New Generation Parking Management Ltd v RandG

[RandG]

Hi b789,

I had not heard anything since the payment deadline. 

I rang up the National Contact Centre for Civil & Family Court today and they've told me that the court fee has been paid, and the hearing will be taking place on the 31st March. 

What are the next steps please.

[b789]

Hi b789,

I had not heard anything since the payment deadline. 

I rang up the National Contact Centre for Civil & Family Court today and they've told me that the court fee has been paid, and the hearing will be taking place on the 31st March. 

What are the next steps please.

Before the hearing, watch this short HMCTS video explaining what usually happens in a small claims hearing in the judge’s room:

https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared

It is useful because it shows the general format. Usually, once everyone is in the room, the judge will introduce the case and will often invite the claimant’s representative to outline the claim first. However, before that happens you should ask the judge to consider the issue of the claimant’s representative’s right of audience.

If you are going to raise the issue of right of audience, that is the point at which to do it, before the claimant’s representative is allowed to begin addressing the court on the substance of the claim. So, if the person attending for the claimant appears to be an agency advocate (which will almost certainly be the case) rather than a solicitor from DCB Legal, you should politely intervene at the outset and say:

   “Before the claimant’s representative addresses the court, I would respectfully like to raise a preliminary matter concerning right of audience.”

You can then explain that you have brought copies of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley [2026] EWCC 1 (Claim No: M2KF975M), which discusses that issue. Take three printed copies of the transcript with you: one for the judge, one for the claimant’s representative, and one for yourself.

To avoid wasting the court’s time, highlight only the relevant passages in the judgment. The key sections are paragraphs 20–24, paragraphs 30–34, and paragraphs 41–45. These passages explain the legal framework governing rights of audience and address the argument sometimes advanced in these cases that a person automatically acquires a right of audience simply because they have been instructed by a solicitor. The judgment makes clear that such instruction does not in itself confer a right of audience.

Langley is not binding authority, and the judge still has discretion to allow the representative to appear. This is therefore not a guaranteed knockout point. It is simply a preliminary matter that may assist if the judge agrees there is a problem with the representative’s status. If the judge is not with you on it, the case will simply continue and you move on to the substantive issues.

The main substantive point in your case remains the claimant’s irregular evidence concerning the Notice to Keeper.

Your chronology is supported by documents:

• Access to the new property from 9 May 2024
  
• Royal Mail redirection set up on 25 May 2024 (RG-01)
  
• Former address vacated on 31 May 2024
  
• V5C updated with DVLA on 1 June 2024 (RG-02)
  

The claimant relies on a Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024 (RG-03), but the copy they rely on is addressed to your new address even though the DVLA update did not occur until 1 June 2024.

That is highly irregular. On the claimant’s own case, the keeper address should have come from the DVLA before issue of the notice. Yet the address shown on the document they rely upon is an address the DVLA did not hold for you until the following day. They also have no proof of posting, no certificate of posting, and no other evidence showing that the notice was actually sent.

That inconsistency should be put clearly to the judge. The point is simple: the claimant’s own document does not fit their own chronology. It raises an obvious question as to how that address appeared on a notice supposedly issued before the DVLA was updated, and it undermines the reliability of the claimant’s evidence as a whole.

Also remember that the driver has never been identified. The claimant therefore has to establish Keeper liability. If they cannot show that a compliant Notice to Keeper was given within the period required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, keeper liability cannot arise.

On the day, arrive at least 30 minutes early so that you have time to get through security and check in with the usher. If the claimant’s advocate approaches you before the hearing, do not get sidetracked into discussing the case. Politely refuse and simply say that you would prefer to leave all argument for the judge.

If you can show me the claimant’s witness statement, I can review it and identify any points that need answering. If necessary, I can then help produce a short supplementary witness statement (SWS) and, if useful, a skeleton argument for filing and use at the hearing.

[RandG]

Thanks for the information. 

