DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 6, 2025, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. As this is going to be a telephone hearing, it is not
strategically worthwhile to continue seeking a transfer to your
local court for an in-person hearing when:
[indent]• A telephone hearing has already been listed.
• No personal attendance is required.
• You’ve preserved the objection in correspondence (which helps
if costs are later sought).[/indent]
Unless you have specific reasons (e.g. hearing impairment, poor
phone coverage, or caring responsibilities making a phone
hearing unworkable), HMCTS will very likely reject any further
request to change the venue.
So you need work with what you have. So far:
[indent]• Claim has been incorrectly allocated to St Helens
County Court despite your N180 requesting your local court.
• CNCB and St Helens Court have not responded to your correction
requests.
• Directions Order issued on 11 May 2025 with:
[indent]• Telephone hearing scheduled for 1 August 2025
• Witness statements deadline: 4pm, 11 June 2025
•Trial fee due from Claimant by 4 July[/indent]
• No witness evidence received from the Claimant as of
yet.[/indent]
You now need to prepare your witness statement and supporting
exhibits to be filed and served no later than 4pm on 11 June
2025. Even if the Claimant fails to serve theirs, do not miss
your own deadline. If they don’t comply, you can object to their
evidence later.
Here is a suggested WS but you should not send anything until
just before 4pm on Wednesday 11th June:
[quote][center]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST HELENS[/center]
[right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
1. I make this statement in support of my defence to the claim
brought by Norwich Traffic Control Limited. I confirm that the
facts set out here are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
No Contract Formed
2. The claim fails from the outset due to the Claimant’s total
failure to show that a parking contract was ever formed. The
Notice to Driver (NtD) and Notice to Keeper (NtK) merely record
a single timestamp. There is no actual “period of parking”
specified, and no evidence whatsoever of how long the vehicle
was present. This is a fundamental omission. A contract by
conduct cannot be formed without a consideration period. There
must be sufficient time for the driver to seek out, read the
signage, consider the terms, and make a decision to accept or
reject them. Without showing how long the vehicle remained on
site, the Claimant has not established that any contract was
formed.
3. The IPC Code of Practice, Version 9, which applied at the
time, confirms this. Section 13 requires that a consideration
period of appropriate duration be allowed before a parking
contract is formed. This is consistent with basic contract law:
no contract can arise by conduct unless there has been
sufficient time to seek out, read and consider the terms. The
Claimant has provided no evidence that this requirement was met.
The Claimant has provided no evidence that the vehicle remained
on site beyond this undefined but necessary consideration
period. Without this, the court cannot conclude that a contract
was even capable of being created, let alone breached. As such,
the entire basis for the claim collapses.
No Compliance with PoFA 2012
4. This same deficiency also renders the Claimant’s notices
non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 ("PoFA"). In order to transfer liability from the driver to
the registered keeper, strict compliance with the statutory
requirements is mandatory. Paragraph 7(2)(a) (in respect of a
Notice to Driver) and paragraph 8(2)(a) (for a Notice to Keeper
following a NtD) both require that the notice must "specify the
period of parking to which the notice relates." A single
timestamp, as provided by the Claimant, is not a “period” of
parking and therefore fails this requirement.
5. This issue was considered in the persuasive appellate
decision Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
[H6DP632H]. Relevant excerpts are exhibited at Exhibit XX-01.
6. At paragraphs 27 to 30, HHJ Mitchell confirmed that PoFA
requires the notice to specify a period of parking, even if it
is a short one, and not merely a moment in time. He explained
that:
[indent]“The period of parking does not refer to the whole
period a vehicle is in situ. It could be less than that... it
could be any minimum period; that is the period to which the
Notice relates. That is what the Regulations are getting to...
Where it went wrong... is that the second of those [times] was
put in as ‘NA’. If the time had been put in, that would have
cured the problem and that simply had to be repeated in the
Notice to keeper.” (paras. 28–29)[/indent]
7. The judgment makes it clear that where the notice fails to
specify a minimum identifiable period, as is the case here, PoFA
conditions are not met and keeper liability cannot arise.
