BW Legal/UK Car Park Management - Claim Form

JPCN

FYI, The case was rescheduled, and I’m currently waiting for a new court date.

JPCN

FYI, this sneaked up on me. I did not receive a letter notifying me of the new court date and only discovered that the case is listed for a hearing next week, on Monday 28 September, when I received the hearing bundle from BW Legal.

Luckily, I had already submitted my Witness Statement for the original hearing date when the case was previously scheduled.

I am preparing my notes in advance, and this is the order in which I would raise each point if the judge asks me to explain my position.

1. Opening statement
2. Inadequate Signs and no contract
   1. Key points
      1. The Claimant relies on close-up photographs taken by a parking attendant after the vehicle had entered and stopped.
      2. Sign mounted high above normal driver eye level, over another large warning sign. The most prominent sign at this location is “Warning - Private Estate - Tow-Away Zone” sign, despite vehicle removal on private land having been unlawful since 2012.
      3. My driver’s-eye-view video, Exhibit, showing the actual approach from a motorist’s perspective. 
      4. Road layout, double yellow lines, commercial units and the absence of a prominent entrance sign.
3. Brief stop while assisting a disabled person
4. Public-road appearance and double yellow lines
5. Additional £70 debt-recovery charge

I will update on the outcome. In the meantime if you have any guidance feel free to share.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82147289#Comment_82147289

Background:
The driver was assisting a disabled person, who held a valid Blue Badge, with their shopping. Unfortunately, there were no available parking spaces at the time, so the vehicle was temporarily parked on a yellow line directly outside the store. A valid Blue Badge was displayed but had accidentally fallen out of view.

Read the CMA's Open Letter to the parking industry (July 2026) and take a couple of printed copies with you to the hearing. You can state that the Regulator warned parking firms in July that they MUST act fairly in the interests of consumers and will be investigated and potentially fined by the CMA if they keep ignoring consumer protection law.

The operator breached the Equality Act 2010 because when you appealed they should have waived the charge as a 'reasonable adjustment' in recognition that the 'ordinary meaning' of double yellow lines is that disabled Blue Badge holders CAN park on them for up to 3 hours.

Small print t&cs on sparse unreadable (VERY faded) signs cannot change the ordinary meaning of those markings.

If they wanted these to mean no stopping they should have made them double reds, or added kerb blips (Blue Badge holders cannot park at such lines) AND a non-faded sign warning Blue Badge holders not to park.

And take a full copy of your WS and also theirs (or your laptop & charger so you can access everything and follow page numbers being discussed).

And take a list of your costs and proof of your daily rate, to claim costs at the end, including a lost day of work or leave.

And the actual Blue Badge unless you are using it to park for court! It would be a good subliminal visual cue for the judge even if it's just poking out of your file.

If their rep points to the faded signs, your comment on that evidence should be to say:

"Judge, their pictures show almost completely faded signs; it would be impossible to be held to a contract by that sign!"

You also need to be clearly heard that the natural (local authority streets) meaning of double yellow lines is to positively invite 'exempt activity' including allowing disabled persons to park on them for 3 hours, and including time to set down or pick up passengers or load items. Double red lines mean no stopping. Double yellows do NOT.

You need to be able to voice that in case your judge doesn't know.

Finally, just noting the POC did state the breach as 'parked in a restricted area' and not a failure to display a Blue Badge:

"Particulars of Claim."


The claim is for £170 for an unpaid parking charge following a contractual breach which occured on 29/07/2024 in the private land (lawfully occupied by the Claimant) at Wharfside (Business Park) London (Patrol) by driver of xxxxx registration mark xxxxx. The terms and conditions displayed offered the driver a contractual license, were accepted by the driver upon entry, and subsequently breached. Drivers breach: Parked in a restricted area of the carpark/private land
The Claim also includes £70 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and the ATA AoS Code of practice.

Bottom line:

Neither the NTK nor the POC say the allegation was 'failure to display a Blue Badge'.

They say it was 'parking in a restricted area' yet the C has known since your appeal two years ago that for you, it WASN'T a restricted area.

You reasonably believed you had a right to park at a kerb marked with a double yellow line. It looked like public highway and was taken to be so, with the usual lines & signs accepted meanings.

Double yellows are NOT a 'restricted area' for a Blue Badge holder, as a matter of fact and law. The restrictive term wasn't even visible on the faded top sign but even if it had been, the term was unfair because it failed to account for disabled persons who would see double yellows on-street as an invitation to park.

This Claimant hasn't acted in good faith (see the CMA's Open Letter to the parking industry this July).

Not acting in good faith happened at the time of refusing the valid appeal. The Claimant's treatment of a person with protected characteristics was unfair and illegal (breach of statutory duty in the Equality Act 2010).

When you appealed, they fobbed you off when it was a clear case that required cancellation or a similar 'reasonable adjustment' if they had operated with an approach based on 'fair and open dealing' and complied with the Equality Act 2010.

This is even proved by the industry Code of Practice which says that operators must consider mitigation and offer to settle for £20 if not cancelling. This was not only in the 2024 Joint Code at the time of the appeal being unfairly refused but the overarching statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' has been law for decades, even before the Equality Act, it was in the DDA.

I'm assuming they didn't offer the £20 settlement when fobbing off your appeal (it should be in the C's evidence)?

JPCN

Unfortunately, I lost the case due to the following reasons:

1. The judge considered the signs to be clear and noted that there was a sign directly behind my car where I had stopped. I tried to explain that the signage was not sufficiently clear and that I believed the tow-away restriction sign was unlawful, but the judge did not accept my argument.
2. The Blue Badge was not displayed. Unfortunately, I also undermined my own case with an exhibit I included in my WS, which explicitly stated that the Blue Badge “must be displayed.” The judge relied on this point against me.

Coupon-mad

Ah - bad luck with that judge. 🧐

The sign looked to be too faded to be readable. And it was never in dispute that the blue badge wasn't visible! The point was, you appealed with a copy of it and the appeals stage should have seen it cancelled (as a reasonable adjustment, per consumer law).

Surely he didn't allow the fake added £70 or interest?

JPCN

Unfortunately, he did allow the “recovery costs”, and they even tried to recover the lawyers’ fees but he dismissed this.

Anyway it was a good learning, first time in court.

Car1980

Which court was this?

Sounds like a Popla assessor. Was there a sign of any description in any condition anywhere in the vicinity? Yes/no.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82155009#Comment_82155009

He could not allow the 'recovery costs' because that's already in the PCN rationale and your defence gave him that info, plus your WS if you mentioned HHJ Moloney.

JPCN

@Car1980 This was the sign the judge relied on. I specifically told the judge that the sign is no longer there and showed him the video evidence demonstrating this. Unfortunately, the judge still relied on the sign being present at the time of the alleged contravention.

Car1980

A sign so knackered to be unreadable and which by the sounds of it fell off some time later. Unbelievable.

How much pushback did the judge allow? Some allow a bit of back and forth and are open to changing their minds. Others have made their mind up from the start and won't accept any discussion.