Nearly at court stage with VCS

[benb76]

Hi, firstly, thank you for all your advice to date on the FTLA site, where you have previously advised me I believe. I have just made a donation to this site to say thank you for the time you have spent advising me.

I am the owner of a vehicle which received three CNs from VCS in July 2024 for stopping three times in 13 minutes at Bristol airport. 

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...l-airport/

The court date is 24th February and I would be grateful for any advice as to anything else I should be prepared for on the day. I have submitted my witness statement and it can be seen in the attached link. I have received advice on the other site but would appreciate your views if you would like to offer them as you have been kindly advising me from the beginning.

The WS from the claimant is here in Documents One, two and three:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folde...vvHQMCIAWi

I was supposed to submit my WS by 20th January but did not do so until 2nd February.

Many thanks

[kryten3000]

Witness statement looks good, Jake admits that they are not relying on the POFA so their case is very weak.

[b789]

I have reviewed your witness statement carefully. It is not weak, but it is mis-weighted. It reads like advocacy rather than evidence. That is not fatal in small claims, but it means some strong points were not developed properly and some structural issues were not isolated cleanly.

There are three areas where it could have been materially stronger.

1. Driver identity – this should have been the front-loaded, dominant issue.

You correctly avoid identifying the driver. That is essential. However, the statement does not forcefully isolate the legal position:

– The Claimant is not relying on PoFA.
– Therefore keeper liability is unavailable.
– Therefore they must prove driver identity.
– There is no legal presumption that keeper = driver.
– Silence is not evidence.
– Failure to nominate is not evidence.

That should have been presented as a standalone gateway issue. If they cannot prove driver identity, the claim fails without the court needing to consider anything else.

If the judge asks you directly whether you were the driver, you are not obliged to answer. This is civil litigation. You are under no obligation to assist the Claimant in proving its case. The burden does not shift.

Keep that calm and simple on the day.

2. The signage – this needed deeper structural analysis.

The Claimant says the sign forms a contract. Look at what it actually says:

   “No Stopping”
   “£100 charge if you stop”

That is framed as a prohibition, not an offer. A contract requires offer and acceptance. A prohibitive notice does not obviously offer a licence on terms; it forbids conduct and threatens a consequence.

If stopping is not permitted, what exactly is being accepted? There is no positive permission being granted in exchange for consideration. The structure reads as deterrent, not contractual.

You referred to signage, but you did not fully analyse whether the wording is capable of forming the contractual relationship pleaded. The sign states “No Stopping”, which is framed as a prohibition. A contract requires a clear offer capable of acceptance. That conceptual issue was not fully developed. In addition, you did not exhibit your own contemporaneous photographs or analyse visibility and incorporation in detail. In a signage-based claim, that evidential layer is significant.

On the day, this should be short:

“The sign says ‘No Stopping’. That is a prohibition, not an offer capable of acceptance. If stopping is forbidden, there is no contractual licence being offered. The Claimant has pleaded breach of contract.”

Do not over-argue it. Plant the conceptual issue and move on.

3. Sarah Ensall and Mazur – this ties directly into rights of audience.

Signing a claim form is conducting litigation. Conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Mazur confirms that reserved activities cannot be delegated to unauthorised persons simply because they are supervised. If Sarah Ensall was not authorised to conduct litigation, that is irregular. It may not automatically defeat the claim, but it demonstrates systemic non-compliance.

Now connect that to VCS v Langley (2026).

Langley deals with the same statutory framework. The court held that:

– Advocacy alone is not “assisting in the conduct of litigation”.
– A subcontract chain does not satisfy the supervision requirement.
– A lay representative cannot appear if the party does not attend.

The common thread between Mazur and Langley is this: you cannot bypass statutory requirements through administrative convenience.

If Jake Burgess does not attend (highly unlikely) and they send an agency advocate, you raise it immediately.

Before anything substantive:

   “Before we proceed, I object unless the Claimant’s representative establishes a right of audience.”

Then:

– Are you a solicitor or barrister?
– Are you authorised?
– Have you conducted any step in this litigation?
– On what statutory basis do you say you are entitled to appear?

