Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: allotment on June 05, 2025, 02:30:20 pm
-
Just explain all this to the judge. I doubt that they will file an SWS and you can object to it anyway.
You argue that the claim should be struck out as no cause of action (CPR 16.4(1)(a).
You argue that the Claimants WS is third hand hearsay, written in the third person and should not carry any weight.
You argue that the defendant was not the driver and show that the claimant has not provided any evidence to prove that the defendant was the driver, especially as you have provided a WS to state that you were the driver.
You have this in the defence:
Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR
37. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.
Whilst I would have put more directly that the claimant was put to strict proof of a valid contract flowing from the landowner, blah, blah, I don't see anything in their bundle that evidences their standing to litigate. A statement from a paralegal simply stating that "the claimant was instructed by the private landowner to manage parking on the land" is in no way 'proof' of their standing.
Why has the claimant not provided a copy of their contract with the landowner?
You just need to go in with the knowledge of their failings. They are using Moorside Legal who are a firm of incompetent wannabes. If they even send a pay-by-the-hour advocate to represent them on the day, that person will have no idea about the case as they will probably only have received their copy of the bundle the evening before, if not on the day.
Know the case well. Go in with confidence and raise the points here and ask the judge to consider them.
I doubt you'll get ay costs, especially as they appear to be a bit exaggerated. However, if you are successful, you can ask for the defendants loss of earnings because of attendance , up to £95 plus any travel expenses and parking etc. As the Lay Rep, you cannot claim anything.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOnQp2dN8j8jtBGGDnO7BNpJz9eZnzJT/view?usp=sharing
DWMB2 – thanks.
Son had tried 2 avenues (pages 2 /3 shown in the above pdf) to elicit further details from claimant about the event in question, but claimant didn’t respond to either.
Defence commences on page 4 of the pdf. On page 9 #15, para 2 reference is made to the restaurant because it’s a commonly held belief that tickets are simply sent out to the keeper of any car which parks adjacent to Nandos in order to collect a takeaway (even if there is no evidence that the driver gets out to collect the takeaway). Son believed that since his car is shown parked next to Nandos he was the victim of this. When the defence was written he only had the picture on the NTK to go on which shows his car parked next to Nandos and it was 15 months after the date of the event.
Later, when witness statements were called for (Son’s WS starts on pdf page 14) he states on point #8 that he was not the driver.
My own WS is on page 27, and it states that I was the driver.
When claimant’s WS arrived there were additional pictures (pdf pages:44-46) which showed son leaving the car park in a different direction to the restaurant (so not going to Nandos). I assumed that those additional pictures rendered the comments about the restaurant irrelevant and that my input would remain as both witness and lay representative.
Unless claimant produces even more pictures derived from the multitude of cameras in the car park to suggest otherwise, we assume that the claimant believes that son was the driver solely on the basis that he was standing next to the open driver’s door.
What happens if claimant files a supplemental WS with more pictures or presents more at the hearing?
-
1. If the PoC failed to abide by CPR 16.4(1)(a) then I’m not understanding how the additional information presented in the defence has changed that.
One problem is that the basis of the argument around the vague PoC is that the defendant was unable to properly respond to the claim because the PoC were vague. This point is rather undermined if the defendant subsequently provides a thorough and well-articulated defence that covers all of the specifics of the case. The judge may take the view that the defendant clearly wasn't disadvantaged by the PoC and that it therefore wouldn't be proportionate to strike out the entire claim on that basis. This is where "judge bingo" and how much of a stickler for strict adherence to the rules they are.
-
My only other observation would be that you clarified on here that your WS may be referring to another parking event, but neither of the witness statements appear to make this clear (I've only quickly read them, so apologies if they do and I've missed it). If they do not, then I'd repeat b789's point earlier on that you should prepare to explain this to the judge. Otherwise, if your witness statements paint what seems to be an incorrect version of what actually happened, without explanation, this may harm your credibility.
-
Ok, thanks for your assistance to date.
It’s not clear if your statement “you defended with a load of detail that you should not have mentioned” refers to the defence para 1-14 (which you seem to be supportive of as a preliminary matter to have raised at that stage) or para 15:2 (which seems to be irrelevant) or para 17-41? Perhaps someone else could assist me on this point?
