DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79400--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: July 3, 2025, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You now wait for your local court to list the hearing. You will
receive an order telling you the date by which submissions must
be made. You shouldn't have to resubmit everything as it will
have been transferred. However, let's just wait for the notice
and then we can see what to expect.
This will have p!ssed BW Legal off no end. It means they won't
send anyone down and will either rely on their WS or may hire a
local legal rep by the hour to represent them at the hearing,
that's if they don't discontinue before.
This is small claims track. Costs are fixed and they cannot
claim extra costs, even if you lose unless you behave
unreasonably, which you haven't. If, for example, you didn't
show up for the hearing without informing the court that you
would not be attending, that could be classed as unreasonable
behaviour.
The allocation to St Helens for a telephone hearing was very
unfair and should never have happened in the first place. This
has now been corrected. Patience.
#Post#: 90212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: September 16, 2025, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick update on this one, in that there very much has
been no update.
I've not heard anything from HMCTS since the acknowledgement
that the case was to be transferred to Norwich, nor have I heard
anything further from BWLegal.
I've logged on to the MCOL portal, and it seems that the most
recent update on there was the allocation of the case to St
Helens on 3rd April 2025.
I appreciate that the Courts system is under a lot of pressure
with some significant backlogs, but this seems rather protracted
even in these circumstances!
#Post#: 90221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: September 16, 2025, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Once the claim is transferred to your local county court, MCOL
no longer plays any part, which is why you won't see anything on
there. You can call your local court and ask for an update.
You can call the court or email them the following to
enquiries.norwich.countycourt[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.u
k:
[quote]Subject: FAO: Civil Listings - Claim [number] – Transfer
order dated 3 July 2025 – Listing status enquiry
Dear Listing Officer,
I write regarding Claim [number], [Claimant] v [Defendant]. By
order dated 3 July 2025 the matter was transferred to the
Defendant’s home court for listing. Could you confirm (i)
whether the file has been received, (ii) current listing status,
and (iii) when Notice of Allocation (N157) is likely to issue?
The previous hearing (1 August 2025) was vacated and prior
directions rescinded.
I attach the 3 July order for ease.
Yous faithfully,
[Name, address for service, phone]
Attachment: Order 3 July 2025.pdf”[/quote]
#Post#: 92618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: October 2, 2025, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As if by magic, a new notice of allocation appeared:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pbin9X2JQXBqMPpA5A2g15fgkSBHEJ-A/view?usp=sharing
(Forgive the link to the document, the ability to add
attachments appears to have gone from here?)
I assume that the previously-submitted bundles still stand, and
cannot be added to or amended at this stage? On which basis, is
it now a case of waiting to see whether the court fee is paid by
11th December, and then taking suitable action (or not)
depending on whether the matter still appears to be heading to a
hearing?
#Post#: 92622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: October 2, 2025, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, having read the precis of Mazur, I had a look back
over the case documentation.
BWLegal's N180 form was completed in the name of Rohan
Krishnarao, one of the solicitors at BWLegal, although merely
signed 'bwlegal', with the claim form also having been completed
by Rohan (or, at least, in his name).
All other post-claim documentation is either generically signed
'bwlegal', or has been prepared and signed by a Paralegal by the
name of Eden Moore, allegedly 'under the supervision of [her]
principle'.
Does this fit the context of the judgment in Mazur, or does the
requirement of qualification/authorisation only really apply to
the documents that have been completed in Mr Krishnarao's name?
#Post#: 92670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: October 3, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are serious irregularities with the conduct of this by BW
Legal, not least by the fact that Eden Moore, a paralegal, has
clearly admitted, under a Statement of Truth (SoT) in her WS
that she has conduct of the case under supervision of her
principal. This is clear evidence of unreasonable conduct and
also a serious breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). It
is a criminal offence for someone to conduct litigation who is
unauthorised to do so.
For now, I need to also see the SWS that was sent by BW Legal.
Can you please host that for us to see before I give a
definitive answer about how to deal with the unreasonable
conduct matter.
#Post#: 92678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: October 3, 2025, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can make a "drop hands" offer to BW Legal that may make them
think twice before continuing with this litigation. Send the
following letter, without prejudice, and see what they respond
with:
[quote]WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
[Date]
BW Legal
[Email address shown on their correspondence]
Our Client: Norwich Traffic Control Limited
Claim No: []
Your Ref: []
Dear Sirs,
Drop-hands proposal: discontinue with no order as to costs
Further to your client’s claim, now transferred to Norwich
County Court for hearing on 8 January 2026, I invite your client
to discontinue the proceedings on a drop-hands basis: each party
to bear its own costs, no order as to costs, and no admissions.