If they say “solicitor’s agent”, you say:

   “That term has no statutory meaning. The issue is whether the representative is an authorised or exempt person under the Legal Services Act 2007.”

You hand up:

– A copy of VCS v Langley for the judge.
– A copy for the advocate.
– One for yourself.

Do not oversell it. Say:

   “This is a recent County Court decision involving this Claimant and this advocacy model. The court analysed the statutory conditions and concluded the agent had no right of audience.”

Even if the judge exercises discretion to allow them to speak, Burgess’ absence remains critical.

You then say:

   “I dispute material parts of Mr Burgess’ statement. He is not here. I cannot cross-examine him. I ask the court to attach limited weight to contested factual assertions.”

Submissions are not evidence.

On the day, your structure should be:

1. No proof of driver.
   
2. No PoFA.
   
3. Signage is prohibitive and incapable of forming the contract pleaded.
   
4. Additional £70 not properly incorporated.
   
5. Rights of audience objection (if applicable).
   
6. Litigation authority irregularity (Mazur context).
   

Keep it controlled. Short sentences. No rhetoric. Force the court back to burden of proof and statutory compliance.

If they cannot prove driver identity and cannot establish a lawful contractual mechanism, the claim collapses

Regarding your question about if the judge were to ask whether you were the driver, you are not under any legal obligation to assist the Claimant in proving its case. The burden remains on the Claimant to prove driver identity. You may simply state that the Claimant has not discharged that burden and that you rely on your pleaded position. You are not required to fill evidential gaps in their case.

I note the hearing is listed at Worcester. Unfortunately I will be out of the country on that date, otherwise I would have attended to observe.

[benb76]

I have reviewed your witness statement carefully. It is not weak, but it is mis-weighted. It reads like advocacy rather than evidence. That is not fatal in small claims, but it means some strong points were not developed properly and some structural issues were not isolated cleanly.

There are three areas where it could have been materially stronger.

1. Driver identity – this should have been the front-loaded, dominant issue.

You correctly avoid identifying the driver. That is essential. However, the statement does not forcefully isolate the legal position:

– The Claimant is not relying on PoFA.
– Therefore keeper liability is unavailable.
– Therefore they must prove driver identity.
– There is no legal presumption that keeper = driver.
– Silence is not evidence.
– Failure to nominate is not evidence.

That should have been presented as a standalone gateway issue. If they cannot prove driver identity, the claim fails without the court needing to consider anything else.

If the judge asks you directly whether you were the driver, you are not obliged to answer. This is civil litigation. You are under no obligation to assist the Claimant in proving its case. The burden does not shift.

Keep that calm and simple on the day.

2. The signage – this needed deeper structural analysis.

The Claimant says the sign forms a contract. Look at what it actually says:

   “No Stopping”
   “£100 charge if you stop”

That is framed as a prohibition, not an offer. A contract requires offer and acceptance. A prohibitive notice does not obviously offer a licence on terms; it forbids conduct and threatens a consequence.

If stopping is not permitted, what exactly is being accepted? There is no positive permission being granted in exchange for consideration. The structure reads as deterrent, not contractual.

You referred to signage, but you did not fully analyse whether the wording is capable of forming the contractual relationship pleaded. The sign states “No Stopping”, which is framed as a prohibition. A contract requires a clear offer capable of acceptance. That conceptual issue was not fully developed. In addition, you did not exhibit your own contemporaneous photographs or analyse visibility and incorporation in detail. In a signage-based claim, that evidential layer is significant.

On the day, this should be short:

“The sign says ‘No Stopping’. That is a prohibition, not an offer capable of acceptance. If stopping is forbidden, there is no contractual licence being offered. The Claimant has pleaded breach of contract.”

Do not over-argue it. Plant the conceptual issue and move on.

3. Sarah Ensall and Mazur – this ties directly into rights of audience.

Signing a claim form is conducting litigation. Conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Mazur confirms that reserved activities cannot be delegated to unauthorised persons simply because they are supervised. If Sarah Ensall was not authorised to conduct litigation, that is irregular. It may not automatically defeat the claim, but it demonstrates systemic non-compliance.

