At Contestor Legal Services, we’re proud to share a story of resilience, accountability, and justice. Yesterday, we secured a landmark victory for our client, Mrs. Paulina Doyle, at the County Court in South Shields. This case wasn’t just about parking charges it was about challenging an unfair system and standing up for what’s right. 

Mrs. Doyle’s vehicle was parked in a   public area outside the boundaries of Melbourne House Overflow Car Park   in Newcastle (NE12JQ). Despite this, she received   8 parking charges   from Vehicle Control Services (VCS). Astonishingly, her vehicle wasn’t even parked in their car park. When Mrs. Doyle appealed, both VCS and the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) dismissed her case, raising serious concerns about the fairness and independence of the appeals process. 

 Taking a Stand    

Refusing to be intimidated, Mrs. Doyle decided to fight back. She defended her case by submitting a   strong defence,   two witness statements  , and sought legal representation. At the first hearing, the claimant’s representative claimed they hadn’t received key documents, leading to an adjournment. However, yesterday, we turned the tide in her favour. 

 The Turning Point    

During the hearing, we demonstrated to the court that the vehicle was   parked outside the car park boundaries, as clearly shown on the provided map. This alone should have been enough to dismiss the claim. We also highlighted that the   particulars of the claim were defective and contained false information. While the court didn’t rule on this point, the claimant’s representative conceded the first argument, and we urged the court to dismiss the claim. 

 The Outcome    

The court ruled in our favour, stating that   VCS had acted unreasonably. They were ordered to pay over   £800 in costs. This victory isn’t just for Mrs. Doyle it’s a win for anyone who has ever felt powerless against unjust parking practices. 

 What’s Next?    

This is just the beginning. Mrs. Doyle is now preparing to issue further claims against Vehicle Control Services Ltd for: 

1.   Misusing her personal data   – by pursuing her for charges when her vehicle wasn’t even parked in their car park. 

2.   Harassment   – for the relentless and unjustified pursuit of these charges. 

3.   Tort of abuse of process   – for their unreasonable conduct and concession made during the court proceedings. 

Why This Matters    

This case is a powerful reminder that individuals have the right to challenge unfair systems and demand accountability. It also sheds light on the questionable independence of parking appeals services and the conduct of some parking companies. If you’ve faced similar issues, don’t give up. With determination and the right support, justice can prevail. 

 Let’s Talk    

Have you ever dealt with   unfair parking charges   or felt let down by the appeals process? Share your experiences in the comments—we’d love to hear your stories. If you’re facing a similar battle, don’t hesitate to reach out. Together, we can work toward a fairer, more just system. 

In a decisive ruling at Lincoln County Court, District Judge Armitage ordered Civil Enforcement Limited to pay £1,200 in costs following a successful strike-out application under CPR 3.4(2)(a). This outcome underscores the critical importance of robust legal representation in challenging improperly formulated claims, particularly those involving private parking charges.

Case Overview
Our client, Miss O’Brien, sought legal assistance after being pursued for three unpaid parking charges. Upon thorough review of her case, our team identified significant deficiencies in the Claimant’s particulars of claim. We advised Miss O’Brien to instruct our new solicitor partner Solicitor’s to file a strike-out application, citing non-compliance with CPR 16.4, CPR 16.4(1)(e), and Practice Direction 16.7. The application argued that the Claimant’s statement failed to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, rendering it legally unsustainable.

Key Deficiencies in the Claim

1. No Binding Contractual Obligation: The Claimant failed to establish that Miss O’Brien was subject to the purported parking terms. As a member of the gym, she was entitled to complimentary parking, a right further supported by the landowner’s agreement permitting parking for permit holders.
2. Unparticularized Alleged Terms: The Claimant did not adequately specify the contractual terms, offer, or consideration—essential elements for a valid claim.
3. Discrepancies in Documentation: The dates of alleged Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) listed in the claim contradicted those on the corresponding Notices to Keeper, undermining the Claimant’s credibility.

Court Proceedings and Outcome
At the final hearing, Advocate Mr. Jackson Yamba robustly represented Miss O’Brien. Prior to proceedings, Mr. Yamba alerted the Claimant to these material discrepancies and urged discontinuation of the claim. During the hearing, he invoked persuasive authority from Akande to reinforce the Defendant’s position, successfully arguing that procedural oversights by the Claimant warranted striking out the claim.

