06-03-2026, 07:22 PM
This is useful, but it does not require any immediate reply unless the court specifically directs one. It is their permitted “Reply to Defence”. The next substantive step remains the updated witness evidence/documents deadline of 24 June 2026.
The reply is weak in several places.
First, they try to say the Defence has not addressed their pleaded facts and that matters are therefore admitted under CPR 16.5(5). That is overreach. The Defence clearly denies liability, challenges the contractual basis, signage, location, PoFA compliance, period of parking, authority, residential rights and added sums. They cannot manufacture admissions simply because the Defence does not plead a full witness statement-style rebuttal.
Second, their answer to the defective pleading point is poor. At paragraph 10 they effectively say they do not need to identify the specific contractual terms because this is a “known template argument”. That is not an answer to CPR 16.4, PD 16 or Liberty Homes. If the claim is based on a contract by conduct through signage, they still need to identify the material terms relied upon and explain how each of the three different alleged contraventions gives rise to liability.
Third, their keeper/driver point is muddled. At paragraph 11 they say the Defendant does not deny being the driver. That is not the same thing as proving the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant is entitled to put them to proof. They then say they can pursue the Defendant as registered keeper anyway, but that depends on full PoFA compliance, which remains disputed.
Fourth, their PoFA “period of parking” argument is poor. The Claimant’s reply confirms that the NtKs used the wording that the period of parking was “the period immediately preceding the incident time”. That is precisely the defective wording being challenged. It remains circular and undefined. Their assertion that “period of parking” is not defined in PoFA does not remove the statutory requirement for the NtK itself to specify the relevant period of parking. Separate evidential photographs, if not included with the NtK, do not cure that statutory defect. Later photographs may show that a vehicle was present at particular moments, but they cannot retrospectively repair a NtK which failed to specify the period of parking required by Schedule 4.
Fifth, their consideration period answer is weak. Saying that later photographs show nobody in the vehicle does not prove when the vehicle arrived, whether it was continuously observed, whether the driver was given the required opportunity to read the signs, or whether any contract had already been formed before enforcement. In any event, later evidence cannot be used to rewrite the NtK. The issue is not merely whether UKCPM can produce photographs showing presence; it is whether the notice and evidence prove a proper period of parking, a proper consideration period, and a properly formed contract before the PCN was issued.
Sixth, the residential point remains live. They rely on the AST wording, but that cuts both ways because it confirms that parking was already regulated by the tenancy/residential framework. UKCPM still has to prove that its signage created a separate enforceable contract, that the terms were incorporated, and that it had authority to charge a tenant/resident at the precise locations alleged.
Seventh, they have not properly answered the boundary-map point. If their contractual authority map does not cover the hard-standing area where the vehicle was located for at least two PCNs, then their authority at the precise location remains a major issue.
Eighth, the added-sum response is thin. Saying the signage mentions debt recovery costs does not answer the PoFA keeper-cap point, the mismatch in the figures, or whether the added sum is genuinely recoverable rather than a dressed-up double recovery.
The practical position is simple: this Reply does not cure the defects in their case. It gives useful material for your updated witness statement, particularly on their muddled driver/keeper position, their weak period-of-parking answer, their failure to engage properly with the boundary issue, and their reliance on the tenancy agreement while pretending residential rights are irrelevant.
@Barbudaprince, BW Legal have made a point in their Reply to Defence that the AST copy previously provided had the tenant names redacted, so they say they cannot ascertain who it relates to. Can you confirm whether the AST you sent with your original witness statement had your name redacted? If it did, why was it redacted? Was it simply for privacy/data protection reasons, or was it an accidental over-redaction?
This needs to be dealt with in the updated witness statement. If you are relying on the AST to prove that you were a tenant/resident at Wheatstone House, the court and the Claimant need to be able to see that the tenancy relates to you and to the relevant property. Otherwise BW Legal will try to say the AST proves nothing.
The best approach is not to send anything separately now unless the court directes a reply. Instead, include with the updated witness statement an unredacted or minimally redacted copy of the AST. Your own name, the property address, the tenancy date, the relevant parking/residential clauses and the signature/execution pages should be visible. Irrelevant personal or financial information can still be redacted if necessary, but not anything needed to prove that the AST is yours and applies to Wheatstone House.
In the updated WS, this can be dealt with simply:
That neutralises the point. It also avoids unnecessary correspondence with BW Legal, who are not going to deal with this fairly or helpfully.
The witness statement now needs to be prepared as the main evidential document, not another argument-only defence.
The deadline is 4pm on 24 June 2026. It must be filed at Wandsworth County Court and served on BW Legal/UKCPM by that deadline. The sensible approach is to have the WS, exhibits and index finished by 23 June, with only final checking on 24 June.