Now connect that to VCS v Langley (2026).

Langley deals with the same statutory framework. The court held that:

– Advocacy alone is not “assisting in the conduct of litigation”.
– A subcontract chain does not satisfy the supervision requirement.
– A lay representative cannot appear if the party does not attend.

The common thread between Mazur and Langley is this: you cannot bypass statutory requirements through administrative convenience.

If Jake Burgess does not attend (highly unlikely) and they send an agency advocate, you raise it immediately.

Before anything substantive:

   “Before we proceed, I object unless the Claimant’s representative establishes a right of audience.”

Then:

– Are you a solicitor or barrister?
– Are you authorised?
– Have you conducted any step in this litigation?
– On what statutory basis do you say you are entitled to appear?

If they say “solicitor’s agent”, you say:

   “That term has no statutory meaning. The issue is whether the representative is an authorised or exempt person under the Legal Services Act 2007.”

You hand up:

– A copy of VCS v Langley for the judge.
– A copy for the advocate.
– One for yourself.

Do not oversell it. Say:

   “This is a recent County Court decision involving this Claimant and this advocacy model. The court analysed the statutory conditions and concluded the agent had no right of audience.”

Even if the judge exercises discretion to allow them to speak, Burgess’ absence remains critical.

You then say:

   “I dispute material parts of Mr Burgess’ statement. He is not here. I cannot cross-examine him. I ask the court to attach limited weight to contested factual assertions.”

Submissions are not evidence.

On the day, your structure should be:

1. No proof of driver.
   
2. No PoFA.
   
3. Signage is prohibitive and incapable of forming the contract pleaded.
   
4. Additional £70 not properly incorporated.
   
5. Rights of audience objection (if applicable).
   
6. Litigation authority irregularity (Mazur context).
   

Keep it controlled. Short sentences. No rhetoric. Force the court back to burden of proof and statutory compliance.

If they cannot prove driver identity and cannot establish a lawful contractual mechanism, the claim collapses

Regarding your question about if the judge were to ask whether you were the driver, you are not under any legal obligation to assist the Claimant in proving its case. The burden remains on the Claimant to prove driver identity. You may simply state that the Claimant has not discharged that burden and that you rely on your pleaded position. You are not required to fill evidential gaps in their case.

I note the hearing is listed at Worcester. Unfortunately I will be out of the country on that date, otherwise I would have attended to observe.

Many thanks for your comments, very helpful as always. Would you recommend that I take a costs schedule with me, in the event that I win? The case is at Redditch, which suits me. In your experience, if Burgess does not attend, are they likely to send an agency advocate? Are there occasions where they do not attend at all? If they do not send anyone, what is the judge likely to do? Appreciate you may not know the answers to these questions but just trying to understand what may happen. Many thanks.

[b789]

Definitely take a costs schedule and don’t forget to ask for your cost if/when successful. Burgess never attends these. The only reason this one progressed to this stage is because it is for more than 2 PCNS.

They will almost certainly send an advocate. The advocate will know nothing about the case. You should try and understand the meaning of VCS v Leyland. An advocate who says they are a “solicitors agent” does not have a right to audience although the judge can use their discretion. If you can show the persuasive argument in Leyland, the judge may also send them packing.

Remember, you are on a very strong dotting here. No contract, no driver identity. The burden of proof is on the claimant. You just say prove who was the driver and prove that an actual contract was formed.

[benb76]

Definitely take a costs schedule and don’t forget to ask for your cost if/when successful. Burgess never attends these. The only reason this one progressed to this stage is because it is for more than 2 PCNS.

They will almost certainly send an advocate. The advocate will know nothing about the case. You should try and understand the meaning of VCS v Leyland. An advocate who says they are a “solicitors agent” does not have a right to audience although the judge can use their discretion. If you can show the persuasive argument in Leyland, the judge may also send them packing.

Remember, you are on a very strong dotting here. No contract, no driver identity. The burden of proof is on the claimant. You just say prove who was the driver and prove that an actual contract was formed.

Thank you. I will make sure to read and understand VCS v Leyland. I will also take a costs schedule. Many thanks again. I will let you know how it goes.