DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113243--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 14, 2026, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The most obvious issue (IMHO) is that the signs are entirely
prohibitive.
In Beavis ParkingEye offered the right to park, in exchange for
a promise from the driver, and the Supreme Court held that a
contact had been formed (not that anybody asked them).
Broadly speaking, a promise (deemed or actual) is only
enforceable at law if it forms part of a contract - which
requires an offer of consideration acceptance (often by
performance), and consideration (whether at the time, or in the
form of a promise) from the party accepting the offer.
Regardless of how clear the signs are, you cannot form a
contract without offering something. It would take a
particularly motivated District Judge and much violence against
the English language to find that the signs prohibiting parking
were actually making an offer of a right to park in exchange for
a promise to pay a parking charge.
#Post#: 113246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 14, 2026, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would agree on the prohibitive signage point, and ideally you
want this issue front and centre.
#Post#: 113324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: settop23
Date: March 15, 2026, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for this valuable insight and taking the time to
look through the evidence.
I have prepared a draft copy of this witness statement. I have
not provided one before, please let me know if it is okay.
There are 3 pictures of the vehicle provided in the evidence,
and the timetstamp is at the bottom left in yellow. They are
difficult to see but i believe 2 of them show the vehicle parked
at 14:40 and the other at 14:41.
Do I email the WS to the court and to the claimants email?
HTML https://ibb.co/G4ZHQKF9
HTML https://ibb.co/VcqqVC98
HTML https://ibb.co/Kc4mVzSs
#Post#: 113334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 15, 2026, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: settop23 link ---
>
>
> There are 3 pictures of the vehicle provided in the evidence,
and the timetstamp is at the bottom left in yellow. They are
difficult to see but i believe 2 of them show the vehicle parked
at 14:40 and the other at 14:41.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure that these 'timestamps' will be that visible on the
physical documents which the Judge will have in front of him on
the day.
Also, please read this;
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/why-the-recent-high-court-appellate-case-of-mazur-is-very-relevant-to-all-cases-/
Your case is clearly being 'conducted' by an 'unauthorised
person'.
#Post#: 113335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 15, 2026, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMHO it is bad form to include legal argument in a witness
statement. However everyone, particularly the parking companies
and their lawyers, does that, so don't expect any criticism on
that point by anyone other than me. IMHO (again) the proper way
to clarify the defence submitted is though a skeleton argument.
Generally, once your defence has been submitted, you cannot
amend your defence or add new points to it (as opposed to
explaining or expanding upon the legal points already submitted)
without the permission of the court. Whilst the rules in the
small claims track are often applied more loosely (it is
intended largely for litigants in person, and the cost of legal
representation is generally not recoverable unless the other
party is deemed to have behaved particularly unreasonably), it
would seem prudent to nominally request permission in whatever
form (or title) or legal argument you are submitting , and to
explain that as stated in your original defence, it was not
practicable to advance a meaningful defence as the PoC were
inadequate and did not disclose any cause of action. Now that C
has clarified their position in that the claim is purportedly
brought under contract, despite the facts of the case seeming
not to support this, you are now have a slightly less nebulous
flawed claim to defend.
For a contract to be formed there has to be an offer of valuable
consideration. That does not have to be the right to park. The
issue is that there was no offer of any valuable consideration,
communicated by the sign, or othwerwise and therefore no
contract could be formed by any deemed acceptance. The offer of
consideration that one might expect from a sign communicating an
offer capable of forming a contract by acceptance by performance
would be the right to park, but the fact that there was no offer
of a right to park is not what defeats any claim of contractual
liability, it is the lack of *any* valuable consideration being
offered to the driver.
This is your case, not ours, but I would suggest that your
understanding of the phrase "front and centre" differs from mine
and DWMB2's. What you do with that information has no financial
effect on myself or DWMB2.
As regards the "rules" of the small claims track. Perhaps the
most important is "never ambush a District Judge" (regardless of
whether the court has required or even invited disclosure of
skeleton arguments (and regardless of whether the author of such
skeleton arguments has written "Skeleton Argument" or "Witless
Statement" at the top of the page.
#Post#: 113337--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 15, 2026, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your defence was too brief and doesn't flow.
I've sexed it up a bit.
Your first two points are fine.