When addressing costs, the Claimant contended that the small claims track should limit liability. Mr. Yamba countered that no such allocation had been made and emphasised the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in persisting with a flawed case despite clear warnings. The Court agreed, ordering Civil Enforcement Limited to pay £1,200 in costs a clear admonition against pursuing unsubstantiated claims.

Implications for Motorists
This ruling highlights the necessity for motorists to seek expert legal guidance when contesting parking charges. Technical non-compliance by claimants can invalidate claims, and diligent advocacy can secure favourable outcomes while recovering costs.

Why Choose Our Services?
Our team specialises in identifying procedural weaknesses and mounting targeted challenges to protect motorists from unjust claims. Whether contesting flawed particulars, contractual ambiguities, or administrative errors, we provide strategic representation to uphold your rights.

For expert assistance in navigating parking charge disputes, contact us today. Let our expertise shield you from unmerited claims and secure the resolutions you deserve.

In a shocking display of predatory behaviour, Napier Parking Limited has issued an astonishing 41 Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) against our client, a tenant totalling a staggering £4,000. The client, seeking justice and relief, turned to our expert team for advice on disputing the tickets. Our investigation and subsequent defence strategy, led by the skilled ream , exposed the flaws in Napier's claims and ultimately led to a resounding victory for our client.

Upon reviewing the particulars of the claim, it became apparent that Napier's case was built on shaky ground. The location of the alleged contraventions was not particularised, and the terms relied upon, as well as the breach, were not clearly outlined. This glaring omission rendered the claim defective, and we advised our client to instruct Mr Jackson Yamba on behalf of Lawrence and Associates Solicitors to make inter alia an application to strike. Mr. Yamba, on behalf of Lawrence and Associates Solicitors LLP with his expertise in handling such cases, took the reins and guided our client through the complex legal process.

Napier was represented by BW Legal, a firm notorious in pursuing parking claims. Despite their reputation, our client remained undaunted and focused on building a robust defence. Following our application, the court issued an unless order against Napier, directing them to file a compliant particular of claim or face having their claim struck out.

In a surprising move, Napier filed a particular of claim that failed to comply with CPR 16.4(2)(ii) and (iii), which mandates that the Claimant specify if seeking interest, the date to which it is calculated, and the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation. The Claimant's omission of these crucial details is a glaring breach of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Our client filed a comprehensive defence, meticulously crafted to highlight the weaknesses in Napier's claim. Our client's witness statement, which formed the backbone of our client’s defence, provided a detailed account of the events leading up to the issuance of the PCNs. The statement revealed a pattern of mismanagement by the landowner, which had resulted in our client being unable to renew their parking permit. This, in turn, led to the issuance of multiple tickets, which Napier was now attempting to enforce.

At the final hearing, the advocate representing our client, highlighted the flaws with the amended particulars of claim with non-compliance with the CPR. The court, taking into account the argument presented, ruled in favour of our client, striking out Napier’s claim in its entirety. This victory was a testament to our expertise and dedication to fighting against unfair parking charges.

This case serves as a stark warning to Napier Parking Limited and other parking companies that engage in similar practices. Their aggressive tactics, designed to intimidate and coerce individuals into paying unjust fines, will not be tolerated. Our team will continue to fight against such behaviour, protecting the rights of individuals and upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

In this instance, our client's courage in standing up against Napier's bullying tactics has paid off, and they have been vindicated. We hope that this outcome will serve as a deterrent to other parking companies, encouraging them to adopt more transparent and fair practices. As for Napier, we urge them to reflect on their behaviour and consider the consequences of their actions. The courts will not tolerate non-compliance.

This case highlights the importance of seeking expert advice when dealing with parking disputes. Our client's decision to consult with us proved to be a wise one, as we were able to navigate the complex legal landscape and secure a favourable outcome. We urge anyone facing similar situations to seek professional guidance, as the consequences of not doing so can be severe.

