence to add other items. Post here for critique before sending.

Have you acknowledged the claim?

'I completed the AOS 08/11/2020'

[Deemoo7]

Thank you ECHAT11 and OSTEL, I will post do some research and post back.

[Deemoo7]

HI
ostell echat11

Is there an example defence form available for my kind of issue? I can only find examples of credit agreement ones.

I haven't had a chance to look into any other items to add to the defence so any help with filling out the form would be much appreciated. I am aware time is short my 28 days is nearly up I can only apologise for not posting sooner.

[echat11]

You can use the CCA template, remove the bit's that don't apply, that will leave you with the bits that apply and a structure to add more relevant information to the Defence.

Once you've got that post it on the thread, then further bit's can be added.

[Deemoo7]

Thank you echat11 will do

[Deemoo7]

echat11

I have basically cut and pasted the comments made by ostell and yourself. I apologise for my clumsy language.


Defence




The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxx from Northampton County Court on 08/11/2021




Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this defence.




The defendant denies any liability to the claimant.




The claimant failed to comply with POFA 14 (2) (a) The required documents were not produced with the Notice to Keeper




The signage is prohibiting and incapable of creating a contract with any driver. To claim that a contract to park was created when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. The correct claimant is the landowner, for trespass




The signage at the site is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms.




There was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[echat11]

ostell Can you please advise.

[ostell]

Detail quickly the documents that were missing

[Deemoo7]

echat11

I have basically cut and pasted the comments made by ostell and yourself. I apologise for my clumsy language.


Defence




The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxx from Northampton County Court on 08/11/2021




Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this defence.




The defendant denies any liability to the claimant.




The claimant failed to comply with POFA 14 (2) (a) The required documents, namely the original PCN and copy of the hire agreement were not produced with the Notice to Keeper




The signage is prohibiting and incapable of creating a contract with any driver. To claim that a contract to park was created when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. The correct claimant is the landowner, for trespass




The signage at the site is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms.




There was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Amended with the missing documents PCN and hire agreement

@ostell

[ostell]

Send it. One can only hope