Feel free to use this if you feel it helps;
3. It is accepted that I was the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle in question at the material time.
4. All my evidence is presented as the Registered Keeper.
5. The driver is not known to the Claimant and, as this is a
contract dispute, I will not be providing any driver details
since the law does not demand it.
6. That I will rely on the persuasive Appeal Court case of VCS
Ltd v Edward if required in order to demonstrate that no
assumption can be drawn from my refusal to provide driver
details to the Claimant.
7. The Claimant specifies that they are relying on the
Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (PoFA) in order to transfer
liability from the unknown driver to myself as they have not
identified the driver.
8. That the Claimant is unable to use PoFA since their Notice to
Keeper (NtK) has not complied with ALL relevant requirements of
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2).
9. That in particular, their NtK is missing required mandatory
wording from both Paragraph 9(2)(e) and Paragraph 9(2)(f).
10. That 9(2)(e) specifies that; "The notice MUST STATE that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service" - this mandatory wording is not present on
the Claimants NtK and therefore they have not met the required
level of compliance set out in the Act.
11. Additionally, that 9(2)(f) specifies that the NtK must,
amongst other things, warn the keeper that the parking operator
is required to meet all the applicable conditions under PoFA
Schedule 4 in order to rely on PoFA - the wording which sets out
this warning is absent from the parking operators NtK - once
again, this is fatal to the Claimant's reliance of PoFA.
12. That no 'period of parking' is either stated or demonstrated
by the operators NtK - A single timestamp is not 'a period of
parking'.
13. That the Claimant's failure to invoke keeper liability is
immediately fatal to this claim since there is now legal route
by which the Claimant can hold me liable.
14. Additionally, having examined the evidence, I would draw the
Court's attention to the fact that the signage (used at the
location) is purely prohibitive in nature and makes no offer of
contract which can be accepted by the driver - therefore any
suggestion of contract is firmly denied.
15. That the signage used at the site is not adequate - the
Claimant has provided no viable plan which demonstrates where
their alleged signage was placed in relation to the vehicle in
question and their photographs of the vehicle show no signage in
the locality.
16. That the Claimant's evidence does not demonstrate anything
more than a brief stop - this was not parking.
17. That the Claimant's evidence does not demonstrate that the
operator's Code of Conduct required "Period of Consideration"
has been correctly applied in this instance - The Code requires
that drivers are afforded at least 5 minutes in order to locate
signage and examine contractual options - nothing in the
Claimant's evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was present
for longer than any consideration period and therefore, not
withstanding my previous points, the Claimant is not able to
demonstrate that a parking contract was formed.
#Post#: 113345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: settop23
Date: March 16, 2026, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much! I will amend it and the prohibitive signage
now makes much more sense to me after your explanation Andy, so
I am confident I will be able
To expand on this argument in court if needed
I will amend my WS and change it to a skeleton argument and
submit it today. Is it sufficient to send it as a PDF via email
to the court and the claimant, and include the case number in
the subject?
The only point not included in the skeleton argument is that
the claimant is using an unauthorised person as demonstrated in
mazur. Is this a point you recommend I leave out for now and
raise it at court? Will I have the option to do this if it is
not in the skeleton argument?
#Post#: 113346--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 16, 2026, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I added point 17 which I think is relevant and not covered off
in the Claimant's WS.
In fact, there's some evidence in the Claimant's WS which could
further help you at a hearing but that doesn't need to be
revealed to the Court at this stage.
#Post#: 113369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 16, 2026, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> In fact, there's some evidence in the Claimant's WS which
could further help you at a hearing but that doesn't need to be
revealed to the Court at this stage.
>
--- End Quote ---
Be careful that any such arguments don't amount to new arguments
that could be seen as an ambush in the eyes of the judge.
#Post#: 113373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hearing set for parking charge by car park management
services LTD
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 16, 2026, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are essentially 2 different points to consider.
Technically it is entirely appropriate to expand upon a point
raised by the other party.
However, District Judges (including the more common Deputy
District Judges) often like to make a provisional decision based
on the papers, prior to the hearing, subject to minor tweaking
for minor details likely to emerge during the hearing. Once they
have their draft judgment, and have indicated where they are
provisionally going, they are often very reluctant to tear up
the draft and start again, or accept that their provisional
decision was wrong.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page