Biting back with a vengeance

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure you'll get summary judgment in a case where - even if the court is with you - a judge would normally need to assess whether £1000, or a lesser amount, is supported in law. I suspect it will proceed to trial.

But good luck. I hope you prevail!

GettingOnInYears

Here's my closing statement from my Summary Judgement application - also added as the conclusion of my witness statement. I did say in my previous post that this was one final attempt to get them to show lack of respect that would be very last thing a judge would read before making a verdict. 

It is entirely truthful anyway, as even yesterday I broke down in tears in a pet shop when I was asked about my wife. The owner had to sit me down and brought me a hot drink to calm me. I'm even sitting here with tears in my eyes writing this. I honestly feel that life has no meaning anymore. There's sufficient case law and precedent for claims of this sort where the eggshell skull principle is invoked that would justify a summary judgement.

So bearing that in mind, the email was used not only as a means of showing the hugely distressful behaviour of CP Plus, but as a powerful tool to have the judge to allow summary judgement. If it fails then so be, it but at least I've put all the effort I can into it. So here's the final paragraph to my summary judgement application and my witness statement.

Upon receipt of the Practice Directions from the Court, I took it upon myself to warn the Defendants of the likely consequences of a personal appearance at any hearing. I sent an email on Sunday 9 November 2025, which would have been read the following day, and I have included a copy at Annex Y. In that correspondence, I explained that attending a hearing would inevitably result in uncontrollable sobbing on my part, particularly when speaking of my wife’s condition. I made clear that this was not a threat or tactic, but a sincere plea to avoid personal humiliation — both mine and, potentially, the Court’s.

To illustrate the emotional toll, I provided a link to a video clip showing my wife in a moment of turmoil. That clip, while distressing, reflects a stage of her decline that was significantly less severe than what followed. I believed it was important for the Defendants to understand the gravity of my circumstances and the risk that a live hearing would generate disproportionate empathy in my favour, simply by virtue of the emotional breakdown it would provoke.

This was a final act of procedural courtesy — one not previously extended to me — and a genuine attempt to avoid unnecessary distress. I did not expect a response, and none was received. I include the email in this statement not to elicit sympathy, but to demonstrate that I gave the Defendants a fair opportunity to engage constructively and to avoid a hearing that would serve no meaningful purpose other than to amplify suffering

GettingOnInYears

I've now finalised my Summary Judgement opening statement : 

Request for Determination in Absence and Basis in Civil Procedure

This application for summary judgment is made with a respectful request that the matter be determined in absentia. I do not seek to avoid scrutiny, but to avoid the disproportionate emotional harm that a live hearing would cause, as set out in my witness statement and supporting materials.

Neither of the Defendants has any realistic prospect of a finding in their favour. Defendant 1 has already admitted the core factual foundation of my claim by stating that the sign “may” have been absent at the relevant time. That vague concession, when read alongside the photographic evidence showing the sign was indeed absent on the date the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued, satisfies the civil standard of proof — the balance of probabilities. There is no credible basis on which Defendant 1 can now enlarge upon or retract that position.

Compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice is not a matter of interpretation or mitigation. It is binary: either the operator was compliant, or they were not. The absence of mandatory signage — particularly at the entrance — constitutes a clear breach of the Code and invalidates further consideration of that point. No amount of cross-examination or supplementary explanation can alter the fact that the required signage was missing at the material time.

From that breach flows a series of consequential failures, each of which is addressed in my witness statement and supported by annexed evidence. These include failures in notice clarity, data handling, and procedural fairness — all of which stem from the initial non-compliance. The Defendants’ own admissions, coupled with the documentary record, render a hearing unnecessary. There is no factual dispute that requires testing, and no legal defence that survives scrutiny.

It is also clear that Defendant 2’s defence is entirely reliant on the compliance of Defendant 1. Their position presumes that the parking charge was lawfully issued and that the underlying process was procedurally sound. If Defendant 1 was not compliant — as the evidence shows — then Defendant 2’s defence collapses by extension. There is no independent factual or legal basis upon which Defendant 2 can succeed.