No Evidence of Driver Identity
8. The Claimant has also failed to establish the identity of the
driver. The registered keeper is under no legal obligation to
identify the driver, and I have not done so. In the persuasive
appellate case of VCS v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], HHJ
Gargan made it clear that it is not appropriate for a court to
infer that the registered keeper was the driver, even on the
balance of probabilities, where there is no supporting evidence.
A copy of the relevant section of the judgment is exhibited at
Exhibit XX-02.
9. At paragraph 35.3, the judge stated:
[indent]“It is consistent with the appropriate probability
analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper,
it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on
this occasion, because one simply cannot tell… These are all
possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an
inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper
was driving on any given occasion.”[/indent]
10. As the Claimant’s notices are non-compliant with PoFA, they
cannot rely on keeper liability, and in the absence of any
admissible evidence identifying the driver, the claim must fail.
Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4
11. The Particulars of Claim are vague, inadequately pleaded,
and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16,
paragraph 7.5. The Claimant does not identify the precise terms
of the alleged contract, nor the clause(s) said to have been
breached. There is no statement of when or for how long the
alleged parking occurred, nor any identification of the signage
or the specific terms displayed. The pleading fails to set out
the facts necessary to establish either breach or the basis of
any contractual entitlement to the sum claimed.
12. The Claimant has also failed to specify whether I am being
pursued as the driver or the keeper. The pleading is
impermissibly ambiguous, failing to disclose which legal basis
is relied upon or to plead alternative causes of action with the
required particularity. This is contrary to the basic principles
of civil pleading and has caused significant prejudice to the
Defendant.
13. The Defendant submitted a proposed draft order with the
Defence, inviting the Court to strike out the claim or, in the
alternative, to order further and better particulars. The Court
failed to address that request and instead allocated the matter
to a final hearing without requiring the Claimant to remedy the
procedural defects. The Defendant respectfully submits that this
oversight has resulted in procedural unfairness, and now invites
the Court to exercise its case management powers to strike out
the claim in its entirety pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 16.4
for failure to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the
claim.
14. In a similar claim heard before another County Court, a
District Judge struck out the case on the court’s own initiative
due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4. I
submitted a copy of that draft order with my defence. The judge
held that requiring further case management steps in such a
poorly pleaded claim would be disproportionate, given the modest
value of the claim. The same reasoning applies here.
No Evidence of a Valid Contract with the Landowner
15. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of a valid
and binding contract with the landowner conferring authority to
manage the land, issue parking charges, and pursue legal action
in its own name. This is a serious omission that undermines the
foundation of the claim.
16. The mere presence of signage is not sufficient to establish
that the Claimant has the necessary legal rights to form parking
contracts or enforce them. As confirmed by the Court of Appeal
in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186 at
[22], a party must demonstrate that it has a sufficient interest
in the land or specific authorisation from the landowner to
offer contracts to park and to enforce any resulting charges.
Without this, the operator cannot be a contracting party, and
any alleged contract would be void for want of locus standi.
17. In this case, the Claimant has not produced any document
showing:
[indent](i) the identity of the landowner;
(ii) the dates and duration of any agreement;
(iii) the geographic extent of the authority granted;
(iv) whether the Claimant was authorised to form contracts
and/or bring legal proceedings in its own name;
(v) the terms under which any consideration flows between the
landowner and the Claimant.[/indent]
18. The existence of such a contract is not a mere formality. It
is a mandatory requirement to establish standing. As stated by
District Judge McLean in Excel Parking Services v Wilkinson
(Stockport County Court, 2017, unreported but widely cited), “a
person who puts up a sign cannot automatically claim that they
are authorised to do so by the landowner... the burden of proof
is on the Claimant to show that they had the necessary rights.”
19. Accordingly, without this foundational evidence, the
Claimant cannot demonstrate a cause of action and the claim
ought to be struck out.
Failure to Comply with the PAP
20. I responded to the Claimant’s Letter of Claim raising
detailed objections and requesting key evidence. The Claimant
failed to meaningfully engage with my response. Specifically,
they did not provide timestamped photographs of the signage in
situ at the material time, nor did they address my argument that
the £60 “debt recovery” charge was not transparently included in
the original terms.
21. I also challenged the Claimant’s reliance on ParkingEye Ltd
v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, as the facts of that case are clearly
distinguishable. In Beavis, the signage was prominent, clear,
and unambiguous, and the Supreme Court held that the charge was
justified by a legitimate commercial interest. By contrast, in
this case, the Claimant has presented no evidence of comparable
signage, no evidence of a legitimate interest justifying the
charge, and no basis for the application of the Beavis ruling.
22. Had the Claimant dealt with the concerns raised pre-action,
this matter could likely have been resolved or discontinued
without burdening the court. The Claimant’s failure to do so has
resulted in unnecessary litigation and wasted time, for which I
submit that a costs order is justified.
Conclusion
23. In conclusion, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that
any contract was formed, that a valid parking charge was
incurred, or that the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. They have not
provided evidence of the alleged period of parking, nor
established keeper liability under PoFA. No admissible evidence
has been produced to identify the driver, and the Particulars of
Claim remain vague, non-compliant with CPR 16.4, and lacking in
legal clarity.
24. The Claimant has pursued this claim despite repeated
pre-action warnings of these fundamental defects and has failed
to address them both before and after proceedings were issued.
Their conduct has been unreasonable throughout.
25. I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed, and that
the Court consider making a costs order pursuant to CPR
27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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]
You will need to include the two transcripts referred to. In the
WS you need to replace the XX in "XX-01" with your initials. You
then need to create a cover sheet for those items of evidence
with the court headers as they are in your WS and just put
"Supporting Evidence" and mark each one with the corresponding
reference as in the WS.
Here are links to the two transcripts:
Brennan v PPS
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=5p0lqof5&dl=0
VCS v Edward
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=jr69jnln&dl=0
When you send it, you must email it as a PDF attachment in an
email with the claim number in the email subject field. You
email it to civil.sthelens.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and also
CC BW Legal and also yourself in the same email.
#Post#: 75210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 7, 2025, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank b789 - much appreciated as always.
NTC did send me a time-stamped photograph of the sign at the
time of the alleged contravention (p2 of the thread). With this
in mind, should I amend the third sentence of Para 20 of the
witness statement to "Specifically, they did not address my
argument that the £60 "debt recovery" charge was not
transparently included in the original terms."?
Does the discussion of signage at Para 11 also need amending, or
is this a different matter altogether, relating to their initial
Particulars of Claim?
Thanks!
#Post#: 75212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 7, 2025, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick update - BW Legal's bundle has just landed on my doormat.
I am currently in the process of scanning and uploading it -
I'll update this post with a copy once I'm done.
#Post#: 75217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 7, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's your WS and you are signing it under a Statement of Truth
(SoT). If I've got something obviously wrong, then you need to
amend it so that it does not conflict with the truth.
Regarding the points in para #11, that can stay as is because it
is pointing out the defects in the claimants PoC.
So, don't send anything until we've had a chance to review their
WS and evidence. If you can upload it to Google Drive, that
would make it much easier to review.
#Post#: 75222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 7, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789 - bundle can be found here:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aw8fnbPf6wX2P00eE_cCCkcw5D7ATv7K/view?usp=sharing
I note that they have included a copy of their contract with
Orbit Homes, which I assume will necessitate an amendment to the
WC.
I also see that they have provided a schedule of signs and
photographic evidence of their presence, but that these
photographs are without a time stamp. On this basis, I assume
that they cannot use them to prove that any signs other than the
one sign shown in the contemporaneous time-stamped photos were
present at the time of the alleged infraction?
#Post#: 75235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 7, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to make the file public so I can access it
#Post#: 75239--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 7, 2025, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg75235#msg75235
date=1749303724]
You need to make the file public so I can access it
[/quote]
Sorry! Should be accessible now.