The WS should focus on these points:
For the WS, you will need the key exhibits in this order:
The WS should be drafted as a clear first-person factual statement, with argument kept controlled and tied to the exhibits. The legal submissions can be short and embedded where necessary, but the priority is to make the judge understand: "I was a resident; UKCPM’s authority and signage do not cover what they claim; the notices are defective; and they have not proved liability."
@Barbudaprince, I suggest you now start putting together your updated witness statement based on the points above.
Remember, the witness statement is your narrative to the court. It is not another defence and it is not meant to be legal argument only. It should explain, in your own words, what happened, your connection to the property, what the tenancy says about parking, where the vehicle was positioned, what the claimant’s evidence does or does not show, and why you say UKCPM has not proved its case.
Do not worry too much at this stage about the formal heading, exhibit numbering or Statement of Truth. The important thing for now is that you produce a clear draft showing that you understand the issues and what evidence you are relying on.
In particular, make sure you deal with the AST point. If the copy previously provided had your name redacted, explain why. If you are relying on the AST to prove your residential status, the updated witness statement should exhibit a copy where your name, the property address, the relevant parking clause, the dates and execution/signature page are visible. Irrelevant personal information can still be redacted if necessary.
Also make sure you include the point that later evidential photographs cannot cure a defective Notice to Keeper. PoFA requires the NtK itself to specify the period of parking. Later photographs may show the vehicle at particular moments, but they cannot retrospectively fix a notice that failed to specify the statutory period of parking.
The deadline for updated witness evidence and documents is 4pm on 24 June 2026. Please do not leave this until the last minute. Put together your draft and show me what you have as soon as possible, ideally allowing at least a couple of days before the deadline so I can make any necessary corrections or adjustments. I can draft a polished version for you if yours needs restructuring, but I need your factual narrative and exhibits first.
The reply is weak in several places.
First, they try to say the Defence has not addressed their pleaded facts and that matters are therefore admitted under CPR 16.5(5). That is overreach. The Defence clearly denies liability, challenges the contractual basis, signage, location, PoFA compliance, period of parking, authority, residential rights and added sums. They cannot manufacture admissions simply because the Defence does not plead a full witness statement-style rebuttal.
Second, their answer to the defective pleading point is poor. At paragraph 10 they effectively say they do not need to identify the specific contractual terms because this is a “known template argument”. That is not an answer to CPR 16.4, PD 16 or Liberty Homes. If the claim is based on a contract by conduct through signage, they still need to identify the material terms relied upon and explain how each of the three different alleged contraventions gives rise to liability.
Third, their keeper/driver point is muddled. At paragraph 11 they say the Defendant does not deny being the driver. That is not the same thing as proving the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant is entitled to put them to proof. They then say they can pursue the Defendant as registered keeper anyway, but that depends on full PoFA compliance, which remains disputed.
Fourth, their PoFA “period of parking” argument is poor. The Claimant’s reply confirms that the NtKs used the wording that the period of parking was “the period immediately preceding the incident time”. That is precisely the defective wording being challenged. It remains circular and undefined. Their assertion that “period of parking” is not defined in PoFA does not remove the statutory requirement for the NtK itself to specify the relevant period of parking. Separate evidential photographs, if not included with the NtK, do not cure that statutory defect. Later photographs may show that a vehicle was present at particular moments, but they cannot retrospectively repair a NtK which failed to specify the period of parking required by Schedule 4.
Fifth, their consideration period answer is weak. Saying that later photographs show nobody in the vehicle does not prove when the vehicle arrived, whether it was continuously observed, whether the driver was given the required opportunity to read the signs, or whether any contract had already been formed before enforcement. In any event, later evidence cannot be used to rewrite the NtK. The issue is not merely whether UKCPM can produce photographs showing presence; it is whether the notice and evidence prove a proper period of parking, a proper consideration period, and a properly formed contract before the PCN was issued.
Sixth, the residential point remains live. They rely on the AST wording, but that cuts both ways because it confirms that parking was already regulated by the tenancy/residential framework. UKCPM still has to prove that its signage created a separate enforceable contract, that the terms were incorporated, and that it had authority to charge a tenant/resident at the precise locations alleged.
Seventh, they have not properly answered the boundary-map point. If their contractual authority map does not cover the hard-standing area where the vehicle was located for at least two PCNs, then their authority at the precise location remains a major issue.
Eighth, the added-sum response is thin. Saying the signage mentions debt recovery costs does not answer the PoFA keeper-cap point, the mismatch in the figures, or whether the added sum is genuinely recoverable rather than a dressed-up double recovery.
The practical position is simple: this Reply does not cure the defects in their case. It gives useful material for your updated witness statement, particularly on their muddled driver/keeper position, their weak period-of-parking answer, their failure to engage properly with the boundary issue, and their reliance on the tenancy agreement while pretending residential rights are irrelevant.