My witness statement contains everything I am able to say. I have no further evidence to give orally, and no additional facts to clarify. The annexes provide full documentation, and the video evidence illustrates the emotional context with clarity. There is no risk of bias or unfairness in determining this application on paper.

I therefore ask the Court to exercise its discretion under CPR 24.4(2) and CPR 3.1(2)(d) to dispense with a hearing. I also refer to Owen v Black Horse Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 325, which confirms that written submissions may suffice where the facts are uncontested and the burden of a hearing would be disproportionate.

doubledotcom

I’m genuinely sorry about what you and your wife are going through. I have been discussing this with a District Judge family member and here are some observations that you may want to consider as constructive criticism.

For the application you’ve made, though, the court will decide summary judgment by applying CPR 24: (1) does the defendant have a real prospect of defending liability, and (2) is there any other compelling reason for a trial. Your opponent has admitted there was no entrance sign. On those facts, “reasonable cause” to obtain DVLA data is very difficult to maintain, so SJ on liability remains realistic.

Where judges usually hesitate is quantum. Distress and injury-to-feelings are fact-sensitive, and the court may choose to assess damages later (on the papers or at a short disposal hearing). The “eggshell skull” principle speaks to how damages are assessed once liability is established; it doesn’t, by itself, justify granting SJ.

The judge will separate case management/vulnerability (potentially sympathetic) from merits (where sympathy is irrelevant). The “thin skull” principle goes to assessment of damages in tort once liability is established. It is not a gateway to SJ and typically won’t justify skipping trial—especially where liability is disputed or where causation/quantum require fact-finding.

I think there is a danger that this could backfire on you. Phrases like “attending a hearing would inevitably result in uncontrollable sobbing” and that a hearing could generate “disproportionate empathy in my favour” can read as (a) an attempt to influence outcome through emotion rather than law, and (b) a kind of undue pressure on the opponent. A judge may view that as counter-productive.

A distressing clip of your spouse is highly sensitive. A court will ask: what specific fact in issue does it prove? If its purpose is only to evoke sympathy, it risks being excluded as unfairly prejudicial and intrusive. I would suggest that you do not exhibit the video. If absolutely necessary, use a written clinical summary and, if available, a short letter from a doctor/clinician.

Lines such as “a hearing … would serve no meaningful purpose other than to amplify suffering” can sound like you are telling the court what purpose a hearing serves. That’s the court’s decision. It may irritate a judge who otherwise might be sympathetic to your vulnerability.

Based on what you have shown us, heartfelt as it is, it risks being seen as an attempt to win by emotion rather than by the legal test. 

GettingOnInYears

Points I'm going to put are that quantum is assessed afterwards - if/when my claim is accepted so doesn't make a hasty attempt to force the courts hand. I'm happy to take my time and await the conclusion.
I really appreciate your putting this to a family member for consideration. It's especially helpful.

As to the video clip I sent a link to - this clip and others will be provided in the Summary Judgement application and I will have a USB drive with them in my evidence pack with my witness statement. In fact the others are even more heartbreaking. So giving access to a single one of them at this stage is showing some sort of respect so they can better assess the request for an in-absentia hearing. Nearer the time, I will probably get back to them again and ask them to drop the defences and accept my claim. Continuance is more likely going to happen though, but giving them an opportunity to accept things may have some mitigating consequences for them.
If the SJ fails then I still need an in-absentia case as I will be a complete wreck and likely suffer considerably from being present when having to go through my personal details. I know I have a weak heart even though I have no diagnosis of it. 
I believe, though not certain of course, that a court should be willing to work with the evidence they have to reach a conclusion. As I said - there's absolutely nothing I can add to my case or would draw out if cross examination would bring out, especially as regards the crux of the DPA and UKGDPR basis.
 Admittance to non compliance is already made - and in fact I am now having the town centre manager giving me details today about the sign being removed. Apparently it was mistakenly removed when the other sign at the location - LKL - was removed when they closed shop some 18 months ago.
I accept that my plea of the hearing serving no purpose other than to cause further distress is perhaps potentially disrespectful and I'll take that out, or reword it to a hearing would only unnecessarily heighten  my distress. I'll also, of course show the SJ as being based on no reasonable chance of a defence succeeding.

