3. Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9

Author Topic: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich  (Read 11996 times)

0 Members and 509 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #60 on: »
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.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #61 on: »
Quote from: b789 on June 09, 2025, 10:37:22 am
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.
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.
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #62 on: »
Quote from: b789 on June 09, 2025, 10:37:22 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.

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?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: June 09, 2025, 09:37:41 pm by Snudge88 »
Logged
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #63 on: »
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.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #64 on: »
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.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #65 on: »
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:

  • 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.
  • 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?
Logged
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #66 on: »
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.

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."
« Last Edit: June 11, 2025, 11:02:31 pm by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #67 on: »
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.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #68 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #69 on: »
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:

1. Hearing Venue Ignored – Breach of CPR 26.3(3):

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.

2. Hearing Date Conflicts with My Declared Unavailability (Section F4):

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.

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:

• 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.

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]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #70 on: »
Thanks b789 - all sent.

Hopefully I'll receive a response - what sort of timescale should be normal here?  I've never heard anything back in response to my previous correspondence when we first highlighted the issue with the allocation to St Helens.
Logged
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #71 on: »
You'd be better off asking us for this week's lottery numbers than trying to predict response times from a County Court I'm afraid. Hopefully unlike your previous correspondence they'll look at it more promptly.
Logged
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #72 on: »
Do a search for any other email addresses for the court. Also, try and phone them.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #73 on: »
I've not heard anything regarding the request for a review of the hearing, so I tried calling the court today for an update, with my call being transferred to a central administrative centre.

Receipt of the email was confirmed, and apparently it was allocated to a District Judge on the same day for the issuance of further directions.  Other than that the gent in the call centre wasn't able to help me any further.

I assume it's now a case of waiting for something to come in the post?
Logged
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich
« Reply #74 on: »
At least you know it was received and sent to a judge for further orders. So, yes, all you can do for now is wait.

Once a matter has been referred to a District Judge for consideration of further directions—especially following a procedural request like this—it’s typical that:

• The Judge will issue written directions (either granting or refusing the request), and
• The court will communicate the Judge’s decision by post—usually in the form of a General Form of Judgment or Order (Form N24).

If the matter was referred on the same day your email was received, and assuming there’s no backlog, you can usually expect something to arrive within 7–10 days. However, this can vary depending on the court’s workload and postal delays.

In the meantime, don't assume the hearing has been adjourned or moved unless and until you receive formal confirmation in writing. If you don’t receive anything within 14 days, it would be appropriate to follow up again by email, referencing your earlier correspondence and the phone call.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
« previous next »
  3. Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich