08-26-2026, 12:17 PM
So I've just come back from the hearing and in summary:
1) judge has ordered that I pay £100 for PCN on 13th May as well as £70.00 Claim issue fee: £70.00 and solicitors costs: £70.00 and hearing fee of £49 so grand total of £299. He did not include the debt recovery costs on the basis that the signage did not specify what that amount could be.
1)a) Order is for me to pay by 7th October 2026.
2) the two other PCNs (6th May and 3rd May) fell outside of the enforcement boundary and therefore those claims were dismissed. We spent some time discussing this enforcement boundary matter and I had to show the judge and claimant's solicitor my evidence. The judge advised the claimants solicitor to not overreach on some points for example asking me where I parked now and trying to introduce new evidence.
3) judge didnt agree with period of parking argument stating that each PCN/ Notice to Keeper says: "the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately proceeding the incident time stated above"
3)a) I did try to counter using the points from my witness statement but he wasn't having any of it. His rebuttal was that POFA is prescriptive and doesn't specify that a period of parking or what that period is. Judge was a bit dismissive around some arguments made with both parties it must be said.
4) Judge didn't agree with the signage being unclear. And instead said the parking condition part of the sign is clear and that any user of the site would read that part and then the small print below it.
5) Judge did not agree with the points around the tenancy and in fact said it is irrelevant.
6) Judge stated that parking eye vs bevis has the most legal weighting in this case, and that the other case law referred to was irelevant Brennan because it was a specific scenario and VCS Vs Ian Mark Edward he just said was irrelevant because the claimant was pursuing the keeper.
7) Judge did say what the claimant's solicior had done to move the parking points to fall inside the boundarywas crude.
8) there was one point in the start of the hearing where the judge stated that I had said in my defense I had a right to park on the development and I corrected him that I didn't say that, he then asked if I wrote the defense - the cheek! I then had to retract my statement and this interaction through me off.
9) I did also reiterate that the driver had not been identified and therefore this was on the claimant to prove. The judges response was that it is a notice to keeper claim therefore that is irrelevant.I did come back and say again for the reasons in my witness statement why the notice to keeper was not compliant with POFA, and the judge was dismissive of this.
In conclusion bit of a win and lose scenario because the price I am required to pay is still high, and greater than what was offered at the Notice to Keeper stage. But still lower than what I would have had to have paid if all three pcns were upheld.
Thanks for your help. This should help me with my other cases.
1) judge has ordered that I pay £100 for PCN on 13th May as well as £70.00 Claim issue fee: £70.00 and solicitors costs: £70.00 and hearing fee of £49 so grand total of £299. He did not include the debt recovery costs on the basis that the signage did not specify what that amount could be.
1)a) Order is for me to pay by 7th October 2026.
2) the two other PCNs (6th May and 3rd May) fell outside of the enforcement boundary and therefore those claims were dismissed. We spent some time discussing this enforcement boundary matter and I had to show the judge and claimant's solicitor my evidence. The judge advised the claimants solicitor to not overreach on some points for example asking me where I parked now and trying to introduce new evidence.
3) judge didnt agree with period of parking argument stating that each PCN/ Notice to Keeper says: "the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately proceeding the incident time stated above"
3)a) I did try to counter using the points from my witness statement but he wasn't having any of it. His rebuttal was that POFA is prescriptive and doesn't specify that a period of parking or what that period is. Judge was a bit dismissive around some arguments made with both parties it must be said.
4) Judge didn't agree with the signage being unclear. And instead said the parking condition part of the sign is clear and that any user of the site would read that part and then the small print below it.
5) Judge did not agree with the points around the tenancy and in fact said it is irrelevant.
6) Judge stated that parking eye vs bevis has the most legal weighting in this case, and that the other case law referred to was irelevant Brennan because it was a specific scenario and VCS Vs Ian Mark Edward he just said was irrelevant because the claimant was pursuing the keeper.
7) Judge did say what the claimant's solicior had done to move the parking points to fall inside the boundarywas crude.
8) there was one point in the start of the hearing where the judge stated that I had said in my defense I had a right to park on the development and I corrected him that I didn't say that, he then asked if I wrote the defense - the cheek! I then had to retract my statement and this interaction through me off.
9) I did also reiterate that the driver had not been identified and therefore this was on the claimant to prove. The judges response was that it is a notice to keeper claim therefore that is irrelevant.I did come back and say again for the reasons in my witness statement why the notice to keeper was not compliant with POFA, and the judge was dismissive of this.
In conclusion bit of a win and lose scenario because the price I am required to pay is still high, and greater than what was offered at the Notice to Keeper stage. But still lower than what I would have had to have paid if all three pcns were upheld.
Thanks for your help. This should help me with my other cases.