Oh - if the SJ does accepted on the DPA and GDPR claims, could the court still move to a later attended hearing on the personal facts?  Once more, the facts are stated, in fact understated - and the defendants would have no part to play in any hearing on those matters, especially since they are completely unable to rebut them. They put me to proof in their defence statements and I have provided that proof. 
Thanks again and give your "uncle" my best wishes 

Coupon-mad

Change 'Penalty' to 'Parking'.

GettingOnInYears

I have now finalised my N244 application opening. As per my usual - It's a bit long but contains all the info to provide a judge with sufficient reason for a complete summary judgement, or so I believe. It wouldn't be going out until the back end of next week or a couple of days afterwards as I have to make payment when it's submitted. I hate having to buy postal orders so am awaiting a chequebook - you know - one of those things that fit in an envelope and rarely get used nowadays.
So here's my opening submission: I think you may now see why I sent my last email to them - it adds to my case:

Summary Judgment Application 

I, Lynn Robson, the Claimant, apply for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24.2, on the grounds that the Defence discloses no reasonable prospect of success, and there is no other compelling reason for the case to proceed to trial.

Structure of the Court Bundle

• Particulars of Claim: Sets out the factual and legal basis of the claim.

• Defence Statement: Contains multiple admissions and fails to engage with core issues, including signage compliance and data handling.

• Point-by-Point Rebuttal: Highlights contradictions, omissions, and breaches of the BPA Code of Practice.

• Index of Annexes: Includes adjudicator findings, correspondence, and photographic evidence.

• My Witness Statement: Details procedural chronology, emotional impact, and cumulative harm.

• Concluding Section: Invites the Court to determine liability summarily and consider remedy in a proportionate manner, including recognition of distress and procedural aggravation.

Two-Stage Judicial Consideration

I respectfully invite the Court to consider this application in two distinct stages:

1. Viability of the Defence

2. Determination of Costs and Compensation

Stage One: Viability of the Defence

The matter is already crystallised. No further facts are capable of altering the position set out in the defendants’ submitted defence. The claim is grounded in breaches of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, arising from the defendants’ admitted non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice, the KADOE contract, and associated legal obligations.

Crucially, the defendants have conceded the absence of mandatory entrance signage at the site, rendering their position irredeemably non-compliant. That admission alone defeats any remaining defence arguments. Had there been any exculpatory or mitigating evidence, it would have been pleaded. None has been offered. This is not a matter of nuance or discretion: either the defendants were compliant, or they were not. On their own case, they were not.

Under CPR 17.1(2), no new defence points may be introduced without permission, and none has been sought. The defendants’ position is procedurally and substantively closed. The claim is ripe for summary determination.

Stage Two: Costs and Compensation

The defendants have put the Claimant to proof of personal injury. That proof is already provided in the witness statement, which sets out significant and detailed particulars. No challenge has been raised to those facts, and none is reasonably possible. The defendants have not pleaded any alternative narrative or mitigating context.

The Claimant’s entitlement to costs is reinforced by the defendants’ insulting and derogatory conduct throughout the correspondence. Every instance relied upon is drawn directly from written exchanges and is fully exhibited in the witness statement. These communications are contemporaneous, unambiguous, and indisputable.

While it remains open to the defendants to respond to the facts laid out in the witness statement, there is no scope for mitigation of their conduct—none has been pleaded, and none exists. The evidential record is complete, and the defendants’ silence in the face of repeated opportunities to engage meaningfully only reinforces the propriety of summary determination.

