DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52857--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 10, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg51126#msg51126
date=1735332902]
Boilerplate response but you may as well have a bit of fun with
them by responding with the following:
[/quote]
Thanks b789 - I've sent that off this afternoon.
Given that the non-compliance with PoFA would appear to render a
non-starter any court claim lodged by them, is there any mileage
in a shot across the bows saying something along the lines of if
they decide to enter into legal proceedings, despite having been
made aware of the fatal flaw to their position, I shall reserve
the right to seek a costs order, given the outright
unreasonableness of their conduct?
Cheers!
#Post#: 52858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: January 10, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to tell them. You have that right anyway.
Irrespective, they are going to issue a claim anyway. Just be
patient.
#Post#: 54904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: January 24, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest response from BW Legal:
"Good Afternoon,
We write in response to your recent contact.
Please be advised that all evidence of your vehicle that was
parked within the Car Park has been provided to you within our
previous response. This includes time stamped evidence of the
signage, in which you parked in front of.
At the time of the contravention, our Client was a member of the
International Parking Community (IPC). The IPC is an Accredited
Trade Association within the parking industry. As our Client was
an established member of the IPC at the time of the
contravention, it had to adhere to the IPC's Code of Practice
for parking on private land. This Code of Practice gives
recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park.
The signs within the Car Park fully comply with the
recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are
therefore deemed reasonable. The signs are clearly displayed,
and you would have had the opportunity to read and understand
them on parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would
consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the
terms and conditions. The signage at the Car Park clearly
incorporates the terms and conditions. For all intents and
purposes, the signage is correct, and sufficient attention was
brought to you with regards to the terms and conditions.
The signage clearly states 'all vehicles must be registered on
the NTC database for this site'. It is your responsibility upon
entering and parking within the Car Park to make yourself aware
of the signs and the relevant terms and conditions. On the date
of the contravention the vehicle in question was parked without
authority. This is a clear breach of our clients terms and
conditions.
If you were unsure of the terms and conditions associated with
parking on this land, the vehicle should have been removed from
the Car Park to avoid breaching any of these terms and
subsequently avoid the issue of a PCN.
Please be advised the signage also clearly states 'non payment
will result in additional charges'
For signage containing additional costs:
Please be advised, the signage in situ makes reference to
additional costs of debt recovery being incurred due to the
non-payment of a PCN. It is our Client's position that a
contract was formed when your vehicle entered and remained on
the land in question, in excess of the grace period, and this
included the terms and conditions regarding additional costs.
Our Client is satisfied that under the parking contract, the
additional costs incurred are recoverable and you are liable for
the same.
We trust this clarifies our position."
Predictably absolutely no mention of their failure to adhere to
PFOA, so I assume that it's now time to sit tight and wait for
the court papers, at which point I can absolutely crucify them
for not adhering to POFA?
#Post#: 54924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: January 24, 2025, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let them bring it on. They have failed to address some of the
points raised in the response to the LoC which means that they
have not copied with the Pre Action Protocols (PAP) and this can
also be used to show unreasonable behaviour.
They did not address the issue of non-compliance with PoFA to
hold the Keeper liable. Ww can use the recent persuasive appeals
decision in Brennan v PPS (2023) [H6DP632H]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=r41k4lmf&dl=0<br
/>as good argument why the NtK does not fully comply with all th
e
requirements of PoFA.
Come back when you receive the N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC
and show it to us, redacting only your personal details, the
claim number, the vehicle VRM and the MCOL password. Leave
everything else showing, especially all dates and the
Particulars of Claim (PoC).
#Post#: 58197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: February 15, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Had a phone call from BW Legal yesterday with a recorded message
telling me how stressful defending a County Court Claim would
be, followed by the claim form arriving this morning:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/MdfoXTH.jpeg
The other pages all appear to be pretty standard, being the
explanatory notes and the response form, but do let me know if
you need me to add these in.
#Post#: 58225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: February 15, 2025, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can chuck all the other forms that came with the N1SDT Claim
Form.
With an issue date of 13th February, you have until 4th March to
submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). By submitting an
AoS, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th March to
submit your defence. If you do not submit an AoS, then you have
until 4pm on Tuesday 4th March to submit the defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in
this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that
goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim
number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the
signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft
order.
