Not able to attend Parking Fine Trial and Hearing

ChirpyChicken

Sorry you wont win this case from what you have said. You could have at letter before claim transfered liability to the driver and that would have been a strong defence

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

Sorry you wont win this case from what you have said. You could have at letter before claim transfered liability to the driver and that would have been a strong defence

They could possibly still win if the signage evidence is poor or if the landowner authority is in the wrong name. We saw that a fair but from UKCPM; landowner authorities in the name 'UK Parking Management Ltd' (which isn't their name).

You and I both know this fact:

Never underestimate the ability of these firms to provide inadequate evidence. I nearly lost a case once, with a judge who got shirty with me & announced he "knows the car park and the signage is clear" only for me to (very luckily) realise during the hearing that the idiot claimant solicitors hadn't sent the Defendant the same evidence as they sent the court.

So we won and they got a telling off.

But at least this Defendant must show up and must understand and voice the 'POFA maximum sum' and be ready to communicate that to the judge as damage limitation. That is well worth attending court to do. Saves hundreds, compared to not showing up.

It is also possible UKCPM's solicitor won't send a rep. Which judges hate. We already know the Claimant snd the witness isn't attending, so if they also fail to send a rep, that can see them lose:

"The claimant has filed their trial bundle and confirmed they will not be attending in person."

Is it Gladstones?

Who signed their WS?

Show us their photo evidence.

Show us the landowner authority.

arshadganja

Coupon-mad said:

arshadganja said:

So I am stuck with I am not the driver?

Nothing I can do now? I can’t argue that the signage was not appropriate/visible?

No idea. You wrote your submissions!

But UKCPM usually comply with POFA wording so it was no defence for a registered keeper just to say you weren't driving.

Not unless the signage was inadequate. However you are ONLY potentially liable for the PCN sum on the sign, not the fake added £60 or £70 'fee' which attempts to get the minimal cost of the usual letter chain twice. This is because the keeper liability law (POFA Schedule 4) states the 'maximum recoverable sum' is the parking charges on the signs on the day. No double recovery of fake 'fees'.

Which is what you will say, if you see the judge isn't on your side. You get the added extortion removed at least. And the interest. And by turning up in good time, you won't be considered unreasonable so they can't claim extra costs like the rep's fee/travel.

That is why you MUST be there on 19th.

Obviously, get there early to get through security (like an airport without the passport!) and don't be fooled into talking to their legal rep in a small room beforehand ... but you know that already from the hearing tips section of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQs FIRST.

What did you put as a defence and what did you put in as evidence and what did you say in your WS? We've no idea what you covered.

You CAN raise poor / illegible terms and signage even if you didn't raise the matter before. If the rep & judge think you can't raise that, politely disagree and point the judge to s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The test of fairness is mandatory in every case (a duty on the court, which covers terms and signs and prominence of same, even for a keeper who wasn't driving. Because somebody was and the terms & signs must be 'adequate notice'). 

Assume your judge doesn't know this & that he/she won't know about the 'maximum sum' in Schedule 4 of POFA either.

Very very helpful post. May thanks for all the pointers

arshadganja

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Sorry you wont win this case from what you have said. You could have at letter before claim transfered liability to the driver and that would have been a strong defence

They could possibly still win if the signage evidence is poor or if the landowner authority is in the wrong name. We saw that a fair but from UKCPM; landowner authorities in the name 'UK Parking Management Ltd' (which isn't their name).

You and I both know this fact:

Never underestimate the ability of these firms to provide inadequate evidence. I nearly lost a case once, with a judge who got shirty with me & announced he "knows the car park and the signage is clear" only for me to (very luckily) realise during the hearing that the idiot claimant solicitors hadn't sent the Defendant the same evidence as they sent the court.

So we won and they got a telling off.

But at least this Defendant must show up and must understand and voice the 'POFA maximum sum' and be ready to communicate that to the judge as damage limitation. That is well worth attending court to do. Saves hundreds, compared to not showing up.

It is also possible UKCPM's solicitor won't send a rep. Which judges hate. We already know the Claimant snd the witness isn't attending, so if they also fail to send a rep, that can see them lose:

"The claimant has filed their trial bundle and confirmed they will not be attending in person."

