Final Hearing on 27 March - Minster Baywatch/Bransby Wilson - Neath Train Station

MumOfABeagle

Hi,

I'm preparing for the final hearing on Friday at Llanelli County Court and can't help but feel that I've messed things up because I didn't put enough in my WS.

To be perfectly honest, I was going to just pay the claim once Gladstones ("GS") had filed their WS because work and life has gotten so busy in Feb/March that I didn't have the time, energy or mental capacity to draft my WS. Plus I was travelling and in all day meetings the day before and on deadline day for filing the WS, so I (ashamedly) was just going to admit defeat.

My Defence (dated 26 August 2025) was a mish mash of the template defence I'd taken from here to defend a parking ticket I'd had back in 2023, which I then updated to the best of my ability. Because that claim was stayed after my Defence was filed (i.e. the Claimant didn't inform the court that they wanted to proceed within 28 days), I thought the same would happen here, but alas GS have continued with the claim and now here I am.

I received GS' WS the day before deadline day and it angered me so much that I very quickly drafted my WS whilst travelling for work, and filed it with the Court and served on GS the following day.

Due to the very limited amount of time I had (my own fault I know!), I focused my WS on:

1. the land not being Relevant Land under POFA

The car park is at Neath Train Station (I have also included copies of the HMLR title register and plan which lists a lease to Railtrack PLC which was purchased by Network Rail) and is therefore subject to byelaws. I know that amendments have been made to POFA to bring railway land into the definition of Relevant Land, but the alleged contravention occurred on 23/01/2025, so before the changes took effect.

2. the Claimant is not the Creditor as defined by POFA

The car park signs (except 1 which has a small Minster Baywatch logo in the corner - I included some photos) all say Bransby Wilson and the RingGo app also shows that the operator is Bransby Wilson, so had the driver made payment via the app, the Creditor (and therefore the real Claimant in this case) would be Bransby Wilson, not Minster Baywatch.

I have also mentioned that the licence agreement between Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch require Minster Baywatch to (i) obtain Bransby Wilson's express written authority before issuing proceedings (and the GS WS did not adduce any evidence demonstrating that Bransby Wilson's express written authority was sought or provided); and (ii) require that any proceedings should be issued in the joint names of Minster Baywatch and Bransby Wilson (but these proceedings have been issued in Minster Baywatch's sole name). Therefore Minster Baywatch has no authority and/or exceeded its authority under the licence agreement.

I didn't mention it in my WS but I have it in my notes for the hearing that these proceedings are an abuse of process by Minster Baywatch - can I still say this if it wasn't in my WS and can I still ask for my costs due to Minster Baywatch's unreasonable conduct and abuse of process even though it wasn't in my WS?

How much more am I allowed to say and adduce evidence of in the hearing itself if it wasn't in my WS? Can I refer to cases which support my position (i.e. the judgement from Norwich County Court where the judge found that the contract was with Bransby Wilson not Minster Baywatch)?

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

You can refer to case law and you can talk about the signs & terms even if none of that was in your WS.

Go with this (below) first. This is your win and a judge will like this a lot better than POFA & byelaws arguments:

"The car park signs (except 1 which has a small Minster Baywatch logo in the corner - I included some photos) all say Bransby Wilson and the RingGo app also shows that the operator is Bransby Wilson, so had the driver made payment via the app, the Creditor (and therefore the real Claimant in this case) would be Bransby Wilson, not Minster Baywatch."

MumOfABeagle

Great thank you!

Can I ask your thoughts on the terms of the licence agreement that require Minster Baywatch to (i) get Bransby Wilson's express written authority before issuing proceedings (which they haven't provided any evidence of); and (ii) the proceedings have to be issued in the joint names of Minster Baywatch AND Bransby Wilson (but in this case the Claimant is Minster Baywatch only)?

I was intending on making a lot of this as well because it seems to me like the proceedings have been issued by Minster Baywatch without authority (either because they've not obtained express written authority from Bransby Wilson beforehand, or because they have issued the proceedings in Minster Baywatch's name only instead of in joint names), which is an abuse of process?

Minster Baywatch would have known (or should have known at least) the terms of their own licence agreement, so the fact they've carried on with these proceedings in breach of said licence agreement feels really wrong (even more so considering they're legally represented). Does this amount to an abuse of process and unreasonable behaviour or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill with that point do you think?

Coupon-mad

I would never use the term 'abuse of process' to a judge. It's quite simply the wrong Claimant, so make it simple.

You could read the thread I posted about 2 or 3 years ago re NCP Fairlie v Fenton.

I was lay rep in a case where the signs had both NCP on and the train operator and I posted a full court report about what I said, the case law relied upon, and exactly what the judge liked & didn't like and which arguments won.

MumOfABeagle

Perfect - thank you so much.

I'd be grateful if anyone has any other tips in preparing for the final hearing?

1505grandad

"You could read the thread I posted about 2 or 3 years ago re NCP Fairlie v Fenton."

FYI:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6455080/court-report-case-won-on-fairlie-v-fenton-and-hancock-v-promontoria

Nellymoser

"I'd be grateful if anyone has any other tips in preparing for the final hearing?"

NEWBIES POST 2 scroll to THE HEARING

MumOfABeagle

Thank you @1505grandad and @Nellymoser

MumOfABeagle

Sorry…me again!

Whilst preparing I've also noticed another anomaly with the licence agreement that was exhibited to the GS WS, in that para 4 of the GS states that:

"The Claimant manages and enforces parking on private land through schemes such as warden patrols and ANPR. This authority arises from a Licence Agreement between Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Limited (BWPS) and the Claimant, under which the Claimant is authorised to manage all BWPS-operated car parks. BWPS, having contracted with the landowner to implement parking management at the site, authorised the Claimant to act as its agent for enforcement and to pursue legal action as creditor."

However, the licence agreement exhibited at GS1 is actually between Bransby Wilson Ltd (NOT Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd) and Minster Baywatch.

Looking at Companies House, Bransby Wilson Ltd did change its name to Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd on 1/4/2011 so it could be that they've just used a very old template licence agreement, but even more curiously, the first sentence of the licence agreement states that the agreement is made on 1/1/2017

but the agreement was signed (with the signatures redacted) on 1/10/2021

Could I say that this raises serious questions as to to the validity of the licence agreement in the first instance, let alone Minster Baywatch's breach of the same in issuing the proceedings without express written authority and in its sole name as opposed to joint names?

1505grandad

This may be of interest as to the outcome of another case in August 2023:-

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jjy35dber6h6sg6xxxims/bransby-Minster.pdf?rlkey=8etpbf8kzm55p6viof00esvhc&e=1&dl=0

Castle

So the next question where is the contract between the landowner and Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd.