Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes, they have missed the deadline. However, don't get into a game of WS ping-pong. When the judge issues the orders after reviewing your request, you will know when and where the hearing is going to take place.

At the hearing you can point out to the judge that the claimants supplementary WS was issued late and is made by a paralegal in the employ of the claimants solicitor and not someone with firsthand knowledge and is should be dismissed.

The judge will not be happy with their messing about. All judges want is a a quiet life. The judge hearing the case will only have seen the bundle maybe 5 or 10 minutes before the hearing. They will not have time to read anything in depth.

They will have a look at the PoC, the defence and then skim the WS for the facts, if they're obvious. The question is, has the claim been made properly? Has the claim been defended properly? Is the claim valid? Has the defendant rebutted the claim properly? Decision will be made after maybe a few questions and that will be it.

In this case, you have to make it clear at the start that the claimants WS is not a true WS as the "witness" is not even employed by the claimant and is not there to be cross examined. There is no cause of action against you as the Keeper because the Notice to Keeper is nt compliant with PoFA 9(2)(a) as there is no period of parking noted, just a single observed time. The persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions makes it clear that a single observation time is not sufficient to satisfy PoFA 9(2)(a).

Additionally, for a contract to be formed, there must be a consideration period. None has been evidenced and therefore there is no evidence of a contract having been formed with the driver.

Those are your main points of defence.

Rather than summarising the contents of the letter it may be worth you sharing it with us.

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.

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@justice.gov.uk:

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”

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?

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:

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

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.

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

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?