#Post#: 75294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 7, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They've really piled it on in their WS. I've had a brief look at
it and there are significant points you should point out in your
WS. I will study it a bit more tomorrow but initially, I note
that their plan with the signs which is part of their supposed
landowner contract are not there in your video when you drive
in. Notably there is no entrance sign on the left and the terms
sign supposedly on the building in front as you drive in, is not
there either. Also the layout of the car park appears to be
different. I've highlighted the obvious missing signs and also
the area that does not appear to be there anymore, in green:
[img width=750
height=1058]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/e4pDdgr.jpeg[/img]
Also there are many points in the WS of Eden Moore and the fact
that this person is not an actual "witness". The following paras
will be included in an amended WS ready for submission:
[quote]The Claimant’s witness statement has not been made by a
representative of the Claimant company, but by a paralegal
employed by its solicitors, BW Legal. This individual has no
direct involvement in the circumstances giving rise to the
claim, nor any first-hand knowledge of the relevant facts.
While hearsay evidence is permitted under the Civil Evidence Act
1995, it is well established that such evidence carries less
weight, particularly where it relates to matters that could and
should have been addressed by a witness with direct knowledge.
The evidence relied upon is second-hand and simply recites
instructions received from the Claimant.
The statement fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32,
paragraph 18.2, which requires a witness to indicate which parts
of their statement are made from their own knowledge and which
are based on information or belief, with the source of any such
belief stated. The witness has not identified the source of any
information or belief and has not distinguished between fact and
instruction. This omission renders the statement procedurally
defective and undermines its evidential weight.
The individual who has made the statement is not an officer or
employee of Norwich Traffic Control Limited and has no
operational involvement with the site, the signage, the
contractual arrangements, or the issuance of parking charges.
Their role is purely that of a legal assistant instructed to
compile a generic narrative in support of the claim.
The witness statement is improperly drafted in the third person,
which is contrary to CPR PD 32, paragraph 18.1. A witness
statement must be in the first person and clearly state the
evidence being given by the witness in their own words. This
further supports the inference that the statement is not based
on personal knowledge, but rather is a solicitor-assisted
summary of instructions from the Claimant.
I submit that little weight should be given to this statement
and that, where it is not supported by contemporaneous documents
or admissible evidence, it should be disregarded
entirely.[/quote]
Also, this "witness' has now gone beyond what is necessary and
made false statement in their Skeleton. Notably that the defence
is an internet template from www.moneysavingexpert.com rather
than from www.ftla.uk and has tried to undermine that defence
with irrelevance to the fact that their PoC were defective.
I will provide more tomorrow after I've hd a chance to read more
of their WS.
#Post#: 75361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 8, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suggested amended WS but you should not send anything
until just before 4pm on Wednesday 11th June:
[quote][center]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ST HELENS[/center]
[right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
1. I am the Defendant in this claim and a litigant-in-person
with no formal legal training. I have prepared this witness
statement and my Defence to the best of my ability, having
carried out detailed research into the relevant law and
procedure. In doing so, I have received informal guidance from
publicly accessible legal resources, including the forum
www.ftla.uk (Free Traffic Legal Advice), which provides
voluntary assistance on private parking and contractual matters.
I respectfully ask the Court to take into account that this case
has been presented in good faith by a lay person and is not a
generic or template response, as inaccurately alleged by the
Claimant’s representative. I confirm that the facts stated in
this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
Claimants 'Witness' is third-hand hearsay
2. The Claimant’s witness statement is authored by a paralegal
employed by BW Legal who confirms they are acting under the
instruction of a senior. This makes the content of the
statement, at best, third-hand hearsay. The witness has no
personal knowledge of the facts, the site, the signage, or of me
as the Defendant.
3. The statement is written predominantly in the third person
and contains speculative, disparaging, and inadmissible
commentary that strays far beyond the factual scope permitted by
CPR Practice Direction 32. It includes an unfounded
accusation—also repeated in the Skeleton Argument—that my
Defence was copied from a generic internet forum, specifically
moneysavingexpert.com. This is categorically false.
4. My Defence was compiled independently with tailored support
from the consumer legal forum www.ftla.uk, which specialises in
assisting members of the public in private parking contractual
matters. As a litigant-in-person, I am entitled to seek
legitimate advice and assistance. Even if the Defence had been
influenced by online resources, that would not render it
improper. In contrast, the Claimant’s own submissions appear to
be generic templates containing boilerplate assertions and legal
inaccuracies.
5. The witness, not being present at the hearing and not having
personal knowledge, cannot be cross-examined. In accordance with
the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and CPR 33, I respectfully submit
that the Court should attach little or no weight to this
untested, third-hand hearsay evidence, which fails to assist the
Court on any material or disputed fact.
6. Moreover, the Claimant’s late attempt to plead their case
through the witness statement further highlights that they could
have—and should have—served proper Particulars of Claim within
14 days of issuing the claim online via MCOL, pursuant to PD
7C.5.2. Their decision not to do so has deprived the Court and
the Defendant of a fair and timely understanding of the claim.
This omission was avoidable and strategic, not inadvertent or
constrained by MCOL limitations.
7. The focus of my Defence was on this very inadequacy—namely,
that the Particulars of Claim failed to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. The Claimant has not
addressed those defects in any meaningful or procedurally
compliant way. Instead, they attempt to deflect attention from
the deficiencies of their claim by attacking the format and
supposed origin of my Defence, which entirely misses the point.
The Claimant failed to adequately plead their claim pursuant to
CPR 16.4
8. The Particulars of Claim are vague, inadequately pleaded, and
fail to adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction
16, paragraph 7.5. The Claimant does not identify the precise
terms of the alleged contract, nor the clause(s) said to have
been breached. There is no statement of when or for how long the
alleged parking occurred, nor any identification of the signage
or the specific terms displayed. The pleading fails to set out
the facts necessary to establish either breach or the basis of
any contractual entitlement to the sum claimed.
9. The Claimant has also failed to specify whether I am being
pursued as the driver or the keeper. The pleading is
impermissibly ambiguous, failing to disclose which legal basis
is relied upon or to plead alternative causes of action with the
required particularity. This is contrary to the basic principles
of civil pleading and has caused significant prejudice to the
myself.
10. I submitted a proposed draft order with the Defence,
inviting the Court to strike out the claim or, in the
alternative, to order further and better particulars. The Court
failed to address that request and instead allocated the matter
to a final hearing without requiring the Claimant to remedy the
procedural defects. I respectfully submit that this oversight
has resulted in procedural unfairness, and now invite the Court
to exercise its case management powers to strike out the claim
in its entirety pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 16.4 for
failure to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
11. There was nothing to prevent the Claimant from filing
further and better particulars under PD 7C.5.2A within 14 days
of the MCOL claim, which they chose not to do. That decision is
not my responsibility. A failure to remedy defective pleadings
cannot be excused by the 1080-character limit of the MCOL
interface. Where a claim is factually or legally complex—as this
one purports to be—the Claimant should have served separate,
detailed particulars as expressly permitted by the Practice
Direction. The option existed but was not exercised.
12. The Claimant’s Skeleton also states that “the hearing can
focus on the facts of the case”, and that its solicitors will
“respond to the Defendant’s facts” at the hearing. This confirms
the Claimant’s strategic decision to rely on minimal pleadings
and belatedly expand upon them at trial. That is procedurally
inappropriate. The purpose of pleadings is to inform the other
party of the case they must meet, not to be supplemented
piecemeal via a witness statement or skeleton.
13. Furthermore, the Claimant’s assertion that the PoC must be
deemed compliant because the case was allocated to the small
claims track is misconceived. Allocation is an administrative
process and does not imply judicial approval of pleadings. No
judge has ruled on compliance with CPR 16.4 in this case, and
silence cannot be taken as endorsement.
14. Additionally, the Claimant’s witness is a paralegal who has
no first-hand knowledge of the facts and makes several
speculative and disparaging comments that are inadmissible under
CPR PD 32. These include opinions about the Defence’s origin and
format, which are wholly irrelevant to the issues before the
Court and serve only to undermine the integrity of these
proceedings
No evidence of a contract being formed with the driver
15. The claim fails from the outset due to the Claimant’s total
failure to show that a parking contract was ever formed. The
Notice to Driver (NtD) and Notice to Keeper (NtK) merely record
a single timestamp. There is no actual “period of parking”
specified, and no evidence whatsoever of how long the vehicle
was present. The option on the NtD to record and observation
'period' is shown as: "First seen at: N/A".
