DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: December 19, 2025, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A quick update on this one.
BW Legal's court bundle has arrived with me today. It is simply
a re-print of the previous bundle from June, prepared in
anticipation of the St Helens hearing, with the later additional
witness statement from 27th June appended to the end. I've not
uploaded it to the Google Drive link, as it is identical to the
previous two documents, which I have already uploaded.
Perhaps noteworthy is that neither of Eden Moore's witness
statements have been amended, and both state that she has
conduct of the matter under the supervision of her principal.
I also received a response to the Drop Hands letter under
separate cover, marked Without Prejudice Save as to Costs which
I have uploaded as 'BW Legal WP Offer'. As a brief summary:
[list type=decimal]
[li]Our client's position is that the PCN has been issued
correctly and that you are liable for the balance[/li]
[li]We deny your allegation that Eden Moore has conducted
unauthorised litigation. If you believe this to be the case,
you may escalate it to the relevant body[/li]
[li]Your Drop Hands offer is declined. Our client remains
confident that, if the claim proceeds to a hearing, the court
will find in their favour.[/li]
[li]Without prejudice, save as to costs, our client will accept
£180 to settle the matter. The offer is valid until 4pm on 31st
December 2025.[/li]
[/list]
The 'Save as to Costs' nature of the letter feels interesting,
as it's clearly an attempt to double-down on their belief that
they will win at court, and create a sense of added jeopardy to
try and pressure me into paying them £180.
Given the jeopardy that it will also create for them, doubly so
with the 'unauthorised conduct' issue, does this increase the
possibility of a last minute discontinuance by the claimant?
#Post#: 103191--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: December 19, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote] The 'Save as to Costs' nature of the letter feels
interesting, as it's clearly an attempt to double-down on their
belief that they will win at court [/quote]
I'm not sure I'd read too much into that. It is entirely normal
for settlement offers to be made on a without prejudice save as
to costs basis.
#Post#: 103226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: December 19, 2025, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm still reviewing everything but because Mazur was published
after the initial WS was drafted, I have a couple of amendments
you must make to your bundle.
You need to add a new paragraph #8 with its own sub-heading and
edit all subsequent paragraph numbers accordingly as follows:
[quote]Claimant’s witness asserts conduct of litigation
8. The Claimant’s witness, a BW Legal paralegal, states at
paragraph 1 of her witness statement (and repeats the same
statement again in the Claimant’s later ‘additional evidence’
statement), signed under a statement of truth, that she has
‘conduct of the litigation’ subject to supervision. The conduct
of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal
Services Act 2007. If that statement is correct, it describes an
arrangement that is not permitted for an unauthorised person and
is capable of amounting to a criminal offence under the Act; if
it is not correct, then the Claimant has nonetheless twice
advanced a plainly inaccurate assertion under a statement of
truth. In either case, the Court is respectfully invited to
treat this as materially undermining the reliability and weight
of the Claimant’s evidence and submissions; and, further, to
note that in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025]
EWHC 2341 (KB) the High Court reaffirmed that an unauthorised
person cannot ‘conduct litigation’ even under
supervision.[/quote]
Also, you need to edit every page that has a court header from
"St Helens" to "Norwich".
Get on with that and I will come back with any more changes that
may be required before you resubmit your bundle to Norwich. You
must NOT submit anything until the deadline at 4pm on Wednesday
24th December. If you want to submit it to the court as a
physical bundle, then by all means do so but ideally on 24th
December. You must also submit it to the claimant through BW
Legal but you can do that electronically and you should
definitely leave that until 4pm on 24th December. I'll hazard a
guess that there will be no one to go through it until at least
the 29th, if not the 2nd or even the 5th January.
#Post#: 103426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: December 21, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789 - I shall make those amendments, and await anything
else you might wish to advise.
Should I also add a copy of the Mazur judgment as an addtional
item of evidence, in the same way as Brennan and Edward?
#Post#: 103451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: December 21, 2025, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should not add Mazur as an exhibit in the same way as
Brennan and Edward.
Brennan and Edward are being used in your bundle because they
are 'persuasive' county court appeal decisions/transcripts and
you are asking the judge to be 'persuaded' by their reasoning.
Mazur is different. It is a High Court decision and is binding
on the county court, so it is not something you need to “prove”
by exhibiting it in the way you would a persuasive authority.
If you want to be belt-and-braces, you can cite Mazur in the
witness statement or in a short case list/skeleton with the full
neutral citation and the proposition you rely on, but it is not
necessary to attach the full judgment as evidence.
The neutral citation you would use is:
Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC
2341 (KB) (High Court, King’s Bench Division; judgment 16
September 2025).
The core proposition (the “legal point” you are relying on from
Mazur) is essentially:
[indent]• “Conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity
under the Legal Services Act 2007, and it must be carried out by
an authorised (or otherwise properly exempt) person.
• Supervision by a solicitor does not, by itself, entitle an
unauthorised fee-earner/paralegal to “conduct the litigation”.