@Barbudaprince, BW Legal have made a point in their Reply to Defence that the AST copy previously provided had the tenant names redacted, so they say they cannot ascertain who it relates to. Can you confirm whether the AST you sent with your original witness statement had your name redacted? If it did, why was it redacted? Was it simply for privacy/data protection reasons, or was it an accidental over-redaction?
This needs to be dealt with in the updated witness statement. If you are relying on the AST to prove that you were a tenant/resident at Wheatstone House, the court and the Claimant need to be able to see that the tenancy relates to you and to the relevant property. Otherwise BW Legal will try to say the AST proves nothing.
The best approach is not to send anything separately now unless the court directes a reply. Instead, include with the updated witness statement an unredacted or minimally redacted copy of the AST. Your own name, the property address, the tenancy date, the relevant parking/residential clauses and the signature/execution pages should be visible. Irrelevant personal or financial information can still be redacted if necessary, but not anything needed to prove that the AST is yours and applies to Wheatstone House.
In the updated WS, this can be dealt with simply:
Quote:The Claimant has suggested that the AST previously exhibited could not be linked to me because the tenant names were redacted. The redactions were applied for privacy reasons and not because the tenancy was unrelated. To avoid any possible ambiguity, I now exhibit a copy of the AST with my name, the property address, the relevant terms and the execution page visible.
That neutralises the point. It also avoids unnecessary correspondence with BW Legal, who are not going to deal with this fairly or helpfully.
The witness statement now needs to be prepared as the main evidential document, not another argument-only defence.
The deadline is 4pm on 24 June 2026. It must be filed at Wandsworth County Court and served on BW Legal/UKCPM by that deadline. The sensible approach is to have the WS, exhibits and index finished by 23 June, with only final checking on 24 June.
The WS should focus on these points:
- The defendant’s residential status and the tenancy/AST parking provisions.
- The fact that parking was already governed by the residential arrangements, not simply by UKCPM’s later signage.
- The exact locations of the vehicle for each PCN, especially the hard-standing area.
- The claimant’s own boundary/authority map not covering the hard-standing location for at least two PCNs.
- The defective NtKs, especially the failure to specify the statutory period of parking.
- The fact that later evidential photos cannot cure a defective NtK. PoFA requires the notice itself to specify the period of parking. Separate photos served later may show a vehicle at certain moments, but they do not retrospectively repair the notice.
- The lack of evidence of any consideration period before enforcement.
- The inadequacy, visibility and applicability of signage at the precise vehicle locations.
- The claimant’s muddled driver/keeper position.
- The added sums and the attempt to recover more than the NtK amount from a keeper.
For the WS, you will need the key exhibits in this order:
- The three NtKs/PCNs.
- The detailed Particulars of Claim.
- The Defence as filed.
- BW Legal’s Reply to Defence.
- The tenancy agreement or at least the relevant parking clauses.
- The claimant’s boundary/authority map.
- Photos showing where the vehicle was parked for each PCN.
- Any claimant evidence photos.
- Any signage photos.
- The order dated 29 April 2026.
The WS should be drafted as a clear first-person factual statement, with argument kept controlled and tied to the exhibits. The legal submissions can be short and embedded where necessary, but the priority is to make the judge understand: "I was a resident; UKCPM’s authority and signage do not cover what they claim; the notices are defective; and they have not proved liability."
@Barbudaprince, I suggest you now start putting together your updated witness statement based on the points above.
Remember, the witness statement is your narrative to the court. It is not another defence and it is not meant to be legal argument only. It should explain, in your own words, what happened, your connection to the property, what the tenancy says about parking, where the vehicle was positioned, what the claimant’s evidence does or does not show, and why you say UKCPM has not proved its case.
Do not worry too much at this stage about the formal heading, exhibit numbering or Statement of Truth. The important thing for now is that you produce a clear draft showing that you understand the issues and what evidence you are relying on.
In particular, make sure you deal with the AST point. If the copy previously provided had your name redacted, explain why. If you are relying on the AST to prove your residential status, the updated witness statement should exhibit a copy where your name, the property address, the relevant parking clause, the dates and execution/signature page are visible. Irrelevant personal information can still be redacted if necessary.
Also make sure you include the point that later evidential photographs cannot cure a defective Notice to Keeper. PoFA requires the NtK itself to specify the period of parking. Later photographs may show the vehicle at particular moments, but they cannot retrospectively fix a notice that failed to specify the statutory period of parking.
The deadline for updated witness evidence and documents is 4pm on 24 June 2026. Please do not leave this until the last minute. Put together your draft and show me what you have as soon as possible, ideally allowing at least a couple of days before the deadline so I can make any necessary corrections or adjustments. I can draft a polished version for you if yours needs restructuring, but I need your factual narrative and exhibits first.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