In conclusion, our team is proud to have played a part in exposing Napier's aggressive tactics and securing justice for our client. We will continue to fight against unfair parking practices, protecting the rights of individuals and upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

In the recent case at the County Court at Peterborough, G24 Limited (the Claimant) was represented by Moorside Legal Service Ltd. The Defendant, our former client made an application seeking to strike out the Claimant's reissued claim, which had already been litigated and resolved in favour of the Defendant.

The Defendant's legal team, represented by Mr Jackson Yamba of Lawrence and Associates Solicitors LLP, argued that the Claimant's actions constituted an abuse of process under the Res Judicate principle, as the claim had already litigated and dismissed. Additionally, the Particulars of Claim submitted by G24 Limited were found to be inadequate, failing to specify essential details such as the contractual terms, specifics of the alleged breach, and the losses incurred.

As a result of these arguments, the court struck out the Claimant's claim and ordered G24 Limited to pay costs amounting to £901.80 to the Defendant.

Civil Enforcement Limited Ordered to Pay £1,280.65 After Failing to Comply with Civil Procedure Rules

In a recent court case, Civil Enforcement Limited was ordered to pay £1,280.65 after their particulars of claim were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.

The case was heard in the County Court at Newcastle, with the Defendant, represented by Mr. Jackson Yamba on behalf of Lawrence and Associate Solicitors LLP , successfully applying to strike out Civil Enforcement Limited's claim.

The key issues were:

1. Failure to Properly Plead the Terms of the Alleged Contract The particulars of claim failed to adequately set out the specific contractual terms that Civil Enforcement Limited was relying upon. For a contract formed by conduct, as was the case here, the rules require the claimant to specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done. Civil Enforcement Limited's pleadings were found to be vague and lacking in the necessary particulars.
2. Failure to Properly Plead the Alleged Breaches Similarly, the particulars of claim did not clearly identify the specific breaches of the alleged contracts by the defendant. The court found the allegations of breach to be overly general, without specifying the particular contractual obligations that were allegedly violated.
3. Failure to Properly Plead Loss and Damage The claimant also failed to properly plead how the alleged breaches caused them loss or damage, and did not provide a coherent breakdown of the quantification of the losses claimed.
4. Failure to Comply with Practice Direction 22.3.8 Finally, the court found that Civil Enforcement Limited had failed to comply with the requirement under Practice Direction 22.3.8 that the individual signing the statement of truth must print their full name clearly beneath their signature. The signature only included the initial "S" followed by the surname.

In striking out the claim, the court agreed with the submissions made by Mr Jackson Yamba that the deficiencies in Civil Enforcement Limited's particulars of claim were critical, warranting the claims being strike out. The court ordered Civil Enforcement Limited to pay our former client's costs in the sum of £1,280.65.

In what can only be described as one of the courtroom showdown of the year, the County Court in Exeter served up a win that felt more like a David versus Goliath. Our former client, a determined small business, faced off against the heavyweight, UK Car Park Management Limited, represented by the formidable Gladstone Solicitors. The result? A sweeping victory for the little guy, with a £2,154.10 icing on the cake for costs!

This electrifying victory is more than just breaking news—it's a clarion call for private parking operators to wake up and take note: adhere to the statutory framework or risk a hilarious—and financially painful—day in court.

The case began with an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged set of parking shenanigans on 10th May 2022. UK Car Park Management Limited took aim at our former client , the vehicle's hirer at the time. But little did they know, their target was ready to fight back!

The defendant sought counsel from our expert team, and we promptly connected them with our trusted partners at Lawrence and Associates Solicitors. Enter stage left: Mr. Jackson Yamba, the skilled legal representative who helped steer the defendant's ship with a bold move to strike out the Claimants claims for failing to meet CPR 16.4 requirements. The Claimant was permitted to amend their particulars of claim but order to pay costs.

The spotlight shifted to the courtroom stage, where the defendant brandished a robust and technically savvy defence. They showcased that the claimant had missed crucial steps to recover charges, as dictated by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. (“POFA”).

Among the arguments:

- The claimant’s failure to provide a valid "notice to hirer" in compliance with Schedule 4 para 14(5) of POFA

- Missing documents, including a statement from the vehicle hire firm and a hire agreement copy, standard regulations under Schedule 4 para 13(2) of POFA

Both parties were ordered to furnish witness statements, yet the claimant's host of Gladstone Solicitors didn't quite check off the required boxes. A fair warning was handed down to discontinue the claim to avoid unreasonable conduct costs—yet the claimant called their bluff and persisted.

