Free Traffic Legal Advice

I read the bylaws the other day, the section on tolls is pretty vague to be honest. Doesn't mention anything about what happens if the "unpaid toll charges" aren't paid, surely it should say how this is then enforced, I'll have a look at the Merser bridge bylaws and see what they say later. All it does say is a driver is liable to pay a toll as mentioned on the signs, doesn't mention the registered keeper is liable for the original toll at all.

This bridge is just down the road from me, it doesn't affect me directly because I haven't been caught by it yet but plenty of others have (including my mate 3 times) and there is now a Facebook action group page as lots have been caught out by dodgy websites and late late fines apparently.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1854203578242943/

Back story is the bridge used to be 12p to cross and had a manned toll booth, it was recently renovated and the toll was put up to £1 each way but more importantly the toll booth was removed and replaced by ANPR, relying on the motorist to remember to pay on-line, just like the Mersey gateway bridge. No I know from experience, if you don't use it regularly then its almost impossible to remember to pay it once you get home, life just takes over and I've been had more than once on the Mersey bridge.

A the end of the day that's just user error though but the people on the Action group seem to be getting scammed left right and centre by Peel (the bridge owners). Could anyone possible take the time to look at the Facebook page and have a gander at the by-laws controlling it and see if they have any hope of anything, I don't know enough and I don't think the people on the Facebook page do either

 As an aside the original toll was to cross a little stone bridge that the river Mersey went under way before the ship canal was ever built. Once the ship canal was built the Mersey was diverted into the canal and the bit under the bridge dried up so it wasn't even needed but the toll remained. The toll didn't cover the iron bridge, that had to be provided free of charge by the ship canal company just like several other bridges they had to provide along the route. however peel somehow have managed to now incorporate the big iron bridge into the toll charges.

The stone bridge is just after the toll booth.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4032411,-2.4555592,3a,79.1y,343.75h,79.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4k_d5wsCYg6DXDWY_yX6hg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D10.289588076743144%26panoid%3D4k_d5wsCYg6DXDWY_yX6hg%26yaw%3D343.75295910466235!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Tere has to be. reason the judge dismissed the case and it isn't "just because it was for 2 minutes". It will be because there was no possibility of a contract being formed without a minimum consideration period.

No contract formed, therefore no valid claim. Claim dismissed.

The fact that the defence is a template should not be a factor. The defendant is allowed to use all available resources to submit a defence. That defence was put together by a long serving district judge. It was based on the fact that the claimant failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) (as do all claims submitted by Gladstone's). However, the attached transcripts are only persuasive, not binding.

So, the judge was not obliged to strike out the claim for the CPR 16.4(1)(a) failure, even though it was perfectly suitable to request that it was. What are the point of rules if they are not followed?

When you went to court with your friend, did you ask the usher to tell the judge that you would be their lay representative and show them a copy of the
The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999?

Anyway, a win is a win. As stated in so many posts, the odds of it going all the way to an actual hearing a slim and even then, there is a very good chance that it will be successful.

I did, I asked the usher if it was ok if I assisted him and the usher said as its small claims then its no problem, then he wrote my name down in a box under my mates. When we walked in I asked the judge where to sit and if I could assist, calling myself a "lay representative" - he replied "no such thing" and said I had to sit at the back.

Yes by email sorry, It was acknowledged on MCOL that it had been recieved.

Hi, to continue this, I have now recieved a witness statement from a an employee of EPS although his address given is in Birmingham so its EPS head office. Its a lengthy PDF of 30 pages and details all their arguments and pictures, copies of the original ticket etc. It has the registered keepers name all over it so I cant really redact it and post it on here, I could potentially DM it to a trusted person to have a look at if possible.

However the court case is due to go ahead about the middle of May providing EPS pay the fee which is due about now, what do I need to do next, do I need to provide a witness statement like the one they sent or is it just a matter of turning up on the day with some sound arguments.

I could possibly post parts of the witness statement if soemone wants to look at a specific part of it, I'll start with the original ticket front and back.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The main factor for me is though, the length of the parking, according to their CCTV the car was parked for 50 seconds, or according to them 1m 4 seconds. Surely this has no merit in a court case, I thought they had as devminimis rule

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I haven't got access to the invoice and pictures until Monday, they are at the office and I've been working away all week, I might be able to get someone to go down in  a bit and get a copy. I know I should have got on top of this earlier but I've just been so busy work wise, regardless I need to file the N180 document today.

The invoice was mainly for site visits by their staff to initially come out and do a safety check and also for digging the hole and filling it in again. I don't think they invoiced for a repair as they obviously didn't repair anything.

What they did do after I phoned them was send a guy out just to assess the situation and make sure nothing was going to blow up, I actually stopped the leak by screwing the screw back into the pipe which sealed it so the actual leak was minimal. He then reported back to his manager and they sent a team out to dig the car park up and cap off the supply in the street. They then returned a week or so later and filled the hole back in. This is what they are charging for.

Apparently there was still a gas meter on the inside of the building in a cupboard on the other side of the wall but nothing was attached to the outgoing side as it was an all electric setup. This meter has now been removed by cadent when they diconnected it.

Shouldn't they have supplied invoice and picutre copies with the defence bundle though.

If the building owner was suing you for negligence, then I would say that you have pretty much nailed the defence.

However, reading between the lines, you are being sued by a service provider that you contracted (albeit informally) to provide a service, and refused to pay.

Perhaps we could start with the particulars of claim, etc.?

Thanks for the relies, This is a copy of the claim, they are definitely suing for negligence.