Also, I would appreciate it if someone could answer the following:
1. If the PoC failed to abide by CPR 16.4(1)(a) then I’m not understanding how the additional information presented in the defence has changed that. Why might it not have gone to a hearing without that additional defence info, yet it is now going to a hearing because of it? Perhaps there is a stage in the process where an application can be made direct to the court in advance of defence being filed/served?
2. Presumably all the other arguments in the defence / WS about who was driving / Pofa / landowner authority (para 37) / inflated claimed amount / etc are still solid?
3. I understand that it’s the claimant’s responsibility to distribute document bundles, does this happen on the day? Presumably we would be well advised to bring our own copies along with a copy of rules regarding Lay Representatives?
4. How, exactly, do I request the judge to strike it out as a preliminary matter? is it just a case of bring it up right at the start of the hearing?
Thanks
-
I don't know where you got your advice from before coming to this forum but this has been FUBAR'd by your defence.
Think about it... The PoC in the N1SDT Claim Form state no cause of action. This is a complete failure to abide by CPR 16.4(1)(a). Irrespective of anything received prior to the claim being made, the claimant is required to state a cause of action in their claim. Without a cause of action, you have no idea why they claim you owe them a debt.
You stated in your defence that they had not complied with the rules yet then go on to defend in detail what they failed to tell you in the PoC. If the PoC are defective and they were required to state a cause of action, then they could have submitted further detailed PoC within 14 days of the claim being issued. They didn't. You defended with a load of detail that you should not have mentioned.
Now you are going to go to trial. You can still try and argue as a preliminary matter that the PoC failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and the claim should be struck out on that basis alone and you can use the persuasive, but not binding, Chan and Akande cases as reference, but as it has reached the hearing stage, it is a bit too late and you have to hope that your judge agrees that "rules are rules" and the claimant has not abided by them and the claim can be struck out.
However, you are playing a game of "judge bingo" and it will all come down as to how well you plead your case on the day and how much the court agrees that Moorside Legal are a bunch of incompetents and how they have managed to get a case this far in the first place.
As this is now FUBAR, I'm afraid that I am unable to assist any further but wish you luck at your hearing. There may be others who are willing to try and assist you further.
-
Apologies for not ticking the public box on Google drive - please see publicly accessible copy of the documents with missing page of the site boundary included here (site boundary is not displayed at the site) …
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOnQp2dN8j8jtBGGDnO7BNpJz9eZnzJT/view?usp=sharing
The picture on the NTK showed son exiting the car next to the restaurant. His defence did not state that he had parked and then visited the restaurant, just that he had visited the restaurant on other occasions and was thus ’a customer’ of the restaurant, & his understanding was that the offer of parking (and thus of a contract) was not extended to the restaurant’s staff or customers (see the big red section in the middle) so it was not even possible that he could have breached any agreed terms under any circumstances at all. In any event, additional pictures in claimants WS show him walking away from the car and not towards the restaurant. The site boundary is not displayed at the site, only in WS.
Nothing on the sign mentions passengers leaving the site.
The hearing is scheduled for 3rd July and the claimant paid the hearing fee on 20th May (before receiving our witness statements).
-
I can't access the linked files again. However, I remember on the one for the PCN that we saw, the person (presumably the son/Keeper) who was not the driver at the time, supported by a WS from the actual driver, is seen walking away from the car park, not into the Nando's. There was nothing that I remember seeing on the signs that mentioned anything about passengers and I doubt that even if it did mention passengers, it would not stand up in court.
If the defendant has blown it by mentioning that the driver did visit Nando's, then it is FUBAR'd.
-
What's the date of the hearing? What is/was the deadline for submission of bundles?
-
The single picture on the ntk shows him standing next to the car and states ‘driver observed leaving the site’. On one of those occasions I was the driver and the car park sign stated that the driver must remain in the vehicle whilst the car was parked (I did remain in the vehicle whilst he went into a nearby shop = no breach). On the other occasion he was alone and parked the car then went into a restaurant which is on the limit of the car park. However, the sign specifically states that customers of said restaurant were not permitted to park there (thus no offer of contract was made to restaurant customers).
Are you sure that you acting a LR for your son is to his advantage?
The fact that he was intending to visit the restaurant, and therefore breach the terms of the offer does not, remove him from the class of persons to whom an offer of a right to park was communicated.
-
witness statements were due (and delivered) by 30th May.
could defendant submit a supplemental WS about the preliminary matter re: CPR 16.4(1)(a) ?
thanks again...
