Free Traffic Legal Advice

You don't actually have to wait for your won N180 to arrive in the post. You can check your MCOL history and as soon as it says yours has been sent, just follow the advice to submit your own.

Good evening, I have submitted my N180 and have received an email from Small Claims Mediation service stating that I will have a call for a telephone mediation appointment in a couple of weeks' time, details below, dates redacted.

Any advice would be appreciated please.

Many thanks

--------------------------------------------

Your telephone mediation appointment
Appointment date: x

Appointment time slot: x

Your confidential telephone mediation appointment has been booked for the above date and time slot. This means that the mediator will call you between the times shown. Your appointment will last for around one hour from the point at which the mediator calls.

The mediator will call both parties separately – you will not talk directly to the other side. They will try to help you both come to an agreement before the case goes to court.

Where your mediation appointment is mandatory, If you do not attend the appointment, the judge will take this into consideration at any court hearing and may issue a penalty. This could include the judge automatically ruling in the other party’s favour or ordering you to pay for some or all the other party’s costs.


Preparing for your appointment
You must make sure you have provided us with, or confirmed, the name and number of the person who will be conducting the mediation appointment. If you have not done this, or need to update your telephone number, you should contact us using the details at the end of this letter no less than 5 working days before your mediation appointment. Failure to do so may result in your mediation appointment not taking place and may result in a Judge issuing a penalty where the mediation was mandatory.

The mediator will call from a withheld number. Make sure that withheld numbers are not blocked on your phone.

Be ready to receive a call from the mediator from the beginning of your time slot. The mediator will call the telephone number you provided in your application.

If the mediator cannot contact you within 10 minutes of the appointment start, the appointment will be cancelled and you may, where mediation is mandatory, face a penalty for non-attendance.

Thank you, much appreciated as always.

Nothing much more you can do for now except send the following email to DCB Legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Subject: Claim [CLAIM NO] — urgent: identity and settlement authority of attendee at SCMS mediation on [DATE]

To: DCB Legal
Date: [DD Month YYYY]

Dear Sirs,

I write in relation to the SCMS mediation in the above claim held on [DATE]. During the mediation I asked the mediator to confirm, for the record, the full name, role/position and written authorisation to settle of the person attending on behalf of your client. The mediator was unable to provide these details.

For the avoidance of doubt and on an open basis (not without prejudice), please provide the following information within 7 days of this email:

1. The full name and job title/role of the individual who acted for your client on the SCMS call on [DATE].
2. Whether that individual is an authorised person for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 (i.e. a solicitor, regulated conveyancer or other authorised litigator), an exempt person, or an unregulated employee/paralegal. If an exempt person or unregulated employee/paralegal, state the legal basis for the exemption and identify the supervising authorised person.
3. Whether that individual had express written authority to negotiate and to bind the claimant to settlement, or whether any settlement decision required further approval; if the latter, state the mechanism and timescale for such approval.
4. Confirm who within your firm or the claimant’s organisation holds the authority to approve any settlement or discontinuance and provide a contact name and position for that person.

Please be aware of the following:

a) The giving of settlement terms and the taking of steps to discontinue or compromise claims are acts that, when done as part of an adversarial process, may amount to the conduct of litigation. If the person on your side who engaged in mediation was not an authorised person and was purporting to carry out acts that fall within the reserved activity of conducting litigation, that raises serious regulatory concerns.
b) If you do not confirm the identity and status of the individual who attended the mediation within 7 days I reserve the right to make a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (and any other relevant regulator) on the basis that an unauthorised person may have been put forward as your representative and may have acted in a way which crosses the boundary of conducting litigation.
c) I will also rely on your response (or failure to respond) when making any application or submissions to the court on costs as to whether your conduct amounted to unreasonable conduct which frustrated mediation (see CPR 27.14(2)(g)).

I have retained the SCMS confirmation note and a contemporaneous file note of the exchange for my records. I trust you understand the seriousness of this request and will respond promptly.

Yours faithfully,

[Your full name]

Eventually, you will receive a postal notification from the court that the claim has been allocated to you local county court and then another letter with 'directions' from a procedural judge with various dates and deadlines.

Good morning, I have today received the attached notice of allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing) and Notice of Trial Date. It states I must send my defence by 12th December and I would be grateful of any advice please. Many thanks.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1bhwrWzVEc8wHkVpzG558F9vvHQMCIAWi

Thank you for coming back to me.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1bhwrWzVEc8wHkVpzG558F9vvHQMCIAWi

I have included the information you have requested, amended as per your instructions. (Docs recd 011225).

I have included the NtKs, redacted according to your instructions. (NtK redacted). These are in time order but do not appear to state how long the car was parked for, however you will see from the times that it was only a matter of minutes.

I have included a link to the evidence sent to me via email on 15/04/25, which includes the email itself and the attachments - images of vehicle, signage and site plan.

Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you require any further information.