Request for In-Absentia Hearing

Just prior to filing this application, I sent a final email to the defendants, providing a link to a secure Google Drive folder containing video evidence of my wife’s condition—evidence which underpins the personal circumstances described in the witness statement. That email included a specific and reasonable request for the defendants to agree to an in-absentia hearing, to prevent further personal harm and humiliation to myself, and to avoid any distress that might also be reflected onto court personnel.

I explained that attending a hearing would inevitably result in uncontrollable sobbing, particularly when speaking of my wife’s suffering. It was made clear that this was not a threat or tactic, but a sincere plea to avoid personal humiliation—both mine and, potentially, the Court’s.

As a 79-year-old man experiencing chest pains that may signal a cardiac condition—although undiagnosed and of no personal concern at this stage—I submit this application to avoid any potential in-court incident. The defendants were invited to respond to this request—whether in agreement or otherwise—but, consistent with their conduct throughout, they failed to reply.

The Court is respectfully asked to take these circumstances into account when considering the mode of hearing and the proportionality of any further procedural steps.

Closing Submission

This approach represents a fair and proportionate basis for the case to be determined. I am advised that the initial consideration of defence viability is the threshold test under CPR 24.2, and that the separate assessment of quantum may, in some cases, warrant a hearing. However, I respectfully submit that this is not such a case.

The facts are fully stated by all parties. The evidential record is complete. Exculpatory points can reasonably be made from the documents already served. There is no procedural or factual justification for further delay.

I therefore respectfully invite the Court to grant summary judgment and to determine remedy in a manner that reflects both the legal breaches and the personal harm sustained.

GettingOnInYears

I'm stepping up the action a little in another direction. The letter I have ready to send to the company secretary of Praxis - the town centre owner - is done to see if the whole matter of parking in Peterlee Town centre is worthy of reconsideration, Read on. 
I wish to address a matter of concern about the relationship between Praxis and GroupNexus which I believe should be raised in a board meeting.

In order to lay out my case, I will first lay out a situation for your reflection – something that any human being would feel so very horrible about and so empathetic for the victim in this initial story.

A couple of years ago in the run up to the Xmas period, I was waiting in line at the post office to be served. A lady in the queue behind me, who was with her young granddaughter was in a terrible state. I asked her if there something I could do as she was obviously so distressed. What came out from there broke my heart.

She was waiting to get her pension to be able to get urgently needed groceries as she'd had a terrible time trying to pay off a parking fine for overstating the permitted time in the car park under Asda's which is controlled by CP Plus (GroupNexus). She was unable to make a reduced payment due to her low income and her need to provide food, heat and other household expenses. So the fine escalated with a threat of bringing in legal action or debt collectors. For a woman in her late – I believe 70's – living alone after her husband's death a few years earlier, this was a really hard situation for her.

That was bad enough however it only scratched the surface and I'll expand on that now. She had visited the town centre to buy her grandchildren Xmas gifts. As she was on a low income she couldn't just rush in, slap money down for some lovely item she would have liked: she had to be careful and do her best to spend whatever amount she thought she could afford on carefully chosen gifts. She spent a considerable amount of time to do that and it stripped her of any spare finances she had. She always kept her shopping local rather than go to the likes of Sunderland or Hartlepool. That would have meant driving with extra cost for fuel which she could ill afford. But the result of her shopping locally meant she was slapped with a ticket for overstaying her allowed time in the car park.

So, if you aren't feeling empathetic at this stage – buckle your belt. She had with her a couple of carrier bags. These contained the gifts she had bought for her family for Xmas. The reason she had them after she had bought them some time earlier was that she was having to give them back for a refund. The parking fine had stripped her of any capacity to afford to buy presents. She was with her granddaughter – as mentioned – and when she told me about this, her granddaughter was doing her best to reassure her. She was saying It doesn't matter granny – I love you just the same. I gave the woman £50 out of my own pocket after that. I have more than enough in my bank. She wasn't going to take it but I gave it to her granddaughter instead.

It was such an emotional experience and I felt terrible that she had to suffer the indignity that was thrust on her for a situation that really had no merit.