This offer is open for 7 days from the date of this letter.
Why your client’s case is untenable
[indent]1. No contract; no “period of parking” evidenced
Your Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper records only a single
timestamp. There is no period of parking alleged or proved. That
is fatal to any case that a contract was formed by conduct:
absent an evidenced duration on site, the court cannot be
satisfied that any consideration period elapsed or that terms
were capable of being read and accepted.
2. PoFA non-compliance (keeper liability cannot arise)
Schedule 4 PoFA paras 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) require the notice to
“specify the period of parking” to which it relates. Your
client’s notices do not. In the persuasive appeal Scott Brennan
v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) H6DP632H, HHJ Mitchell held
(paras 27–30) that PoFA requires an identifiable period (even a
short one), not a mere moment in time. On your own evidence,
keeper liability is unavailable.
3. Driver not identified; no presumption
I have not identified the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023)
HOKF6C9C, HHJ Gargan at para 35.3 confirmed it is not
appropriate to infer that the registered keeper was the driver
“on balance of probabilities”—one simply cannot tell. With PoFA
unavailable (see 2), the claim fails against the keeper.
4. PAP and pleading conduct
You were put on notice pre-action to supply core material
(proper signage proof, legal basis of the £60 add-on, PoFA
compliance). The Particulars of Claim remained inadequate (CPR
16.4/PD16), and you attempted to cure defects post-issue via
witness/skeleton material. That is procedurally improper and has
caused unnecessary cost and court burden.[/indent]
Conduct of litigation – reserved activity issue (costs
relevance)
Your witness statement signed by Ms Eden Moore (paralegal)
states—under a Statement of Truth—that she “has conduct of this
action” “subject to supervision”. Conduct of litigation is a
reserved legal activity (Legal Services Act 2007, ss.12–15). In
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the
High Court confirmed that supervision does not authorise an
unauthorised person to conduct litigation. Ms Moore’s sworn
statement that she “has conduct of this action” is a prima facie
admission of unauthorised conduct of litigation; if you proceed,
I will rely on this for CPR 27.14(2)(g) costs and reserve my
position regarding regulatory escalation.
Commercial reality
Your client now faces (a) a merits failure on PoFA/driver, (b)
pleading/PAP points, and (c) a realistic risk of 27.14(2)(g)
costs consequences. With the matter listed in Norwich,
attendance will likely require either travel or a local
advocate, increasing your client’s sunk cost with no realistic
prospect of improving the underlying defects.
Offer and costs position
If you accept this drop-hands proposal within 7 days, each party
walks away bearing its own costs. If you decline and the claim
is discontinued later or dismissed, I will place this letter
before the court on the issue of costs only and seek an order
under CPR 27.14(2)(g) reflecting your client’s unreasonable
conduct, including the reserved-activity point above.
Please confirm by return that the claim will be discontinued,
and file/serve a Notice of Discontinuance accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
[Defendant’s name]
[Address for service]
[Email[/quote]
#Post#: 92685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: October 3, 2025, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789.
I assume from your subsequent post that you have been able to
find a copy of the document in question, but I have hosted it
here for you:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LzbFSmL3UhKUuKvy5W-IMDtTQCn0iB6_/view?usp=sharing
As it appears you have already seen, the statement "I have
conduct of this action subject to the supervision of my
principle" would appear to be a smoking gun, covered in the
suspect's fingerprints, next to a signed confession.
I'll get the drop hands offer sent forthwith.
#Post#: 93614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: October 10, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick update...
Letter sent last Friday (03/10/2025) to two email addresses at
BWLegal with which I have previously had correspondence,
requesting acknowledgement of receipt. I've heard absolutely
nothing back, which would appear to be most unusual given their
usual willingness to respond.
Any thoughts on what this likely means? Are they scrabbling to
fix their screw-up or, more likely, just hoping that I'll go
away if they ignore me?
Anything more to do between now and the deadline for payment of
court fees?
#Post#: 93619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: October 10, 2025, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are under no obligation to respond. However, work on the
assumption that the hearing is still going to go ahead.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page