16. This is a fundamental omission. A contract by conduct cannot
be formed without a consideration period. There must be
sufficient time for the driver to seek out, read the signage,
consider the terms, and make a decision to accept or reject
them. Without showing how long the vehicle remained on site, the
Claimant has not established that any contract was formed.
17. The IPC Code of Practice, Version 9, which applied at the
time, confirms this. Section 13 requires that a consideration
period of appropriate duration be allowed before a parking
contract is formed. IN the latest version of their Code of
Practice, this has now been confirmed to a period of no less
than 5 minutes.
18. This is consistent with basic contract law: no contract can
arise by conduct unless there has been sufficient time to seek
out, read and consider the terms. The Claimant has provided no
evidence that this requirement was met. The Claimant has
provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on site beyond
this undefined but necessary consideration period. Without this,
the court cannot conclude that a contract was even capable of
being created, let alone breached. As such, the entire basis for
the claim collapses.
Failure to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012
19. This same deficiency also renders the Claimant’s notices
non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 ("PoFA"). In order to transfer liability from the unknown
driver to the registered keeper, strict compliance with the
statutory requirements is mandatory. Paragraph 7(2)(a) (in
respect of a Notice to Driver) and paragraph 8(2)(a) (for a
Notice to Keeper following a NtD) both require that the notice
'must' "specify the period of parking to which the notice
relates". A single timestamp, as provided by the Claimant, is
not a “period” of parking and therefore fails this requirement,
especially when their own paperwork provides a box precisely for
this purpose.
20. This issue was considered in the persuasive appellate
decision Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
[H6DP632H]. Relevant excerpts are exhibited at Exhibit XX-01.
21. At paragraphs 27 to 30, HHJ Mitchell confirmed that PoFA
requires the notice to specify a period of parking, even if it
is a short one, and not merely a moment in time. He explained
that:
[indent]“The period of parking does not refer to the whole
period a vehicle is in situ. It could be less than that... it
could be any minimum period; that is the period to which the
Notice relates. That is what the Regulations are getting to...
Where it went wrong... is that the second of those [times] was
put in as ‘NA’. If the time had been put in, that would have
cured the problem and that simply had to be repeated in the
Notice to keeper.”[/indent]
22. The judgment makes it clear that where the notice fails to
specify a minimum identifiable period, as is the case here, PoFA
conditions are not met and keeper liability cannot arise.
Failure to fully comply with PoFA means no Keeper liability
23. The Claimant has also failed to establish the identity of
the driver. The registered keeper is under no legal obligation
to identify the driver, and I have not done so. In the
persuasive appellate case of Vehicle Control Services v Ian Mark
Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], HHJ Gargan made it clear that it is
not appropriate for a court to infer that the registered keeper
was the driver, even on the balance of probabilities, where
there is no supporting evidence. A copy of the relevant section
of the judgment is exhibited at Exhibit XX-02.
24. At paragraph 35.3, the judge stated:
[indent]“It is consistent with the appropriate probability
analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper,
it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on
this occasion, because one simply cannot tell… These are all
possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an
inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper
was driving on any given occasion.”[/indent]
25. I respectfully submit that in order for the claimant to be
able to rely on the provisions of PoFA, all the requirements of
the act must be met. Partial or even substantial compliance is
not sufficient. To use an analogy, just like pregnancy, one
either is or is not. It is a binary issue and the same applies
to PoFA compliance. In this case, their notices are not fully
compliant.
26. As the Claimant’s notices are not fully compliant with all
the requirements of PoFA, they cannot rely on keeper liability,
and in the absence of any admissible evidence identifying the
driver, the claim must fail.
Failure to evidence a valid contract flowing from the landowner
27. The Claimant relies on a one-page document as its contract
with the landholder, yet this purported agreement is fraught
with deficiencies. It is signed only by a representative of
Orbit Homes, with no counter-signature from the Claimant,
raising doubts about whether it constitutes a valid and binding
agreement.
