DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75485--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 9, 2025, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to make sure that any references to evidence you are
relying on is correctly referenced in the WS and appended as
evidence in your bundle. Have look at how the claimant has put
together their bundle and do the same with your evidence and
just make sure that it is correctly referenced in your WS.
You can add a hyperlink to the video if you wan to refer to the
whole thing or just take some stills from it and reference those
in your WS. You can also show how the claimants images of the
signs taken who knows when but obviously before the state of the
locations now, are not indicative of the state of the car park
at the time of the alleged contravention and puts their evidence
in doubt as being factual.
#Post#: 75497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: June 9, 2025, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg75485#msg75485
date=1749461842]
You can add a hyperlink to the video if you wan to refer to the
whole thing or just take some stills from it and reference those
in your WS.
[/quote]
If including a hyperlink to a video, I'd personally be tempted
to also refer to stills as a backup. That way, if their are
technical issues on the day that prevent the display of the
video, you'll have the stills to refer to.
#Post#: 75574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 9, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg75485#msg75485
date=1749461842]
You need to make sure that any references to evidence you are
relying on is correctly referenced in the WS and appended as
evidence in your bundle. Have look at how the claimant has put
together their bundle and do the same with your evidence and
just make sure that it is correctly referenced in your WS.
You can add a hyperlink to the video if you wan to refer to the
whole thing or just take some stills from it and reference those
in your WS. You can also show how the claimants images of the
signs taken who knows when but obviously before the state of the
locations now, are not indicative of the state of the car park
at the time of the alleged contravention and puts their evidence
in doubt as being factual.
[/quote]
Thanks again! All compiled, paginated, and PDFed. The only
other tweak I've made is at Paragraph 37, to remove the
reference to the shape of the site having changed. On that
basis, I've also produced a revised annotated version of the NTC
plan at Appendix xx-04, which merely refers to the missing/faded
signage.
I don't know if you wanted to take a final look before I send it
over at 1555hrs on Wednesday afternoon?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 75612--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 9, 2025, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All good... except that I would mark on the stills from the
video on entering, the missing LH entrance sign and the missing
terms sign on the front of the building. I wouldn't use the
second still image at all. Also, point out on the photos you
took of the RHS entrance sign, that this is the RHS entrance
sign and then highlight how inconspicuous it is ans impossible
to see when turning in to the parking area.
Expect BW Legal to try and undermine you with a supplementary WS
but you can object to that being used as it will have been
submitted after the bundle deadline, which is why you do not
submit your WS until the deadline itself.
#Post#: 75627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 9, 2025, 3:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That's great, thanks!
I've removed the second image, as suggested.
For the first image I've added coloured rings highlighting the
two areas with missing signage, and a note beneath: "Location of
missing entrance signage marked in blue. Location of missing
terms signage marked in yellow."
For the three photos of the remaining entrance sign, I've added
the following three notes respectively:
"Poor visibility and siting of entrance sign (ringed red). This
is the only entrance sign on site, is wholly inconspicuous, and
impossible to see whilst turning into the parking area."
"Extremely faded nature of entrance sign. The sign is wholly
illegible, even from a short distance away."
"Close-up image of entrance sign. Even close up, significant
parts of the text are so faded as to be illegible."
I'll sit on this now until 1555hrs on Wednesday 11th, when I'll
get it filed with the Court and served upon the claimant.
#Post#: 76031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 11, 2025, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Submitted to St Helens County Court and BW Legal at 1553hrs
today, which should be close enough to the deadline to prevent
any last minute additions from BW Legal.
I suppose it's now a case of waiting to see if the trial fee is
paid by the deadline of 1600hrs on 4th July.
A couple of questions borne out of general curiosity more than
anything else:
[list]
[li]Is there any particular reason that BW Legal acted so
comparatively early with regards to serving their witness
statement? All it seems to have done is give us a far better
opportunity to pick it apart than would have been the case had
it been emailed to me five minutes before the deadline.[/li]
[li]Is the seemingly comprehensive nature of their statement
(ignoring the numerous holes found in it) par for the course in
this sort of matter? I appreciate that they're probably on a
retainer from NTC, so can use the time saved with 'low hanging
fruit' matters to go all-in with matters like this but, at the
same time, it feels like a waste of time and effort on their
part if this is likely to be as open-and-shut as it appears if
it goes before a judge. Or is it all part of the plan to try
and scare me into paying up, before discontinuing at the very
last minute?[/li]
[/list]
#Post#: 76069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 11, 2025, 1:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have been discussing this case with a District Judge today. He
has advised me to tell you that, should this actually get as far
as the telephone hearing, you should immediately ask the judge
for an adjournment as this case being heard over the telephone
against the normal choice of a hearing in person at their local
county court is irregular and unfair.
