DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104932--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2026, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Snudge88 link=topic=2688.msg104931#msg104931
date=1767787928]
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?
[/quote]
Probably depends on the judge. There's often more 'leeway' in
the Small Claims track, although some judges rightly expect
professional law firms to be doing things by the book.
You've seen their WS, I'm correct in assuming? Just not the full
'bundle'
#Post#: 104938--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 7, 2026, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=2688.msg104932#msg104932
date=1767788110]
You've seen their WS, I'm correct in assuming? Just not the full
'bundle'
[/quote]
Yes, that's right. The WS sent to me in December comprised their
original WS, the supplementary one provided after the original
St Helens deadline for service, and their skeleton argument.
Nothing I'd not seen before.
My concern is, if they have deliberately not served the trial
bundle on me, that there may be unseen contents that they hope
to ambush me with, in the hope that non-service will prevent me
from consulting here.
Ideally I'll need time to do a reasonable side-by-side
comparison of their WS bundle with the trial bundle.
On another question - how serious is the Eden Moore issue with
respect to Mazur? Is it bad enough to render their litigation
invalid, so should be mentioned from the outset with a
respectful request for the matter to be set aside in light of
the illegal conduct?
#Post#: 104954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2026, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Neither party should be ambushing the other with fresh evidence,
and most judges would take a dim view of any attempts to do the
same. You could if you wish contact BW Legal and point out that
you have not received their bundle. Then at the hearing point
out that you either haven't received it, or have received it
late (if they do send it), putting you at a disadvantage. You
can point this out alongside some of the other issues (such as
the Mazur point and their late submission of a supplementary WS)
as evidence of their ongoing poor conduct in the handling of the
case - all of this is particularly important if you win and are
discussing costs.
At risk of sounding vague, much depends on the view of the judge
on the day, County Court can be unpredictable.
I think one of the key facts in your case is that you have a
meritorious defence point, namely that the claimant hasn't
proved that a contract was formed in the first place. Even if
you leave aside all the (entirely valid) technical points, there
can be no money owed if no contract was formed. I'd be keen to
ensure that this point does not get lost amidst any protracted
debates about any technicalities (after all, as noted, most
judges want an easy life).
#Post#: 104959--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 7, 2026, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=2688.msg104954#msg104954
date=1767798885]
Neither party should be ambushing the other with fresh evidence,
and most judges would take a dim view of any attempts to do the
same. You could if you wish contact BW Legal and point out that
you have not received their bundle. Then at the hearing point
out that you either haven't received it, or have received it
late (if they do send it), putting you at a disadvantage. You
can point this out alongside some of the other issues (such as
the Mazur point and their late submission of a supplementary WS)
as evidence of their ongoing poor conduct in the handling of the
case - all of this is particularly important if you win and are
discussing costs.
At risk of sounding vague, much depends on the view of the judge
on the day, County Court can be unpredictable.
I think one of the key facts in your case is that you have a
meritorious defence point, namely that the claimant hasn't
proved that a contract was formed in the first place. Even if
you leave aside all the (entirely valid) technical points, there
can be no money owed if no contract was formed. I'd be keen to
ensure that this point does not get lost amidst any protracted
debates about any technicalities (after all, as noted, most
judges want an easy life).
[/quote]
Thanks DWMB2, I appreciate the help here.
I emailed BW Legal, who responded with the Trial Bundle and a
claim that this was sent to me on 29/12/2025. I've asked them
to forward to me the email they allege to have sent, so that I
can see if they've mis-spelled my email address or suchlike.
I've immediately noted that the Trial Bundle they have prepared
uses my pre-Mazur St Helens witness statement, and not the
current one which includes a discussion of the Eden Moore issue.
I shall raise this at the outset tomorrow, to ensure that the
Judge relies upon my up-to-date Witness Statement, unless you
think that this needs anything else doing here and now.
The comment on the ordering and prominence of the points is
appreciated as well. By my understanding my hierarchy tomorrow
should be:
1) Eden Moore's witness statements are hearsay. She is not the
claimant and has no detailed knowledge of the site or matter,
and is not present for cross-examination. As such respectfully
request that little or no weight should be given to her
evidence.
2) No proof of contract formed. BW Legal unable to prove the
existence of a suitable consideration period, alongside
missing/illegible entry signs to the car park.
3) Even if a contract was formed, the NTD and NTK do not comply
with Schedule 4 PoFA 2012 in that they state a single point in
time for the alleged contravention, rather than a period of
parking. This prevents Keeper Liability and, therefore, I
cannot be held liable as keeper, have no obligation to name the
driver, and have not done so. Persuasive precedent being
Brennan.
4) Wholly inappropriate to make the assumption that Keeper was
Driver, regardless of circumstances. See Edward.
5) Notwithstanding the above, poor conduct by BW Legal
throughout, including but not limited to:
[list]
[li]Failure to engage with questions following Notice of
Claim[/li]
[li]Woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim[/li]
[li]Conduct of litigation by paralegal (See Mazur)[/li]
[li]Late submission of supplementary Witness Statement following
original St Helens deadline for service[/li]
[li]Failure to serve me with a copy of the Trial Bundle by the
stated deadline, or at all, depending on response to my email
this afternoon[/li]
[/list]
Thanks again!
Update - I also notice that the annotations from the plan on the
final page of my WS are missing from the Trial Bundle, which
merely contains an un-amended copy of the plan.
#Post#: 104961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2026, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you did email the court now, I'd be surprised if it would
have made its way to the judge before the hearing tomorrow - You
should definitely point out that their bundle includes the wrong
WS, I'd be minded to do so as a point of order at the start of
the hearing. You might want to mention when doing so that the
reason you're only mentioning it now is because you only
received the bundle from BW Legal yesterday.
Given their bundle includes the wrong WS, make sure you have
copies of the correct WS with you on the day (as well as copies
of anything else you'll be relying on, of course). One for you,
one for BW's rep, if one turns up, and one for the judge.
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
#Post#: 104974--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: InterCity125 Date: January 7, 2026, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The BW rep is likely to be a local rep rather than someone
directly from BW.
It's highly unlikely that the rep they send is the same person
who signed their WS.
If you can, it's always worth mentioning at the start that you
are really disappointed that the claimant has not sent along
their witness. Point out that their legal rep is now presenting
(at least) third hand hearsay evidence - point out that you had
a number of questions which you wanted to ask the witness -
point out that their non-attendance puts both you and the court
at a disadvantage as there were bound to be questions which the
Judge also might wish to ask.
Don't labour the points - just put them across politely.
You have a really strong defence - Good luck.
#Post#: 105041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 8, 2026, 1:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all, for all your help so far.
A couple of quick questions on the morning of the hearing - more
than appreciate if this is far too short notice for any
substantive answers:
[list type=decimal]
[li]If Eden Moore does, in fact, turn up today; either as a
witness or as BW Legal's representative, I assume that's an
immediate point of order depending on her role? I assume Right
of Audience if she's there as representative, and the fact that
their N180 stated no witnesses if she's there as witness?[/li]
[li]BW Legal have raised the unreported appeal case of Premier
Parking Solutions Ltd v Leigh Evans in support of their NTD/NTK,
stating that it found boilerplate wording of "This charge
relates to the period of parking that immediately preceded the
issue of that notice."to be sufficient to satisfy PoFA regarding
a period of parking. I assume that my position here is that
Brennan post-dates this, the claimant has not provided a
transcript of the judgment, and that it would be unfair to allow
a requirement for specific data to be satisfied by the inclusion
of generic boilerplate?[/li]
[li]We discuss the fact that the state of the site has changed
materially, compared to the site plan and photographs provided
alongside the contract with Orbit Homes. These changes include
the missing/illegible entry signs, as well as the addition of a
very large sign (approx 14s into this video -
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsleI5ljhk)
stating 'VISITOR
PARKING'. This will have added significant confusion to the
situation and, in the absence of entry signs stating to the
contrary, it would be reasonable for a driver to assume that the
area was, indeed, visitor parking, and that the yellow
enforcement signs merely stated the T&Cs upon which visitors
could park.[/li]
[li]Finally - just out of interest rather than anything else -
if BW Legal do send local locum representation, would it be fair
to assume that their costs in pursuing this matter would
probably end up outweighing the £245 that they are seeking
here?[/li]
[/list]
#Post#: 105044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: InterCity125 Date: January 8, 2026, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brennan was an Appeal Court Judgement and the Judge's comments
in that case would almost certainly challenge what BW are saying
with regard to their stated case. Their stated case could well
be just a previous County Court claim.
#Post#: 105045--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: InterCity125 Date: January 8, 2026, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I re-read the Decision in Brennan a couple of times and I'm
positive that the Judge's comments destroy BW's comments on
Period of Parking.
In essence the Judge sets out what could now be considered to be
the minimum requirement in terms of the information which must
be included in the NtD / NtK in order to meet the requitements
of PoFA (Period of Parking) - BW are trying to circumvent that
minimum requirement by suggesting that a particular boiler plate
wording can replace the information which the Judge says is
required to satisfy the minimum requirement of 'Period of
Parking'.
The Decision is also helpful to your case when read as a whole
because the Judge explains why the previous Judge got it wrong -
some of those wrongs are being repeated in BW's assertions - if
you can get the Judge to read the whole Decision then he or she
will soon see that.
#Post#: 105051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: January 8, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Or better still, have the numbers of the relevant paragraphs of
Brennan to hand to refer them to.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page