-
So, where are you t at the moment? Have you submitted your (or whoever is the defendant) witness statement yet? What is or was the deadline for submitting your WS?
If it's not been submitted yet, then you can ask for a preliminary matter for the court to consider that the claimants PoC are deficient and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and should be struck out. You rebut everything in the claimants WS that you can and you point out where they ave failed to provide evidence that was specifically requested, such as a valid agreement flowing from the landowner that permits them to operate at the location, etc.
You can have a search for other WS that I have provided for other cases and take what you think you can use from those. Just search the forum. Just make sure everything is relevant to your case and is in the witnesses own words.
-
b789 -
Thanks for the comments.
I've learnt a little more about Google Drive and the document is visible without download and is complete with the boundary picture which was missing earlier!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EOnQp2dN8j8jtBGGDnO7BNpJz9eZnzJT/view?usp=sharing
The defence broadly is the MSE template although advice wasn't sought there (or anywhere).
Regarding the details that you say have weakened the defence, do you mean reference to the Nandos etc? Those comments resulted from the claimant's non-responses to the earlier requests for additional information.
WS statements crossed in the post.
here is the boundary picture provided in claimant's WS - apologies that i missed it out of the previous file.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ErxC-YpZcxdF7758ZnQJJ_1Rztf-NzmW/view?usp=sharing
The contract from the landowner was requested in the defence and again in son's WS but was not provided in claimants WS.
-
Your defence appears to be the MSE template. Did you not seek advice there? As far as I am concerned, no adequate defence could have been made to those deficient PoC and by providing the lengthy one from MSE and also going into some detail, you have weakened your defence.
Obviously the allocation judge failed to consider that the claim was inadequately pleaded and imply allocated to a hearing. It is not clear at what point you received the claimant's wholly inadequate WS which should have been easily rebutted in your won WS, assuming it was received before you submitted your own WS.
Your best defence arguments will still be a preliminary matter that the claim was inadequately pleaded (although you have since argued points that were not even referred to in the PoC) and the fact that the PCN is not PoFA compliant due to the non-specified period of parking. The Defendant was not the driver. There is no evidence that the driver left the site. What an adult passenger does is of no consequence.
Where is the contract flowing from the landowner that permits the claimant to operate and issue PCNs in its own name at the location. Where is the evidence of any boundary that was allegedly breached by the defendant, who was not the driver?
The claimants WS is written by a paralegal under instruction from a Principal and is not the Claimants own. It is hearsay evidence and it is not made clear what is the witnesses own evidence and what is the claimants. This should have been highlighted in your own WS and the claimants WS should be given less weight or even disregarded.
The list goes on.
When you go to court, make sure you take a copy of The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made) and make a fuss if you are denied the right to act as Lay Rep for your son.
The court can ask questions directly to the defendant if the judge allows it, so make sure you BOTH fully understand the claim and your defence points.
-
Please don't make us download your documents. If you host on Google Drive, then just make the documents visible publicly.
-
here are the requested documents relating to the case in one pdf. all court deadlines were met by both parties and the case has been moved to son's local court with hearing listed for early July
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vjL8etH4PgLiISoM8_TaUMQ8OAH7J4da/view?usp=sharing
any comments appreciated
-
Use Google Drive
-
I appreciate the assistance and have collated all the requested documents into a multipage pdf with 45 pages and of 7.5mb total but can't find a way to upload it and the suggested hosting sites convey only the first page?
-
At the start of the hearing, it’s helpful to explain the situation to the judge. For example, you could say: “I’m the defendant’s father and I made a witness statement because we didn’t know which event the claim related to. If it turns out he was alone that day, then my evidence is not relevant, and I’d like to continue as his lay representative if that’s allowed.”
Agreed - you should be transparent about this. If you're not, and it subsequently emerges that the driver was alone, then a witness statement claiming you were there when you were not may not look great.
-
Yes, you can be both a lay representative and a witness in your son's small claims hearing. There is no rule that stops you from doing both. The Civil Procedure Rules allow lay representatives to assist parties in small claims, and being a witness does not disqualify you from that role.
However, there are some things to keep in mind. The claimant might try to object, saying that a witness should not act as an advocate, but in small claims this is usually not a problem. Judges understand that small claims are informal and that family members often help each other.
