Park and Fine? Not This Time! - How One motorist, A Sharp Lawyer, and A Meticulous Court Dance Circled Rings Around a Parking Ticket Juggernaut!"

In a recent case at the County Court in Manchester, Vehicle Control Services Limited found themselves on the defensive. Our client, who had received multiple parking tickets, challenged a default judgment against her, asserting she was not the driver at the time of the infractions. Upon discovering the judgment, she made the application and sought our expertise.

We meticulously reviewed her case and advised an amendment to her application to include a strike-out application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and a request for summary judgment. Consequently, she engaged Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, our partner firm, for legal representation.

During the final hearing, Mr. Jackson Yamba of Lawrence and Associates represented our client. Although the Claimant initially opposed the amended application, Mr. Yamba adeptly argued that they had not suffered any prejudice as they had responded to the strike-out and summary judgment applications.

The Court, convinced by his argument and noting compliance with CPR 24.4, allowed the amended application. Mr. Yamba argued compellingly for a mandatory set aside, citing the Claimant’s failure to reasonably ascertain the Defendant’s current address at the time of claim form service.

He also presented a strong case for a discretionary set aside, highlighting a real prospect of the Defendant defeating the claim. He underscored that his client wasn’t the driver during the alleged contraventions, invoking Schedule 4 para 4. He further illustrated the defective nature of each notice to the keeper, pinpointing specific non-compliance with Schedule 4 para 9(2)(f) of POFA.

He emphasised the Claimant’s error in calculating the 28-day statutory period, a critical misstep that effectively shortened the stipulated timeframe. The Court, swayed by Mr. Yamba’s articulate presentation, set aside the judgment, struck out the claim, and granted summary judgment. The Claimant was ordered to pay costs amounting to £1,629.79.

This case serves as a poignant reminder to parking operators of the imperative to ensure the accuracy and compliance of their notices before pursuing keepers. The meticulous scrutiny of legal protocols and adherence to statutory requirements is not just advisable but essential to uphold the integrity of the legal process and the rights of the accused