Do you have any idea why they might have decided to pursue this case, out of all of the ones that they don't actually take to the court. 

I've sent the link to the WS in a DM.

Thanks very much.

[b789]

Having reviewed the claimants WS, I advise you to submit a Supplementary Witness Statement (SWS) and Skeleton. Any reference to existing exhibits only need to reference them as in your original WS. Anything new introduced, such as evidence of the claimants response to your Data Rectification Notice where they admitted they used the old address on the original NtK and not the new one as shown their evidence, should be referenced separately and included.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NEWPORT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

New Parking Generation Management Ltd

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of the vehicle. I make this supplementary witness statement in response to matters arising from the Claimant’s witness statement and exhibits.

2. The defence previously filed addressed the claim as pleaded and the limited material then available. The Particulars of Claim did not properly identify the factual basis of the alleged contravention, the documents relied upon, or the basis on which the Claimant contended that I was liable as keeper or driver. The Claimant has now, for the first time, served witness evidence and exhibits purporting to prove those matters. This supplementary statement is confined to the issues arising from that evidence.

3. The Claimant’s witness is Antony Roberts, who states that he is authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Claimant and has signed it under a Statement of Truth. Nothing in his statement suggests that he had any personal involvement in the events alleged, was present at the site on the material date, issued the parking charge, or witnessed the matters now asserted. His evidence therefore appears to derive entirely from company records rather than personal knowledge. In those circumstances, the Claimant’s case stands or falls on the accuracy, authenticity and consistency of the records exhibited, and any assertion not properly borne out by those records should be given limited weight.

4. The Claimant relies upon a document described as a Notice to Keeper dated 31 May 2024, which expressly states, “This notice is a copy.” However, that exhibited copy is addressed to my current address, even though my V5C was not updated to that address until 1 June 2024, and the Claimant has already admitted that when it obtained keeper data from the DVLA it was provided with my previous address. In those circumstances, the document now exhibited cannot be a true copy of the operative Notice to Keeper allegedly issued on 31 May 2024 on the basis of the DVLA data then available. It is therefore false as evidence of the Notice to Keeper allegedly issued within the statutory period, and the Claimant cannot rely upon it to establish keeper liability.

5. Further, the Claimant has produced no contemporaneous record showing that any compliant Notice to Keeper was actually posted and given within the statutory period. There is no certificate of posting, no dispatch record, no postal manifest, no system audit trail, and no copy of any notice sent to the previous address supplied by the DVLA.

6. Accordingly, the Claimant cannot prove that any compliant Notice to Keeper was properly addressed and given within the period required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In the absence of such proof, keeper liability does not arise.

7. Separately, the Notice to Keeper relied upon by the Claimant does not specify any period of parking. It states only that the alleged contravention occurred at 16:29. A single timestamp is not a period of parking, whereas Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. I rely in this regard on Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], in which the court confirmed that the statutory requirement is to specify a period of parking, not merely a single moment in time.

8. Accordingly, even if the Claimant could prove that a Notice to Keeper was given, which is denied, the notice still fails to comply with the mandatory requirement in Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) to specify the period of parking.

9. The Claimant’s own photographs show a male entering or exiting the vehicle, whereas I am female. Despite that, at paragraph 21 of the witness statement, the Claimant asserts that it “reasonably believes” that I was the driver because no driver was nominated. That is not evidence but an unsupported assumption, contradicted by the Claimant’s own photographic evidence. I rely in this regard on the persuasive appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], which confirms that a parking operator cannot simply infer that the registered keeper was the driver without evidence.

10. In the absence of evidence that I was the driver, and in the absence of compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has no basis to pursue me as keeper.

11. The Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows the vehicle present only between 16:28:47 and 16:32:26, a total of 3 minutes and 39 seconds. That is the only period evidenced by the Claimant. Such a brief presence is entirely consistent with a driver entering the site, locating a space, reading the signage, considering any terms, and leaving if those terms were not accepted.

12. Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a consideration period for that very purpose. Although the Code is not legislation, it is the Code of Practice with which the Claimant, as an ATA member, is required to comply. The Code recognises that acceptance may be inferred where a driver remains on site for more than five minutes or otherwise clearly accepts the terms. On the Claimant’s own evidence, the vehicle remained on site for less than five minutes, which falls within the consideration period and is insufficient to establish acceptance of any contract by conduct.

13. Accordingly, the Claimant’s own evidence does not establish any contractual liability on the part of the driver, and for the further reasons set out above, no liability can attach to me as keeper.

14. For all of the above reasons, the Claimant has failed to prove any basis on which I can be held liable, whether as driver or as keeper. The Claimant’s case on keeper liability depends upon a document which is false as evidence of the operative Notice to Keeper allegedly issued within the statutory period, and which cannot establish compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant has also failed to prove that I was the driver or that any contract was accepted by conduct. I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Supplementary Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:

Date:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NEWPORT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

New Parking Generation Management Ltd

Claimant

- and -

Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENDANTS SKELETON ARGUMENT

Introduction

1. This case turns on whether the Claimant has proved any lawful basis to recover from this Defendant, who is the registered keeper.

2. The Defendant submits that the claim fails for three reasons. First, the Claimant has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). Secondly, the Claimant has not proved that the Defendant was the driver. Thirdly, the Claimant’s own evidence does not establish acceptance of any contract by conduct.

Keeper liability under PoFA

3. The Claimant’s case on keeper liability is advanced at paragraphs 17 to 19 of Antony Roberts’ witness statement, where he exhibits copies of the Notice and Reminder Notice and asserts that, upon receipt of DVLA keeper details, notice is sent to the registered keeper by post.

4. The difficulty for the Claimant is that the Notice to Keeper relied upon expressly states that it is “a copy”, yet it bears the Defendant’s later address. The Defendant’s V5C was not updated to that address until 1 June 2024. The alleged Notice to Keeper is dated 31 May 2024. The Claimant has also admitted elsewhere that the DVLA had supplied the previous address. In those circumstances, the exhibited document cannot be a true copy of the operative Notice to Keeper allegedly issued on 31 May 2024 on the basis of the DVLA data then available.

5. It follows that the Claimant relies upon a document which is false as evidence of the operative Notice to Keeper allegedly issued within the statutory period. That point is particularly serious in circumstances where Mr Roberts signs his witness statement under a Statement of Truth, whilst having no apparent personal involvement in the events and purporting to rely on company records.

6. Further, even aside from that defect, the Claimant has produced no contemporaneous evidence proving that any compliant Notice to Keeper was actually posted and given within the relevant period. There is no certificate of posting, no dispatch record, no postal manifest, no audit trail, and no copy of any notice sent to the previous address.

7. Accordingly, the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under PoFA.

8. In any event, the Notice to Keeper relied upon is independently non-compliant with PoFA because it does not specify any period of parking. It states only that the alleged contravention occurred at 16:29. A single timestamp is not a period of parking.

9. The Defendant relies on Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], at paragraphs 27 to 29, as a persuasive appeal judgment on that point. The statutory requirement is to specify a period of parking, not merely a single moment in time.

Driver identity

10. The Claimant’s case on driver identity is advanced at paragraph 21 of Antony Roberts’ witness statement, where he says that the Claimant “reasonably believes” the Defendant was the driver because otherwise a driver would have been nominated.

11. That is not evidence. It is an assumption. It is also contradicted by the Claimant’s own photographic evidence, which shows a male entering or exiting the vehicle, whereas the Defendant is female.

12. The Defendant relies on Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], at paragraphs 31, 34 and 35.1 to 35.3, as a persuasive appeal judgment confirming that the mere fact of being the registered keeper does not give rise to any inference that the keeper was driving on the material occasion.