When I came to Peterlee after leaving the army many years ago, the town centre was a pleasure to visit. It was alive. It had a feeling of being part of the community – there for the benefit of the residents. The whole of the upper floor was a large department store which rivalled any such store in city centres. It had just about everything a family would need but the decline has been ongoing for decades and Castle Dene shopping centre is no more. It's a train-wreck - a mere skeleton of what it once was.

I know that the competition you face from the likes of Dalton Park is a problem, and I understand that changes have had to be made over the years to try and offset such things, but you aren't doing yourself any favours in allowing CP Plus to operate on your behalf.

I have been an active campaigner against these sort of companies for many years as they have little real use to many of their clients. I mean – come on – they operate on your behalf for what reason? The town centre car parks aren't a useful parking place for drivers attending any local football match, going to a concert or some other occasion that would make a long free parking period a sensible option. There's nothing in Peterlee that would give rise to that sort of circumstance. People who park in the car parks around the town centre do so because they want to spend money there, perhaps meet and interact with friends over a meal in a relaxing atmosphere. All of them have chosen to spend there instead of driving a few miles to a more friendlier location. You are simply giving people a reason not to spend in Peterlee.

Dalton Park is a good example to use. It has no monitored parking – no contractors to rip money from people – and no time allocation for parking without payment. As a mall open to the typical British weather – even though it has some cover over it – it attracts visitors from all over the county. It has an active and popular supermarket, a number of stores such as Next, M&S, The Range etc and shoe shops, clothing shops and busy cafes. Even a cinema.

But the biggest thing it has going for it is that there's no risk of the visitors being slapped with a parking charge for overstaying an allotted time or for parking the car with wheels slightly over the parking bay edges. People go there. They do a little browsing through the shops; they buy a few bits and bobs that they probably don't even need from shops, and perhaps get some groceries from Morrisons. But then they sit down for an hour or so, relax in a cafe and have a coffee and bun or something and chat with friends they meet without any pressure.

Time is on their side. They aren't clock-watching. They are comfortable and enjoy the whole experience.

Compare that with Castle Dene. Of course the enjoyment factor is long gone, It's there now solely as a last option for many shoppers. They drive in – do a quick visit to a shop where they know they can get what they want such as a prescription then leave. There's no enticement – nothing to facilitate any reason for them to take their time and just simply wander around as they would do in Dalton Park, or even in the Hartlepool town centre. I use Dalton Park as just one example but do you think the Metrocentre would get as much business if it imposed time limits or other entirely misconstrued limits.

My wife once thought about opening a shop in Castle Dene. She is now in a home with Alzheimer's but her shop brought in customers from all over the world. Not many of them to be truthful ,but we had a service where we would collect people from Newcastle airport and drive them to her shop and return them to either the airport of Newcastle City centre to spend the rest of day after their visit. I did the collection and return of those very customers some of whom came back afterwards for further visits and we became friends with a good number of them.

It was one of the most popular shops in her line of business. Norma and June Fashions Ltd – sale of ladies special occasion wear, mother of the bride outfits with shoes and handbags and matching headwear. I was the company secretary of her business and did everything on matters such as forward planning, advertising, accounts etc – you know what this position requires so I needn't say more on it. We had people from Africa, USA and Canada and other far flung places. Not many from the EU though, but lots and lots of ladies from the UK who had often driven for hours to visit.

The reason I chose not to open in Peterlee was mainly due to extortionate rates and rent/lease costs but also that the town centre was already driving customers away with parking arrangements. I mean – how many women would spend in excess of the allotted free parking period while trying on a dozen or more outfits, matching them with shoes and bags, hats and fascinators, then having a seamstress measure for alterations?

The goodwill between customers and ourself would be destroyed by a single and unconscionable parking ticket. There's no way we were going to let that happen.

I'll now let you know more on this parking situation. GroupNexus in common with every other parking controller, doesn't really have your interests at heart. They don't give a damn how many people they drive away just as long as they strip the victims of money. Those very victims don't think – bloody CP Plus – they think Bloody Peterlee Town Centre. They're driving people away and getting you a bad name.

I presently have an ongoing court claim against CP Plus – GroupNexus for an incident I the town centre. This isn't to fight a claim against me for non payment of a fine. It's an action brought by myself against them for a breach of the Data Protection Act as they have accessed my personal details from the DVLA to issue a ticket for an incident in the town centre, which was independently adjudicated in my favour as GroupNexus lied to obtain an unjustified payment when they were in breach of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The case is cut and dried. I have already run it past a friend who served as a district judge before retiring and my case is watertight. I'm not concerned for myself here though. The underlying basis of my action for a breach of the DPA wouldn't just be a single case. It would fall equally to many dozens – if not hundreds of other instances where people have been ticketed when the same non compliance issue would be raised if only they knew of it, and I may well place an article in the local press to make them aware from the proceeds of my win in court against this company. They have even admitted in correspondence the basis of the claim yet they have been intimidating, obnoxious and disrespectful throughout. They are a disgrace and it only reflects upon your own standing.

I did say I am a campaigner against these companies and I this is borne out of a necessity for ordinary everyday folk to have justice against these piratical companies. They all state that they are operating transparently and lawfully – and I concede that in many instances they do; however when they don't, which is quite often, the suffering they can cause is not only insurmountable, it's borne out of an unnecessary contractual relationship with blood suckers.

You don't have parking meters of your own – you make no direct income from parking fees like many town centres do – so why allow other companies to cash in at risk of your own reputation being damaged. My opening example, which I would swear to in court or take a lie detector test to confirm, is one such case. It was such an emotional conversation. Money didn't matter to me then, nor is it particularly important now as I am in a better financial position than many people living on pensions and monthly pay-cheques. My giving £50 to the sad old grandmother is something I would do again tomorrow under the same circumstances. Having a wife suffering from Alzheimer's brings out a lot of compassion for other folk in insufferable situations.

I make a plea to you to consider the ongoing relationship with GroupNexus and give some considered thought as to the usefulness of this company. I know that you will have been blind-sided with reasons as to their useful parking management, but think about it again. Is a time limit really – I mean REALLY necessary? Do you honestly believe that, for instance, people will drive behind Iceland and park at their loading places? Why would they? They have a proper car park to go into just a few yards further up. Do you think people park in the town centre to visit a concert or football match? How about those people who go for a relaxing visit to The Five Quarter where they probably want to spend more than just a quick half hour for a pint and a sandwich but just want a friendly relaxing time of personal enjoyment over a full afternoon?

Suzanne Chaney's office must be sick of people calling about parking tickets. I know there a sign on the office door in the mall telling people to call GroupNexus as you – Praxis- aren't responsible. Well you are. It's you who get the kick in the butt, not GroupNexus.

I ask that this matter is discussed at a board meeting and that all directors and senior management are given the chance to make considerations about it.

In the meantime, I wish you all the very best for the operations of the town centre at a time of customer and trader abandonment for a better experience elsewhere.

James_Poisson

You don't have parking meters of your own – you make no direct income from parking fees like many town centres do

Why do you assume this? It is usual for parking companies to install their meters for the landowner but the parking fees still go to the landowner the parking company make enough out of their PCN's.

This isn't to fight a claim against me for non payment of a fine.

You shouldn't use the word fine in any correspondence about these scam charges it gives the reader a sense of legitimacy.

With all due respect and I do hope you are successful, but your over long emotive stories as above are likely to just get skim read and filed.

doubledotcom

I'm not sure if I mentioned this earlier on in this thread, but District Judges only want an easy life. If you keep that in mind when making your case, you will win them over. Anything that makes their life difficult, such as overly long pleadings that are repetitive and meandering, do not make their life easy.

Keeping that in mind, is a useful tool when crafting pleadings or statements. It may be a bit late in this case, but I fear that you may be alienating the judge in your case. I wish you good luck.