He suggests you ought say the following to the judge:
[quote]I feel at a complete disadvantage having this trial on
the telephone. This is because I want to sit in the same room as
the Judge and put my case over without any distraction of the
telephone hearing perhaps going wrong or someone’s line being
cut off. I did object to this hearing being on the telephone by
writing to the court but my emails were ignored.[/quote]
If the hearing is not adjourned, then when asked to speak, you
simply state the following:
[quote]"Summary of Defence (Oral Statement to the Court)
I confirm my Defence as submitted, and in order to assist the
Court and avoid unnecessary detail, I summarise the key points:
1. No contract could have been formed
For a contract to be formed by conduct, there must be a clear
period during which the driver was able to seek out a terms
sign, read, understand, and accept the terms. The Claimant has
not evidenced any such period. Without showing that the driver
remained after considering the signage, there is no basis to
infer contractual acceptance or a meeting of minds.
2. Notice to Driver is invalid – no period of parking
The Notice to Driver attached to the vehicle includes only a
single timestamp. Under Schedule 4, paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA,
the notice MUST specify a period of parking. This was confirmed
in the persuasive appeal case of Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions, where the judge held that a single timestamp alone is
insufficient to evidence a period of parking for the purposes of
PoFA. The notice is therefore non-compliant and cannot transfer
liability to the Keeper.
3. No keeper liability
Because the Notice to Driver is non-compliant with PoFA, the
Claimant cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. The
driver has not been identified, and there is no lawful basis to
pursue the keeper.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the
claim."[/quote]
#Post#: 76143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 12, 2025, 3:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When asking for the adjournment, you may just want to mention
that you don't understand why Practice Direction 26.3(3) was not
followed in this case.
#Post#: 76196--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: June 12, 2025, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789.
I've just reviewed my N180 to make absolutely sure that the
allocation to St Helen's wasn't as a result of a mistake on my
part (it wasn't), and have noted that the hearing has also been
set for a date that I have said that I will not be available at
Section F4 of the form.
It doesn't matter now, as I put in a number of dates that might
prove useful for booking holiday, but is this a point worthy of
mention as well? It's clear that whoever processed the N180
hasn't paid the blindest bit of attention to it.
#Post#: 76199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: June 12, 2025, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is very important. I suggest you email the court at St
Helens at civil.sthelens.countycourt@justice.gov.uk with the
following and mark it as "URGENT" with the claim number:
[quote]Subject: URGENT Request to Review Hearing Venue and Date
– Claim [CLAIM NUMBER]
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write with urgency regarding the above-referenced case, in
which a small claims hearing has been listed to take place by
telephone at [INSERT TIME] on [INSERT DATE].
I must raise two serious procedural issues:
[indent]1. Hearing Venue Ignored – Breach of CPR 26.3(3):
[indent]On my N180 Directions Questionnaire, I clearly stated my
preference for the hearing to be listed at my local County
Court: [INSERT COURT NAME]. I am an individual defendant, and
this is a claim for a specified sum of money. Accordingly, CPR
26.3(3) provides that the claim must be sent to the defendant’s
home court. This has not occurred, and the listing for a remote
hearing without my consent is inappropriate and contrary to the
Civil Procedure Rules.[/indent]
2. Hearing Date Conflicts with My Declared Unavailability
(Section F4):
[indent]On the same N180 form, I stated unavailability for the
date now chosen for the hearing. This is recorded at Section F4.
It is clear that my N180 has not been properly considered, which
has resulted in a listing that is both procedurally defective
and unfair.[/indent][/indent]
This oversight has placed me, a litigant in person, at a
considerable disadvantage. I am not legally represented, whereas
the Claimant is. I respectfully submit that the current listing
breaches the overriding objective under CPR 1.1, particularly
the need to ensure that cases are dealt with fairly and in a way
that ensures parties are on an equal footing.
I therefore request:
[indent]• That the telephone hearing be vacated,
• That the matter be re-listed at my local County Court,
• And that a new date be set having proper regard to my
availability as stated on the Directions Questionnaire.[/indent]
Please confirm receipt of this email and advise what steps will
now be taken to correct this.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Details]
[Claim Number][/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page