13. The Claimant has therefore failed to prove that the Defendant was the driver and cannot fall back on keeper liability because PoFA has not been satisfied.

No contract accepted by conduct

14. The Claimant’s case on contract formation is advanced at paragraphs 12 to 16 of Antony Roberts’ witness statement, where he asserts that signage formed the contract and that, by parking, the driver accepted the terms.

15. However, the Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows the vehicle present only between 16:28:47 and 16:32:26, a total of 3 minutes and 39 seconds. That is the only period evidenced by the Claimant.

16. Such a brief presence is entirely consistent with a driver entering the site, locating a space, reading the signage, considering any terms, and leaving if those terms were not accepted.

17. That is reinforced by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Claimant’s own witness statement, where the Claimant emphasises its ATA membership and the importance of complying with the applicable Code.  Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a consideration period for that very purpose. On the Claimant’s own evidence, the vehicle remained on site for less than five minutes. That falls within the consideration period and is insufficient to establish acceptance of any contract by conduct.

Conclusion

18. For those reasons, the Claimant has failed to prove that the Defendant was the driver, failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA, and failed on its own evidence to establish acceptance of any contract by conduct. The claim should therefore be dismissed.

As previously, these are submitted as a PDF in a single email addressed to the court and CCd to DCB Legal and yourself.

Subject: Claim [claim number] – Defendant’s Supplementary Witness Statement and Skeleton Argument

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached the Defendant’s Supplementary Witness Statement and Skeleton Argument for the hearing listed on [hearing date] in claim [claim number].

These documents are filed and served by email in accordance with the Court’s directions. A copy of this email and its attachments has been sent to the Claimant’s solicitor, DCB Legal Ltd.

Kindly place these documents on the Court file.

Yours faithfully,

[Your full name]
Defendant

There is still every chance they may discontinue, even at this stage. These firms often push claims to the brink and then pull out once it is clear the Defendant understands the issues and is ready to argue them properly. So do not assume the hearing will definitely go ahead, but prepare on the basis that it will.

If it does go ahead, raise the Langley point at the very start, before the merits. If the Claimant appears by a hired advocate only, ask who they are, who instructed them, whether they are employed by the solicitor on record or attending through an agency, and on what basis they say they have a right of audience. Keep it short. Put the point in play immediately and, if the judge is against you on it, move on.

If the hearing then proceeds, stick to the main points in the Skeleton and do not get dragged into side issues. The strongest point is the false NtK. Then the absence of proof that any compliant NtK was given, then the lack of any period of parking, then the fact that the Claimant’s own photographs show a male while the keeper is female, and finally the under-five-minute consideration point.

So, yes, they may still discontinue. But if they do not, the Langley point should be the first thing raised.

[RandG]

Hi b789, 

Thanks for your last reply. Hope you're having a nice weekend.

We got an email from the court today:

The above matter is listed for trial on Tuesday 31 March 2026 but the Court’s lists are currently over listed.

Please can you confirm if there is any possibility of settlement? If not, there is a possibility that either the case will be moved to another Court or, failing that, adjourned to another date.

Thank you

I wondered if there was the opportunity to turn the screw to encourage DCBLegal to call it off? Otherwise should I just reply saying we'd like to proceed as normal.

Cheers.

[b789]

Yes, there is a way to apply a bit of pressure here, but it needs to be done in the right way.

The court is not asking for argument about the merits of the claim. It is simply trying to manage an overlisted trial list and find out whether the matter might settle. So this is not the place to start expanding on why the claim is weak. However, it is perfectly proper to make clear that there is no realistic prospect of settlement on the basis of any payment by you, and that you are ready to proceed to trial.

I would not just send a bare reply saying you want to proceed as normal, because that misses the opportunity to make your position clear. Equally, I would not try to “turn the screw” too aggressively in a listing email. The best pressure comes from calmly making it plain that you are not offering any money, you are fully defended, and you are ready to attend. That tells DCB Legal there will be no easy settlement and no commercial advantage in trying to squeeze you.

