Free Traffic Legal Advice

This may be of assistance. A recent CC judgement before DJ Pratt. Between VCS and a Mr Langley. ELMS, do not have rights of audience. Found it on BAILLIE. dated 7.1.26. So VCS used a solicitor, who contracted out the attendance at the hearing to ELMS.  Case citation is 2026 EWCC 1

We have some roadworks going on near our home.  It involves a road closure.  So firstly is it an offence to drive on that road and secondly, do normal rules apply, re speed etc.  just a curiosity question

Yes they can still discontinue.  All that is happening here is that a judge is deciding which process the claim will follow based on the value of the claim IF it gets to a hearing.  It will possibly go to the wire, but hold your nerve.  The parking parasite wants its pound of flesh.  It is like poker, call their bluff.

Success

Followed the advice here.  Mediation was offered.  Accepted the offer of mediation.  During mediation we rejected their kind offer of £165 and countered with an offer of £0.  Case allocated to local small claims.  Received letter from claimant offering to settle for £65.00  Counter offered with offer of £5.00, just for forms sake.  Next day received a notice of discontinuance.

Thanks for the help

Update. Received claim from HMCTS on 5th April. Case issued 2nd. The particulars of claim are 1.  Defendant is indebted for parking charges issued to vehicle at Roadchef Taunton Dean South.  2. The date of controvention is 29.6.24 and defendant was issued a PC(s) by the claimant.  3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason Vehicle trmsined on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions   4.  In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 schedule 4.  AND THE CLAIMEENT CLAIMS 1.  £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages 2. Interest. 3.  Costs and court fees.

Now. When they increased the cost from £100. They added £70 as legal fees. Now the £170 is described as damages.  They have also added Legal representative costs of £50.

My initial feeling is that at 3. They have not specified what terms have been breached and with regards costs, they have changed the £170 initially claimed as the PC and fees to PC and damages, this is naughty.  However. I am in need of being assisted with a defence. Any and all help gratefully welcomed.

Re reading my last post I may not have been clear.  In the letter of claim. It is required that the person must fill in a financial statement of means.  Do they need to fill this in?  Would that statement of means be issued by the court?

Today 11.2.25. We have received an official LETTER OF CLAIM claim  dcblegal ltd.  The letter is dated 5.2.25. In next steps we are invited to visit the dcb legal ltd website to fill in the reply form and financial statement.

First question, is this normal, or should we wait for formal court documentation?

Secondly, is our previous failure to engage, going to be an issue?  (We have had  a quite a few medical issues, which meant dealing with this was forgotten in the maelstrom)

Third thing, the reason, is still only a bland “vehicle remained on private property in breach of prominently displayed terms and conditions”. This appears to be far to vague.  Is it?

Can they change the reason for action, if we argue that their cause of action is way to vague?

Any assistance would be gratefully received.

Have received this as the registered keeper of the vehicle.  First. Is this invoice compliant with POFA?  I (on behalf of the driver) feel it is not, but would appreciate assistance with a challenge.  Secondly they ask for an online challenge, as it is better, which I doubt.  My main point would be inadequacy of signage.  On entering the services, the driver was presented with a large sign above driving head height, covered in dense writing.  The only thing that was noticed by the driver was a prominent bit in the top left hand corner of the sign saying HGV.  The driver being mindful of entering an area with pedestrians, saw HGV and presumed that the rest of the sign related to HGV only.  The driver parked and having looked around saw no further signage other than a smaller version of the entry sign, they then went into the caravan and fell asleep. 
Does the driver have an opportunity to successfully defeat this.