Good. Here is the amended defence you must submit to the court (not the CNBC as the original was):

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WORCESTER

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

AMENDED DEFENCE pursuant to order of DJ Redmond dated 20th November 2025
This amended defence replaces the original defence pursuant to the court’s order.

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 discloses no lawful cause of action.

2. The Particulars of Claim are inadequately pleaded. They do not identify the precise terms alleged to have been breached, fail to specify the contractual basis for the claim, and provide no clear calculation of the sum claimed.

3. The Claimant alleges the Defendant is liable either as the driver or, in the alternative, as the keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but has never admitted to being the driver. The Claimant has provided no evidence of driver identity.

4. The location in question is Bristol Airport, which is governed by statutory byelaws and therefore not classified as relevant land under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, the Claimant cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

5. The Defendant relies on the persuasive appellate authority in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], in which HHJ Gargan held at paragraph 35.3 that no inference can be drawn from keeper status alone, and that the Claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant was the driver. No such evidence exists in this case.

6. The Claimant has failed to provide any proof that the Defendant was the driver. As keeper, the Defendant cannot be held liable under PoFA, and no alternative legal basis for keeper liability has been established.

7. The three PCNs relate to alleged incidents at 02:23, 02:31, and 02:36 on the same date. The Claimant has not provided any evidence showing where the vehicle was located in each instance, how long it was allegedly stationary, or whether any alleged stopping occurred in view of any signage. The Claimant’s photographs show only partial vehicle images in darkness and reveal no identifiable surroundings.

8. The Claimant relies on a site plan dated October 2019. The Defendant is aware that the Claimant entered into a new contract with a revised site plan on 17 March 2023. The outdated plan currently relied on is therefore no longer applicable and does not assist the court in understanding where the vehicle was in relation to signage or patrol zones.

9. The Claimant has issued three separate charges within a 13-minute window without establishing that the vehicle moved in and out of distinct zones or that each instance involved a fresh agreement or breach. In the absence of clear evidence, the issuing of multiple charges for what may be a single or continuous event amounts to double or triple recovery and an abuse of process.

10. The signs relied upon by the Claimant state that stopping is prohibited. These signs do not set out any contractual terms capable of acceptance. They are prohibitory in nature and do not constitute an offer.

11. It is a fundamental principle of contract law that an offer must be capable of acceptance. A sign that says “No stopping” or threatens a charge for stopping is not inviting acceptance of terms but is instead forbidding an action. There can be no contract where there is no offer. The signs do not meet the requirements for contract formation and no valid agreement was ever created.

12. This position is supported by established persuasive authority including Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, where HHJ Harris QC confirmed that momentary stopping does not constitute parking, and that context is key. In that case, the court rejected liability where the alleged contravention involved a brief stop for a legitimate purpose. The Claimant in this case has provided no contextual detail and no evidence that any contractual terms were accepted.

13. The High Court in Ransomes v Anderson [2011] EWHC 1127 (QB) held that signage which merely prohibits an activity, rather than offering terms for compliance, cannot give rise to a contract. The signage relied on by the Claimant is of this nature — it imposes a prohibition against stopping and threatens a charge, but offers no service or terms that could be accepted. As such, it is incapable of creating a contractual relationship, and any charge claimed is a penalty, not a contractual debt.

14. The Claimant seeks £510, including £210 of unexplained add‑ons. These sums are not supported by contract or evidence. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld a single parking charge as enforceable, but made no allowance for additional recovery fees. Such uplifts fall outside the ratio of Beavis and are penal in nature, contrary to the principles in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage [1915] AC 79. The Defendant therefore submits that the add‑ons are irrecoverable and that the claim is liable to strike‑out under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

15. The Defendant submitted a detailed response to the Claimant’s Letter of Claim, clearly explaining that there was no basis for pursuing the registered keeper, that the land is not relevant under PoFA, that the signage cannot create a contract, and that the claim was excessive and unreasonable. The Claimant ignored this and issued proceedings without addressing any of the issues raised. This is a breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and further evidence of unreasonable conduct.

16. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(b) for failing to disclose a cause of action, or alternatively to enter summary judgment under CPR 24.2. The Defendant further asks the court to consider a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Amended 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:

You must email the amended defence as a PDF attachment in a single email addressed to civil.worcester.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CCd to info@dcblegal.co.uk and to yourself.

Subject: Claim No: [insert claim number] – Amended Defence Pursuant to Court Order

To: civil.worcester.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
CC: info@dcblegal.co.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached the Defendant’s amended defence in this matter, filed pursuant to the Order of District Judge Redmond dated 20 November 2025. This has been served within the timeframe specified by the court.

Claim Number: [insert claim number]
Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Defendant: [insert full name of defendant]

The amended defence has also been served on the Claimant’s legal representative, DCB Legal Ltd, by way of copy to this email.

Please confirm receipt by return.

Yours faithfully,

[Defendant’s full name]
[Address]
[Email address]