When you're ready you send both documents as PDF attachments in
an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in
yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field
and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the
defence and draft order in the matter of Norwich Traffic Control
Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
[quote]
[center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
[right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DEFENCE[/center]
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
[indent](a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached
to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity
exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the
breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was
parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without
specificity.[/indent]
4. The Defendant further submits that the Claimant cannot hold
the Defendant liable as the registered keeper due to
non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA).
5. The Notice to Driver (NtD) and Notice to Keeper (NtK) failed
to comply with paragraphs 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) of PoFA, which
require the Claimant to "specify the period of parking."
Instead, the notices merely record a single point in time, which
is insufficient.
6. The persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier
Parking Solutions (2023) H6DP632H supports this position. At
paragraph 27, HHJ Mitchell clarified that PoFA requires a
recorded minimum period of parking, not merely an instant in
time. Since the Claimant has failed to do so, its notices are
non-compliant and incapable of transferring liability to the
keeper.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the allegation that
the Defendant was the driver, as no presumption of driver
liability exists. In VCS v Edward (2023) HOKF6C9C, HHJ Gargan
(paragraph 35) held that it is not appropriate to infer that the
registered keeper was the driver in the absence of evidence. The
Claimant has failed to establish PoFA compliance and cannot
assume keeper liability.
8. The Claimant has failed to engage meaningfully with the
Defendant's Letter of Claim (LoC) response and has not addressed
critical issues, breaching the Pre-Action Protocols (PAP). The
Claimant’s solicitor has:
[indent](a) Failed to respond to the Defendant’s argument that
the £60 'debt recovery' charge is unenforceable, as it was not
explicitly stated on the signage, nor does it comply with the
Consumer Rights Act 2015.
(b) Ignored the Defendant’s request for timestamped photographs
of the signage in situ at the time of the alleged contravention,
despite claiming compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.
(c) Provided a generalised statement about signage but failed to
establish that the specific signage at the location was clear,
legible, and compliant with contractual and consumer law.
(d) Refused to acknowledge or address the failure to specify a
"period of parking" in the NtD and NtK, thereby failing to
justify their attempt to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA.
(e) Misapplied ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] without
demonstrating that the facts of this case align with the Beavis
ruling. The Claimant’s reliance on Beavis ignores the
distinctions regarding signage, the contractual basis of the
charge, and whether the charge is genuinely a
deterrent.[/indent]
9. The Claimant’s failure to engage meaningfully with the
Defendant’s response demonstrates unreasonable behaviour under
CPR 27.14(2)(g) and a failure to comply with the Pre-Action
Protocols (PAP). The Defendant submits that this warrants a
strike-out of the claim or, in the alternative, a costs order
for unreasonable conduct.
10. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
[indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses)
of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum
claimed, requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather
than permitting an amendment.[/indent]
11. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in
this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by
striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:[/quote]
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
#Post#: 58231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: February 15, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789 - I've done the AoS and am now working on the
defence letter.
Apologies but I didn't share with the forum the photographs that
BW Legal subsequently provided. They sent me a bundle of
thirteen photographs, showing the vehicle in situ between
09:44:55 and 09:45:41, an additional photograph at 09:46:26
showing the vehicle with the PCN affixed to the windscreen, and
a final photograph (below) showing the signage in situ.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/9xjbszE.jpeg
Should I just remove paragraph 8b from the letter, renumber the
remainder of paragraph 8, and then submit the remainder of the
letter and draft order as provided?
Thanks!
#Post#: 58235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: February 15, 2025, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Remove 8(b) and reorder the other sub-paras.
The time stamped photos do not evidence a "period of parking"
because it has to be mentioned in the NtD and the NtK. Also,
evidence of the vehicle parked for only 2 minutes does not show
that the driver could have simply been "considering" the
contractual signs before deciding not to accept and drive away.
There is a minimum consideration period that has to be allowed
before the driver can be contractually liable.
#Post#: 58238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: February 15, 2025, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Much appreciated - all sent!
#Post#: 59447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: February 24, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A brief letter received from HMCTS this morning:
"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served
on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor). The claimant may
contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the
dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform
the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform
you of what will happen.
"Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court
within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After
that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only
action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge
for an order lifting the stay."
I assume that this is just an automatically-generated letter,
following my previous submission? Based on the submission made
and the points raised (disregarding the other issues with the
ability of NTC to actually bring a valid claim), is it likely
that NTC's/BW Legal's next course of action would be to
discontinue the claim and start again, addressing the procedural
points raised?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page