The best approach is to reply confirming that there is no possibility of settlement involving payment by you, that the claim is fully defended, and that you are ready to proceed on 31 March 2026. It is also worth adding that if the Claimant wishes to discontinue, that is a matter for them. That is a neat way of reminding them that discontinuance remains open, without sounding argumentative or improper.

So in substance, the message to the court is that there is no realistic prospect of settlement, you remain ready for trial, and if the matter cannot be heard because of overlisting then you will comply with whatever directions the court gives about transfer or relisting.

That is the right balance here. It keeps you firm, gives away nothing, and quietly signals to DCB Legal that the only way this ends without a hearing is if they pull the plug themselves.

Re: [Claim number] – trial listed on 31 March 2026

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Defendant confirms that there is no possibility of settlement involving any payment by the Defendant.

The claim is fully defended and the Defendant remains ready to proceed to trial on 31 March 2026 as listed.

If the Claimant wishes to discontinue, that is a matter for them. Otherwise, the Defendant will attend and proceed as directed by the Court.

If, due to overlisting, the matter cannot be accommodated at the listed court, the Defendant will abide by the Court’s directions as to transfer or relisting.

Yours faithfully,

[Defendant’s full name]
Defendant

Copy DCB Legal in. Use the court’s email thread if possible so the context is obvious. Replace the subject placeholder with the actual claim number.

[RandG]

Many thanks b789, I've sent the reply.

[RandG]

Hearing was moved to 10am tomorrow, will post an update when I'm home

[b789]

Good luck for today. Remember, question their solicitors agent right of audience.

Whatever the outcome, please keep us informed about what actually happens on the day. If successful, remember to ask for your costs of travel to and from the hearing and if you are losing a day of work, you can ask for up to £95 in lost income or holiday pay if you are using that for your day off work.

[RandG]

Well there's good news: case dismissed!

Notes:

• The solicitors agent did approach before entering the court. Explained the process to me (a bit patronising?) then asked if I was planning to raise all the technical points of the WS or just the issue of the NtK. He called our argument convoluted - I politely declined to discuss outside the hearing! 
  
• Our supplementary witness statement and skeleton argument were submitted late - the judge said everything needed to be in by 16th February. He did note that there was limited extra content in these however so I still used these in the hearing.
  
• The person there on behalf of the claimant was not from DCB Legal so I raised the issue of right of audience but the judge said that this is normal with this sort of case for an agent to be sent and allowed it. The solicitors agent later made a comment in their submission because I raised this - as if to imply it was audacious!
  
• Before the claimant gave their submission, I was asked by the judge directly if it was my vehicle, who was driving (I said it was "my husband") and if I knew what the yellow markings in the bay meant. 
  
• We established that although it was my vehicle it was not me who drove into the bay, I am pictured in the drivers seat later on but I explained that we pulled up in the space and then I got in the drivers seat to move the car out as an alternative space became available (I'm pictured leaving the space).
  
• I emphasised the lack of notice to keeper, address discrepancy, and the single timestamp on the ntk. 
  
• The judge ruled I did not drive into the bay and therefore could not be pursued as the driver, but noted that the claimant could go after my husband (but I didn't give them his name). 
  
• The judge accepted the evidence that our DVLA address was not updated til the 1st June and so the ntk exhibited could not possibly have been sent to that address. Therefore there was no evidence that a compliant ntk was sent. 
  

And that appears to be the end of that. 

What can I say b789 apart from thank you for all the support from day 1. What a hero you are. We will buy you an expensive coffee. Please let us know if there's anything else we can do to support your work here. Perhaps create a case study example or similar?

I didn't raise about pursuing for costs at the hearing. I suspect you recommend it (I have taken the day off)?

Cheers, RandG