Is it Gladstones?

Who signed their WS?

Show us their photo evidence.

Show us the landowner authority.

Thanks for the response.

Is it Gladstones? Yes

Who signed their WS?
UK Car Park Management Rep. See screenshots attached


Show us their photo evidence.
See screenshot attached. As you can see, its very poorly lit facility.


Show us the landowner authority. Attached.

arshadganja

Looking at the photos again, I honestly think they confused another car to be my car. You can see that they have stitched together registration number to the photos of a car with timestamp. In original photos with timestamp, you cannot even make out what the registration number actually is.

Does this help with the defence at all? 

James_Poisson

You really are scratching around at the last minute now when you have had years to get this right such a shame, but your "I was not the driver" will not wash if their original NTK was compliant it will be an argument they will easily bury.

You haven't exactly filled us with any further details with what you have sent in but it looks grim to be honest.

As for their evidence that you have reproduced, and I can only comment on what you have shown for what it's worth:

• The signage that they have shown is an office copy, it is not evidence of what actually existed on site it is just a pristine example of their master template that might or might not have been there, it isn't even dated.

• The aerial view is obviously a screenshot (undated) of the site taken from Google Earth with coloured dots on it, anyone could produce that and claim that's where the signs are. I suggest that it is where the original site survey suggested they were installed, there is no evidence to support they were there on the day.

• The contract provided if that is it is very scant in detail, shows no dates, not start or end date, and no signature from either side, but is that the complete submission?

• It is unlikely they have "mixed up the ANPR images or stitched anything together" 

• You should not volunteer the information that you or your wife go there on other days that will just blow your didn't see the signs argument out of the water, but if asked outright you must not lie.

• The fact that the signage isn't visible or illuminated at night should be referenced and proof with photographs would be helpful, the operator is unlikely to provide these unless they are well lit. But being five years ago might be a problem you should have gathered all this information at the time.

• They cannot add any further collection charges or admin charges on to the claim that are not on the signs, it's a contractual invoice, John Lewis can't add on admin charges after they agree to deliver you a TV. 

Just some ideas to help (I hope) others will come along with more or may disagree, such a pity you never came here before, good luck. 

arshadganja

I know I’ve left this very late and I only have myself to blame. At this stage I’m just trying to minimise the damage and avoid looking completely unprepared in front of the judge. I’m also mentally prepared for the possibility of losing and having to pay.

@James_Poisson – please see the full contract below.

I did a GDPR data request a couple of years ago and they only provided the same ANPR images. Can they withhold any wider car images from a GDPR response as well taken on the same date? It looks to me like they’ve matched my number plate from some other photograph (possibly from a different date – there’s no way to tell from what I’ve seen).

On the signage point: my wife has always said she never drove there. She’s very nervous about driving in the dark. Up to now I assumed she must just have forgotten, but looking again at these photos I’m starting to think she may be right. Even if we assume she did go there, it would have been a one-off, so she wouldn’t have had any prior knowledge of the parking restrictions unless I’d told her – which I didn’t.

---

Contract:

Car1980

We're still assuming Gladstones are bringing the claim under POFA.

Please show us the original particulars of claim from the very first letter you received from the court system.

Coupon-mad

Who signed their WS?
UK Car Park Management Rep.

Oh no they didn't!

Detail and a correct answer is very very important here. A legal assistant did.

Read and use Mazur v Speechlys.

doubledotcom

That is not a true witness statement. It is hearsay and you should ask the judge to give it little to no weight.

The Claimant’s witness is a ‘Legal Assistant’ who expressly states they ‘have conduct of this action’. The conduct of litigation is a reserved activity under the Legal Services Act 2007; recent High Court authority (Mazur and Ors v CRS LLP 2025) confirms that unqualified staff may assist but may not themselves conduct litigation, even under supervision.

The Claimant has given notice under CPR 27.9 that it will not attend. No witness of fact is available for questioning. The paralegal’s statement is hearsay and contains advocacy and commentary. Ask the Court to place little weight on assertions that are not proved by the exhibits.