Total Parking Solutions and BW Legal could not comply with Court Order

Total Parking Solutions (TPS) instructed BW Legal to issue proceedings against our client for an alleged contravention which took place on 04/03/2017 at Market Place Retail Park at Cheltenham, GL52 2ND. In a nutshell, our client overstayed by 21 minutes. We were instructed in this matter and assisted our client in drafting his defence. In his defence, our client raised issues on TPS’s authority to issue parking ticket and proceedings on behalf of the landowner and the unlawfulness additional charge of £60.00.

As evidence of their authority, TPS exhibited an agreement (“The Agreement”) signed on 05/07/2013 with Westcombe Asset Management Ltd (Landowner). It was also clear from their witness, Mr Corrin Brown, Senior and very experienced solicitor at BW Legal that Agreement sets out TPS standing and right to manage and enforce the terms and conditions of the Car Park.

Before the first hearing, we conducted some research on Company House and discovered that the Landowner was dissolved on the 12/05/2015; 2 years prior to the alleged contravention. The discovery exposed the credibility of TPS’ witness and t was unquestionable fact from the new evidence, that TPS did not have the right to manage and enforce the terms and conditions of the Car Park from the 12/05/2015.

Following this, we filed and served a skeleton of argument before the hearing with evidence extracted from the Company House to corroborate our client’s position about TPS’s lack of authority. In response to our skeleton of argument, BW Legal argued that the Agreement was novated to Bath Properties Limited. Their change of position came as a surprise to us. In addition to their unprecedent explanation, BW Legal requested that the Court should reject our client new evidence. Unfortunately, the Court was not prepared to grant such request.

BW Legal’s position on novation was misguided, nonsensical, legally incorrected and even misleading.

In English contractual law, novation is a mechanism which extinguishes an initial contract and replaces it with another contract in which a third party takes up the rights and obligations which duplicate those of one of the original parties to the agreement. As a general rule, novation should be documented and signed by all the parties

BW legal exhibited one page titled : “Amendment to contract signed on 11/07/2013” between TPS and Bath Properties Limited as evidence of the novation. The amendment was not signed by the Landowner before its dissolution. This itself was a clear indication that novation never took place.

The first telephone hearing took place on 05/01/2022. The Court unsuccessfully attempted to call on numerous occasions both BW legal and their advocate. While the Court was in a process of dismissing the claim, the advocate represented TPS suddenly appeared. The Court ordered TPS to pay our client’s loss of earning and our attendance costs for our attendance were reserved. The hearing was adjourned for 07/02/2022.

At the hearing on 07/02/2022, the Court dismissed the claim on the additional charges of £60.00 and our client’s defence on grace period. However, TPS was ordered to file and serve a skeleton of argument/witness statement in relation to the issue of authority to continue action at the site after 12/05/2015 when the Landowner was dissolved together with any documents in support. Our client was also ordered to file and serve a skeleton of argument /witness statement in response. The matter was listed for a hearing on 05/07/2022.

On the 01/03/2022, BW legal surprisingly wrote to our client as follows : “We write further to the Court’s adjournment of this matter. The adjournment was on the basis of a last minute technical point raised by your legal advisor. Therefore our position is that our client is entitled to the costs of the last hearing in any event. We are able to seek evidence from our client as their authority under contractual licence, but we are conscious of the further costs to be incurred by both ourselves and you . On that basis, we are instructed to make an offer to settle the claim at £100, including our costs to date, if accepted by 4PM on Friday 18 March 2022.”

The correspondence was in our view unethical with intention to obtain payment from our client with threat. Further, TPS’ authority was not raised at the last minute as wrongly claimed. The point was raised in our client’s defence. If TPS really had such authority, they should have been able to disclose the evidence to the Court and us. In any event, we simply recommended our client to ignore the correspondence and wait for their evidence. Surprisingly, on 15/03/2022, TPS instructed BW legal to discontinue claim by filing and serving a Notice of Discontinuance.

We have serious concerns on the way BW Legal conducted themselves as Officers of Court and in accordance with the SRA Code of Conduct to the public during the course of these proceedings. We have encouraged our client to file a complaint about their integrity and ethics as set out in the SRA Code of Conduct and make an application for costs against TPS.

If TPS was possession of the authority as claimed, why hasn’t it been exhibited ? Further, why seeking to recover money unlawfully ? Finally why BW Legal wasted the Court time and even attempted to settle the claim without evidence of their client’s entitlement ?

This is just one of the story amongst many others. We would like to hear you story and experience about unlawful parking charges.

Have you received a Parking Charge Notice ? a letter before claim or claim ? Do not ignore any correspondence and please seek legal assistance before responding. If you are concerned about the high cost of instructing a lawyer, Contestor Legal Service is the alternative. We can assist you on low fixed cost or no win no fee . Please do not hesitate to contact us as soon as possible.