In other words, you cannot cure lack of entitlement simply by
adding “under supervision”.[/indent]
So, when you’re framing it for the court, the “proposition” you
extract is along the lines of:
[indent]“The Claimant’s witness (a BW Legal paralegal) expressly
asserts that she has “conduct of the litigation” under
supervision, but the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal
activity and, as confirmed in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell
Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), it cannot lawfully be
carried out by an unauthorised person merely because they are
supervised.”[/indent]
#Post#: 103701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: December 23, 2025, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789 - I appreciate the extra context here.
I've prepared everything including your amendment to the
original WS, and have timetabled it to email to the Court and BW
Legal at 1555hrs tomorrow afternoon, as I shall be away from my
computer from about midday.
Please do let me know in the meantime if there are any other
amendments you consider to be useful/necessary, and I can always
make those changes tomorrow morning.
#Post#: 104288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 2, 2026, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Year, all.
My updated WS was filed with the Court and BW Legal on Christmas
Eve, and I received an automated response from the Court to
confirm that it had been received.
Is there anything else I need to be doing now?
I note that the directions state that a bundle is to be agreed
between the parties and then filed by The Claimant between three
and seven days prior to the hearing date. I assume that BW
Legal will not be seeking to 'agree' a bundle with me, and that
I should expect to receive the bundle by email by CoB on Monday
5th January?
Should I be wary of any 'surprises' within the bundle, or will
it broadly be a compilation of the various claim documents and
the two Witness Statements?
As for preparation for the hearing, is it just a case of making
sure that I'm fully-conversant with my own witness statement,
and able to put myself in a position whereby I can put the
various individual points to the Judge?
#Post#: 104364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: January 2, 2026, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have already done what you are required to do. You filed
your bundle by the deadline and you have the Court’s automated
confirmation that it was received. That is the key point.
If the Claimant now files anything after the deadline, treat it
as late evidence. If you receive late material, you should email
the Court and BW Legal immediately to object to reliance on it,
stating that your bundle was filed in time and accepted, and
that you object to any late evidence being admitted or, in the
alternative, you invite the Court to attach little or no weight
to it.
If you receive nothing further before the hearing, you do not
need to do anything else. You simply attend and rely on the
bundle already filed.
If BW Legal file a “hearing bundle” (because the directions say
the Claimant must file an agreed bundle 3–7 days before the
hearing), it will usually just be a paginated compilation of the
claim form/PoC, their documents, and your WS/bundle. Do not
assume it is “agreed” merely because they filed it. If it omits
your documents or contains extra material not previously served,
email the Court and BW Legal straight away to record that it is
not agreed and to object to any new or missing items.
For the hearing itself, preparation is simply:
1. Know your own witness statement and exhibits.
2. Mark the pages/exhibits you will take the Judge to for each
key point.
3. Be ready to point out anything the Claimant relies on that is
hearsay, unsupported, or late.
#Post#: 104718--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 6, 2026, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've not received any further communication from BW Legal in
respect of a Trial Bundle.
The directions appear to be fairly explicit on this matter:
Directions on Filing of Trial Bundles, if applicable
Failure to comply with these directions may result in the matter
being removed from the list without further warning:
The parties should seek to agree an indexed, paginated
electronic trial bundle and any indexed paginated electronic
authorities' bundle; and
One party (which shall be the Claimant in default of agreement
otherwise) shall email the electronic bundle to the Court at
[COURT EMAIL] and the other parties no less than 3 days and no
more than 7 days before the hearing date.
A hard copy bundle would be required for any trial listed as an
attended 'in person' hearing/ All trial bundles are to be filed
at the Court where the trial is to be held at least 3 clear days
before the trial date. Any hard copy bundles not taken away
after a hearing will be destroyed.
Unless I'm misinterpreting things, a failure of BW Legal to have
served me with a Trial Bundle by CoB yesterday appears to be a
fairly significant breach of the directions?
Unless this is the sort of breach that would be significant
enough to have the claim thrown out for non-compliance, I'm more
than happy to receive a bundle today/tomorrow, as I shall still
have enough time to go through it and compare/contrast with the
already-submitted Witness Statements, as I'm just keen to draw a
line under this and move on.
What I don't want is to be presented with a bundle at 9:55am on
Thursday morning, with the risk that there may be material
differences between the bundle and the Witness Statements.
#Post#: 104931--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 7, 2026, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just been and spoken with the Court in person.
They have confirmed that BW Legal have provided them with a
Trial Bundle, so it is clear that they have simply not provided
me with a copy.
Court advice was to either raise it at the hearing tomorrow, or
contact BW Legal directly today.
Any suggestions as to the best course of action here? How fatal
will it be to tomorrow's hearing if I choose to wait and raise
the non-service at the start of the hearing?
Or, in the interests of getting this wrapped up ASAP, should I
contact BW Legal today and hope I get something this afternoon?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page