28. The contract includes a self-declaration that the signatory
is either the landowner or a duly authorised agent but provides
no independent proof of landowner authority. This falls short of
the requirements under CPR Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5,
which require the source of the Claimant’s authority to be
clearly set out.
29. The handwritten addition “Richard Dean, Future Build”
appears without explanation or context. There is no indication
of who Richard Dean is, what “Future Build” represents, or what
legal interest—if any—this entity holds in the land. It is
unclear whether this was added contemporaneously or afterwards.
This unexplained annotation introduces serious uncertainty into
the authenticity and authority behind the agreement.
30. Crucially, the agreement makes no express grant of authority
for the Claimant to issue legal proceedings in its own name. The
vague reference to a right to “pursue by any means lawful” does
not amount to an assignment or clear authorisation, and is
insufficient to confer locus standi.
31. The contract also contains a retrospective enforcement
clause, purporting to legitimise charges issued before the
agreement was signed. Such a clause is legally ineffective and
cannot confer retrospective authority.
32. The version of the purported contract disclosed to me by the
Claimant is redacted. If the Claimant has provided an unredacted
version to the Court but failed to serve the same upon me, this
would constitute a breach of CPR 32.12 and CPR 1.3, which
require mutual disclosure and cooperation in the interests of a
fair hearing. It would also amount to procedural unfairness and
a denial of my right as a litigant-in-person to properly examine
the material relied upon. I respectfully request that the Court
disregard any version of the contract which has not been
disclosed in full and in equal terms to both parties.
33. The agreement refers to a site plan, which is said to form
part of the contract and purportedly marks the signage
locations. However, I visited the site upon receiving the Notice
to Keeper and recorded a video capturing the actual signage
conditions. Still images from this video are provided as
evidence to demonstrate that crucial signage marked on the plan
was either missing, obscured, illegible, or not in the locations
indicated. As such, the site plan is materially inaccurate and
does not reflect the actual conditions at the location.
34. This discrepancy is not a minor oversight—it goes to the
heart of the alleged contractual framework. If the signage
relied upon by the Claimant to form a contract was not in place
as shown on the plan, then the plan cannot serve as reliable
evidence of either the existence or adequacy of notice given to
drivers.
35. Moreover, it casts serious doubt on the validity of the
agreement itself, given that the purported basis of enforcement
(i.e. effective signage) was not actually implemented as
described in the contract documentation. The Court is therefore
invited to find that this inconsistency further undermines the
enforceability of the contract and the credibility of the
Claimant's case.
36. For example, the key left hand entrance sign marked on the
site plan is missing entirely and the other entrance sign is
hidden round the corner of the building on the right as you
approach the car park and mounted high on a wall and cannot be
seen by a driver entering the car park . It is severely faded.
Another supposed terms sign on the building opposite the
entrance is absent. This undermines any suggestion that clear
and visible contractual terms were communicated to the driver. A
copy of the site plan showing the obvious anomalies is attached
as evidence at XX-04.
37. The Claimants witness has shown multiple photo of signs that
are not dated but were clearly taken prior to the date of the
alleged contravention an dhow that the site has changed
materially since they were taken, as the site is no longer the
same shape and the boundary walls have been changed and are also
now covered in graffiti.
38. Taken together, the contract is vague, inadequately
executed, and factually contradicted by contemporaneous site
conditions. The Court is invited to find that the Claimant has
failed to prove either contractual standing or the existence of
clear, accessible signage capable of forming a binding agreement
with any motorist.
Failure of the Claimant to properly engage in the Pre Action
Protocol
39. Following receipt of the Claimant’s Letter of Claim, I
engaged in detailed correspondence raising fundamental concerns.
These included: the validity of the signage, the alleged
contractual authority of the Claimant, the calculation and legal
basis of the £60 add-on charge, and the inapplicability of
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to this case. Despite
being given ample opportunity to clarify or substantiate their
position, the Claimant failed to answer these questions. No
documents were provided, and no serious attempt was made to
justify their claim.
40. Instead, the Claimant proceeded to issue a County Court
claim via the MCOL interface, choosing to rely on vague and
wholly inadequate Particulars of Claim. These did not specify
the terms of the alleged contract, the signage relied upon, the
period of parking, the nature of the breach, or even whether the
claim was pursued against me as keeper or driver. This lack of
detail falls well short of CPR 16.4 and PD16 paragraph 7.5, and
left me in a position where I had no option but to plead my
Defence on the basis of the Claimant’s inadequately pleaded
case.
41. The Claimant is professionally represented and had the
procedural right under PD7C 5.2A to serve full Particulars of
Claim within 14 days of issuing the claim. Given the complexity
of the issues raised in pre-action correspondence—including my
challenge to their misapplication of Beavis, which clearly
concerned a free car park at a retail site with prominent
signage and a compelling commercial justification—they had every
reason to exercise that right. Yet they chose not to.
42. The Claimant’s later reliance on Beavis—a Supreme Court
judgment with highly specific facts and strict qualifying
criteria—is not only inappropriate, but further reveals their
unwillingness to properly engage with the material differences
in this case. The site in question here does not present the
same signage clarity, free parking rationale, or legitimate
interest. I expressly raised this distinction in my pre-action
replies, which the Claimant ignored.
43. Now, on the eve of witness statement submission deadline,
the Claimant seeks to introduce extensive new arguments and
factual assertions via a witness statement written by a
paralegal acting under instruction. This third-hand, untested
statement attempts to backfill the serious deficiencies in their
case by addressing points they refused to clarify during the PAP
process or in the claim particulars. This tactic of last-minute
ambush—relying on arguments withheld pre-claim and absent from
the PoC—is procedurally unfair and contrary to the Overriding
Objective.
44. The Court is invited to give little or no weight to this
strategy. The Claimant’s failure to engage with legitimate
pre-action queries, their failure to plead a coherent claim, and
their subsequent reliance on inadmissible hearsay to ‘plug the
gaps’ at the final hour, demonstrates conduct which is
inconsistent with fair litigation.
Conclusion
45. In conclusion, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that
any contract was formed, that a valid parking charge was
incurred, or that the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. They have not
provided evidence of the alleged period of parking, nor
established keeper liability under PoFA. No admissible evidence
has been produced to identify the driver, and the Particulars of
Claim remain vague, non-compliant with CPR 16.4, and lacking in
legal clarity.
46. The Claimant has pursued this claim despite repeated
pre-action warnings of these fundamental defects and has failed
to address them both before and after proceedings were issued.
Their conduct has been unreasonable throughout.
47. I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed, and that
the Court consider making a costs order pursuant to CPR
27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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]
You will need to include the two transcripts referred to and
also the photo (stills from your video) showing the absence of
signs and also the phot you provided of the faded entrance sign
on the right, both the close up and the one show how
insignificant it is general view.
In the WS you need to replace the 'XX' in "XX-01" etc. with your
initials. You then need to create a cover sheet for those items
of evidence with the court headers as they are in your WS and
just put "Supporting Evidence" and mark each one with the
corresponding reference as in the WS.
Here are links to the two transcripts:
Brennan v PPS
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=5p0lqof5&dl=0
VCS v Edward
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=jr69jnln&dl=0
When you send it, you must email it as a PDF attachment in an
email with the claim number in the email subject field. You
email it to civil.sthelens.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and also
CC BW Legal and also yourself in the same email.
[/quote]
#Post#: 75440--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 8, 2025, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789 - this is fantastic, and I am unbelievably grateful.
I am now in the process of putting this together into a full
document, with appendices etc., Three small queries arise:
Should there be a reference to Appendix xx-03 in this paragraph,
such as "Still images from this video are provided as evidence
at xx-03 to demonstrate that crucial signage marked on the plan
was either missing, obscured, illegible, or not in the locations
indicated."
Paragraph 36 states "A copy of the site plan showing the obvious
anomalies is attached as evidence at xx-04.". Is this the plan
that you provided yesterday, with the green arrows?
Finally - should I include any sort of link to the uploaded
version of the video anywhere in my bundle?
Thanks again!
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page