At the final curtain, Mr. Jackson Yamba captivated the courtroom, presenting an air-tight defense that left District Judge Griffiths thoroughly persuaded. The culmination? A complete dismissal and the awarding of significant costs against the claimant—a hilarious, yet stern reminder of the costs of ignoring procedural propriety.

This blockbuster outcome spotlights a dire warning to private parking firms everywhere: neglect the rules, and the costs might just extinguish your business bottom line. But for the Defendant and Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, this landmark victory underscores the power of strategic and expert legal advice—ensuring justice with a sprinkle of courtroom comedy.

Are you bogged down with an unfair parking ticket from UK Car Park Management Limited? Don't let the big guns intimidate you. Reach out to us now for a consultation, and let’s make your parking woes the next headline-grabbing victory!

Before the County Court at Chelmsford ,our former client successfully appealed against a default judgment that had been entered against her, securing costs of £3,600 against Capital Car Park Control.

Presided over by His Honour Judge Dubbridge, the appeal revolved around alleged parking violations at a site managed by Terry Szmidt, trading as Capital Car Park Control. Initially, District Judge Coombe had refused to set aside the default judgment without providing any explanation. Unfazed, our client advanced the appeal on three primary grounds:

1. Non-receipt of the claim form was valid justification for setting aside the judgment.

2. Non-compliance with CPR 16.4, due to inadequate specification of the terms and breaches involved.

3. Defective notice to keeper, suggesting a strong potential for successfully defending the claim.

Our client's circumstances added an interesting dimension to the appeal; she had relocated to Australia a mere month before the claim was issued, which was sent to her last known address in the UK.

Unaware of the initial proceedings, a default judgment was enforced against her, impacting her parent's home. Upon learning of this, she promptly sought our assistance. Though her first application to set aside the judgment made by our solicitor’s partner Lawrence and Associate did not succeed, she was advised her to pursue an appeal. Permission was granted, leading to a thorough hearing on the matter.

In a noteworthy decision, the appellate court declared that the non-receipt of the claim was indeed other good reason to set aside the judgment on discretionary grounds. Additionally, the particulars of the claim were found defective, failing to clearly outline the alleged terms and breach, necessitating the setting aside of the judgment under CPR 13.3(b)

Further, the court agreed with submission made Mr Jackson Yamba, with significant issues with the notice to keeper, which did not specify the date on which the notice to driver was given as required under Schedule 4 para 8(2)(c) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This flaw was itself a ground to set aside judgement under CPR 13.3(a) as it prevented the Claimant from pursuing our former client as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Due to these critical legal oversights, the appeal court ruled in favour of our client in setting aside the default judgement. Capital Car Park Control was ordered to cover £3,600 in appeal-related costs.

In a landmark case, our consultant Mr. Jackson Yamba, working with Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, has secured a significant victory against Parking and Property Management Ltd. The court ordered the parking company to pay £2,603.99 in costs to our former client, highlighting the effectiveness of our collaborative approach in defending motorists against unfair parking claims.

This success story began when the defendant initially reached out to Contestor Legal Services for assistance. Recognizing the complexity of the case, we provided our legal expertise and advised the client to instruct our solicitor partner, Lawrence and Associates. The case was then expertly handled by Mr. Jackson Yamba in his capacity as a consultant for Lawrence and Associates Solicitors.

The case cantered on the claimant's failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16 7.5. Mr. Yamba's astute legal strategy exposed the inadequacies in the parking company's claim, demonstrating our combined expertise in procedural law and our commitment to protecting our clients' rights.

At Contestor Legal Services, in partnership with Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, we pride ourselves on our ability to challenge parking companies and secure favourable outcomes for our clients.

Our success in this case sends a clear message to parking companies: we will not tolerate substandard claims or attempts to circumvent proper legal procedures. For motorists facing parking disputes, our track record speaks for itself. We have the knowledge, experience, and determination to stand up to parking companies and protect your rights.

