Free Traffic Legal Advice

If the mediator caller says that the other side is: "Litigator Support" is there anything I should say to this?

That'd be a good name for someone working at a law firm.

I think you have answered your own question with the statement you included immediately before said question

“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”"

Being pragmatic, I wouldn't worry too much about mediation one way or another. Whilst it's useful in some small claims, it is largely pointless in private parking cases.

Thank you DWMB2 and b789 and duly noted.

"did you include with your defence any transcripts of Chan or Akande to persuade the court to strike out the claim for providing no cause of action?"

I used only the advice you provided to others and myself as a defence, see here:



"DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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:


DRAFT ORDER

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4 because (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts)which is (or are) relied on and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason(or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4 had it served separate detailed particulars of claim [as it could have done pursuant to CPRPD7C.5.2(2) but it chose not to do that.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence each of which will be followed further referrals to the judge for case management.
Order
1.The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made."


Should i've included anything else? This was done back in July and I was closely following advice from another thread in the same position.

  

Okay. I hope so. I will post an update next week once mediation is over with.

We know that it is a complete waste of everyones time. However, you have to jump through the hoops, and you have done so.

However, you do have ground for complaint about the useless mediator.

1. Mediator’s Neutrality and Conduct
The mediator appeared to paraphrase or justify the claimant’s position, effectively giving a “speech” on why the claimant was pursuing the case. That is not the mediator’s role. A mediator must remain strictly impartial, facilitate balanced dialogue, and not appear to advocate for either side.

2. Failure to Confirm the Identity and Authority of the Claimant’s Representative
You, the defendant reasonably asked for the claimant’s representative’s full name, position, and confirmation of settlement authority.
The mediator should have relayed that request and, at minimum, confirmed the person’s role and firm. Instead, the response — “we are not obliged to give our details” — is unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the mediation service’s obligation to ensure both parties can identify who they are dealing with.

The mediator’s statement that they had “confirmed” the representative’s authority, without evidencing how, could be construed as taking responsibility for verifying something they could not properly verify.

3. Refusal to Record or Relay a Material Statement
When you asked that your position be recorded — that the claimant’s attendee had not confirmed settlement authority and that your offer was £0 — the mediator said they would not record or relay this, and that the call was “private and confidential”.

This is incorrect: while the mediation discussions are confidential in substance (without prejudice), the mediator must record the outcome and relevant procedural notes (e.g., “party requested confirmation of authority; representative refused; party declined to negotiate further”). Refusing to note such points prevents an accurate record and deprives you of procedural fairness.

4. Procedural Fairness and Service Quality
The mediation lasted barely seven minutes, apparently consisting mostly of the mediator summarising the claimant’s case and then closing the session without properly exploring resolution. This suggests a failure to provide a meaningful mediation opportunity.

5. Grounds for Complaint
You should make a formal complaint to the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service, citing:


Suggested Course of action
A concise, factual complaint should be sent to: "HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service – Complaints" with the case number, mediation date, and time.

The complaint should focus on procedural failings and impartiality, not on the merits of the claim itself.

You can email the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service with the following and CC yourself:

Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct of Mediation on 27 October 2025

Case Reference: [Insert Claim Number]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the mediation call held on Monday 27 October 2025 at 10:10am, which I attended as the Defendant in the above-referenced case.

HMCTS had declined my earlier request to reschedule the mediation date, despite advance notice of an unavoidable family commitment. Consequently, I had no alternative but to take the call from a safe location en route to my destination.

The mediation consisted of two brief calls totalling approximately seven minutes and, in my view, did not meet the standards of impartiality, transparency, or procedural fairness expected from the HMCTS Mediation Service. I outline my concerns below:

1. Lack of Impartiality
The mediator opened the session by giving what amounted to a summary of the claimant’s case and reasons for pursuing it. This created the impression that the mediator was advocating for one side rather than facilitating balanced dialogue between both parties.

Under the Civil Mediation Council (CMC) Code of Conduct, Section 2.1, mediators must “act fairly, impartially, and without bias towards any party.” The HMCTS Service Standards similarly require mediators to “remain neutral and ensure that both parties have equal opportunity to be heard”. I do not believe those standards were met.

2. Failure to Ensure Transparency Regarding the Claimant’s Representative
I asked for confirmation of the claimant’s representative’s full name, position, and settlement authority. The mediator relayed the following response:

“We are not obliged to give our details, but my name is [Justice] and I work for the Litigation Support Team of DCB Legal”.
The mediator then stated, “I have confirmed they are authorised to act on behalf of the claimant”.

Under CMC Code Section 2.3, mediators must ensure that “each party has sufficient information to participate effectively.” A party cannot meaningfully engage in settlement discussions without knowing the identity and authority of the opposing representative. The mediator’s handling of this issue was inadequate and created uncertainty over whether the claimant’s representative had any lawful authority to negotiate.

3. Refusal to Record a Material Statement
When I asked for my position to be recorded—that the claimant’s attendee had not confirmed settlement authority and that my offer was £0—the mediator refused, stating that the call was “private and confidential” and that no record would be made.

I understand that mediation discussions are confidential; however, CMC Code Section 3.2 clarifies that mediators must “record and report the outcome accurately,” including any procedural points that affect the fairness of the process. Refusing to note my statement meant the official record failed to reflect the true circumstances of the mediation.

4. Unreasonable Truncation of the Mediation Session
The entire mediation lasted barely seven minutes and ended abruptly with the mediator stating that the matter would now proceed to court. There was no meaningful attempt to facilitate discussion, summarise positions, or explore potential settlement.

HMCTS Service Standards state that mediators should “facilitate open communication and explore possible areas of agreement before concluding.” That standard was not followed.

In summary, I believe the mediation process on this occasion was procedurally defective and failed to meet both HMCTS and Civil Mediation Council standards of impartiality, fairness, and transparency. I request that this complaint be investigated and that I receive a written response detailing your findings and any remedial action to ensure compliance in future mediations.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]
Defendant
[Address / Email]

I just read this and yes, this was the same mediator I had.  I felt they were partial and annoyed that I was offering £0 . At one point I had to check my phone to see if I was speaking to DCB legal instead of a mediator!

Feel free to make a formal complaint also.

Update.

I have fired off a complaint to HMCTS this morning following @b789 advice; their email: scmreferrals@justice.gov.uk relating to the mediators unprofessional and poor conduct and copied myself into the email.

Soon as I receive a response I shall post the outcome to the complaint here.     

The claim will next be transferred to your local county court. When that happens you'll receive correspondence from the court. It will either be struck out at that stage and, if not, it will eventually be discontinued. No doubt about that.

In the meantime, I di advise you to respond to that fob-off by the SCMS. Send the following response:

Subject: Request for Stage 2 Review – Mediation Complaint (Ref: [insert])

Dear Ms Lee,

Thank you for the response dated 11 November 2025. I remain dissatisfied and request a Stage 2 review. I set out below, simply and clearly, the parts of the response I do not agree with and wish to be reviewed.

1. Impartiality of the mediator
The Stage 1 response states that the mediator “simply gained information from the claimant to relay to you.” This does not address my concern that the mediator opened the call by presenting a narrative of why the claimant was pursuing the claim, rather than neutrally outlining the purpose of the session. This went beyond relaying an offer and gave the impression of advocacy rather than impartial facilitation. I request that this aspect be reviewed.

2. Failure to ensure transparency regarding the claimant’s representative
The response says the mediator is “not in a position to challenge further” and is satisfied with confirmation of authority. However, my complaint was not about challenging authority but about the refusal of the claimant’s representative to provide their full identity or role. It is impossible to meaningfully engage with an unidentified individual, and the mediator simply accepting “we are not obliged to give details” is a significant procedural issue. This point was not addressed. I ask for this to be reconsidered.

3. Refusal to record a material procedural point
I raised a specific procedural concern: the claimant’s representative refused to provide their identity, and my resulting position was that I could not proceed with negotiations. The mediator’s response was that nothing would be recorded “because the call is confidential”. The Stage 1 reply states that mediation outcomes are limited to “settled/not settled”, but this does not explain why procedural irregularities cannot be noted.

My complaint is that confidentiality was used incorrectly to justify refusing to record anything at all. I request that this issue be reviewed.

4. Mischaracterisation of my availability
The response suggests the session was kept “brief” because I was on holiday. I did not ask for the session to be shortened and had already asked HMCTS weeks earlier to reschedule the date due to the unavoidable clash. The fact that the session lasted only seven minutes was due to how the mediator managed the call, not because of my availability. I request that this point be reconsidered.

5. Failure to address that the mediator refused to relay my stated position
When I expressed my position for the mediator to relay back (“liability denied; £0 offer; claimant representative has not confirmed settlement authority”), the mediator refused to relay this. The Stage 1 response does not address this refusal. This is a central concern and requires review.

For these reasons, I request a full Stage 2 review by the senior manager.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]