The judge has control over how the hearing runs. They might ask you to give your evidence first, then allow you to continue as your son's representative. Or they might be fine with you doing both roles without any issue. If the judge does raise concerns, the worst that could happen is that they ask your son to speak for himself, so it's good for him to be prepared just in case.
If new evidence comes up during the hearing that shows your son was the driver, and your witness statement becomes irrelevant, you can just say so. There’s no special process needed to withdraw a witness statement in small claims. You can simply explain to the judge that it was based on the limited information available at the time and that you’re no longer relying on it.
At the start of the hearing, it’s helpful to explain the situation to the judge. For example, you could say: “I’m the defendant’s father and I made a witness statement because we didn’t know which event the claim related to. If it turns out he was alone that day, then my evidence is not relevant, and I’d like to continue as his lay representative if that’s allowed.”
The judge will usually be understanding. Just be open about the facts and let them know you are trying to help your son present his case fairly. You’re allowed to assist him, even if you also gave evidence, and especially since he doesn’t feel confident speaking for himself.
Make sure you take a copy of the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made) with you and show the usher and the judge, if necessary.
However, it is difficult to give much more advice than this without seeing the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), the Letter of Claim (LoC) and the response, the Particulars of Claim (PoC), the defence submitted, the claimants evidence and witness statement and the defendants witness statement.
It is also incredibly rare that a claim like this ever gets as far as a hearing. The last time this happened was many years ago in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ibbotson (2012). In this instance, Vehicle Control Services (VCS) pursued a claim against Mr. Ibbotson, alleging that he had breached parking terms by leaving the site after parking his vehicle.
During the proceedings, the judge found that VCS failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim that Mr. Ibbotson had left the premises. Consequently, the case was dismissed. Moreover, the judge reprimanded VCS's representative for bringing forth a claim lacking credible evidence and warned that any future attempts to present similar unfounded claims could result in contempt of court charges. The judge's admonishment included a remark suggesting that the representative should "bring a toothbrush," implying the seriousness of potential consequences, such as imprisonment, for contempt.
This case has since been cited in discussions about the evidentiary standards required for private parking enforcement claims, particularly those involving allegations of drivers leaving the site.
-
To help us properly understand the case we could do with some more information. It would be useful to see the following:
- The Particulars of Claim
- A copy of the submitted defence
- A copy of your son's Witness Statement
- A copy of your Witness Statement
- A copy of ParkingEye's Witness Statement
- Any order from the court advising of deadlines for submission of documents, and any hearing date etc.
The claimant shouldn't ambush you with evidence at the hearing.
-
Seeking some advice about acting as a lay representative for my son. Can I be both a lay rep and / or a witness depending upon the claimant’s case as presented at the hearing?
The complication is that on two occasions very close to each other his car was parked in the same car park and since it took them 2 years to bring the claim, he doesn’t know which of the events the claim relates to and was thus not able to properly defend.
The single picture on the ntk shows him standing next to the car and states ‘driver observed leaving the site’. On one of those occasions I was the driver and the car park sign stated that the driver must remain in the vehicle whilst the car was parked (I did remain in the vehicle whilst he went into a nearby shop = no breach). On the other occasion he was alone and parked the car then went into a restaurant which is on the limit of the car park. However, the sign specifically states that customers of said restaurant were not permitted to park there (thus no offer of contract was made to restaurant customers).
In order to determine which event the claim related to so he could defend accordingly, he sent the claimant a formal letter pursuant to CPR 31.14 requesting further information (no reply) followed by a subject access request seeking disclosure of further information (no reply). He filed and served defence (based upon guidance here and elsewhere when PoC are vague requesting court to dismiss the case) followed by WS based upon the assumption that the claim related to the occasion when I was the driver. I also provided a WS stating the same.
When claimant’s WS arrived it showed additional pictures of son’s car arriving in the car park and of him walking off-site but still doesn’t actually show who was driving the car so we still don’t know which occasion the claim relates too. However, the car park has lots of cameras around it and it’s possible that claimant will present even more pictures at the hearing which actually show that he is alone in the car when it was parked and therefore clarify which event the claim relates to.
He’s not comfortable defending himself if the hearing goes ahead so I plan to act as a lay representative for him whilst also being a witness (though my witness statement would be irrelevant if the additional pictures showed that the claim is based upon the occasion when he went alone).
I can’t find anything which states that a lay representative cannot also be a witness (or withdraw a witness statement during the hearing) but thought it wise to seek better-informed opinions and advice.