If you are facing a parking dispute, do not face it alone. Contact Contestor Legal Services today, and let our team of experts, including partnerships with firms like Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, fight for you. With our proven track record of success and our ability to connect you with the right legal representation, you can trust us to deliver the results you deserve.

Remember, when it comes to parking disputes, choose the team that wins. Choose Contestor Legal Services and benefit from our network of legal experts.

Have you recently received a parking ticket from Parking Control Management UK Limited? Are you frustrated and unsure of how to contest the fine? You're not alone. Many motorists are being unfairly targeted by private parking companies, and it's time to take a stand.

At Contestor, we specialize in helping drivers like you fight back against unjust parking tickets. One of the most common issues we see is the failure of parking companies to provide a clear period of parking on their tickets. This is a critical mistake, and one that can be used to your advantage.

The Law is on Your Side

According to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, a parking charge notice must clearly state the period of parking. This is not just a minor detail; it's a crucial piece of information that allows you to understand the alleged contravention and respond accordingly.

In a recent court case, District Judge Cridge ruled in favor of a defendant who contested a parking ticket issued by Parking Control Management UK Limited. The judge found that the parking charge notice was defective because it failed to specify the period of parking. This ruling sets a powerful precedent for motorists who are being unfairly targeted by private parking companies.

Don't Pay Unfair Fines!

If you've received a parking ticket from Parking Control Management UK Limited, don't assume you have to pay up. Contestor can help you contest the fine and potentially save you hundreds of pounds.

Our team of experts will review your case and identify any weaknesses in the parking company's argument. We'll help you build a strong defense and represent you in court, if necessary.

Take Action Today!

Don't let Parking Control Management UK Limited take advantage of you. Contact Contestor today to learn more about how we can help you contest your parking ticket.

Call to Action:

If you've received a parking ticket from Parking Control Management UK Limited, don't delay. Contact Contestor today to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards fighting back against unfair parking fines.

Remember:

• A parking charge notice must clearly state the period of parking.
• If the notice is defective, you may be able to contest the fine.
• Contestor is here to help you fight back against unfair parking tickets.

Don't let Parking Control Management UK Limited take advantage of you. Contact Contestor today and take back control of your parking rights!

When it comes to legal disputes, having the right representation can make all the difference between winning and losing - not to mention how much it will cost you. This harsh reality was driven home for Car Park Management Services Ltd (CPMS) in a recent parking charge battle that left them over £8,668 out of pocket.

It all started when CPMS issued a parking charge notice to Mr. Akande for allegedly breaching the terms at one of their car parks. Seemingly a straightforward case of recovering a £100 charge. However, the legal work by CPMS's solicitors, BW Legal Services Ltd, was so poorly executed that it torpedoed the entire claim from the start.

Upon receiving the vague and inadequate particulars of claim from BW Legal Services Ltd, Mr. Akande knew he needed real legal expertise on his side. That's when he turned to the parking charge professionals at Contestor Legal Services.

Our team immediately recognised the glaring deficiencies in BW Legal's paperwork that violated civil procedure rules. We advised Mr. Akande to make an application to strike out the claim and referred him to our trusted solicitor partners at Lawrence and Associates to handle the matter.

At the initial hearing, Lawrence and Associates' advocate Mr. Jackson Yamba successfully got the claim struck out due to BW Legal's inability to properly plead their case. CPMS was ordered to pay £840 in costs.

Incredibly, CPMS chose to double down by appealing the decision - no doubt racking up even more legal fees from BW Legal in the process. But their folly was complete when Her Honour Judge Evans also ruled against them at the appeal hearing, again criticising the inadequate particulars and ordered costs again them of £1999.86.

When the costs orders were finally tallied, CPMS had hemorrhaged £8,668.11 - nearly 87 times the original £100 parking charge they were trying to enforce! All because they failed at the most basic legal requirement of properly pleading their claim.

For Mr. Akande, the nightmare parking dispute became a total vindication thanks to the legal acumen of Contestor Legal Services and Lawrence and Associates. But for CPMS, it serves as an expensive reminder.

Have you received a claim form from BW Legal Services Ltd ? are you concerned about receiving a default Judgement ? Please contact us immediately.