A win is a win. Well done for persevering.
Regarding the judgment, on what aspect of the contract did the judge find that it was not valid? Was there any mention of the redactions? Was there mention of the different entities that had signed the contract and whether it flowed from the landowner?
Did the judge make any other comments about the case or the presentation of it?
If the judge agrees that the claimant has acted unreasonably, you can claim additional costs. So, you may as well prepare a costs list of your time spent on this at £19/hour plus any incidentals.Costs are generally very limited in the small claims track, as b789 highlights (this works both ways, so also serves as a bit of protection for you, in that you won't be required to pay eye-watering legal fees if you were unlucky enough to lose). The bar for 'unreasonable' behaviour is high, so you'd be lucky to get costs for your time, but there's little harm in asking, although you may want to briefly consider why you believe their behaviour to be unreasonable, so that you can articulate this.
When they say they won’t be attending, it doesn’t mean they won’t have an advocate there. They will have a local jobbing legal rep. They will have little idea about the case and will probably only have received the bundle the day before or even on the day.
You will be in a very strong position as you know all the facts and you have your WS. Their rep may try to take you to one side while you’re waiting for you hearing. Don’t let them try and persuade you that you should settle. Politely decline.
When you go, make sure you take a spare paper copy of your WS. It’s not uncommon for the rep to say they have not received a copy of your WS to try and delay proceedings. Being able to produce a spare is a good move.
It will be worth your while to call the court tomorrow and check that they have paid the trial fee. Again, not unusual for them to have failed to do so or even discontinued and not informed you.
As for what is likely to happen on the day, of it is still going ahead, have look at this short video of the process:
https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU
Make sure that you remember to ask for your costs at the end when you win.
The limit is 25 pages/50 sides. As long as they have accepted the bundle and you received an auto response email from the CNBC when you sent it, that is all done.
There is no timeline. The case management judge will look at the bundles and either order something, such as the request in the WS for the Claimant to provide answers to all the questions asked that have not been answered as required by CPR 16.4 or may simply throw the case out or require everyone to attend the hearing and face the consequences of their actions. How long is a piece of string?
If it is chucked out before a hearing, it won't be a surprise as Gladstones have a habit of irritating judges with their bulk litigation failures. We'll see.
In order to manage Court time and resources efficiently please confirm if this case is going to be effective or whether the parties will be settling/ have come to an agreement as soon as possible and preferably 48 hours before the hearing.
If you plan to seek an adjournment, please do so as soon as possible and preferably 48 hours before the hearing.
Please note the following:
This case will be listed in a "back to back" list. These lists are designed to clear a large amount of small claims hearings by arranging a number of cases in a single list to be heard by one of up to 6 District Judges. Court staff are unable to inform you of the Judge or the exact time of the hearing. You should be available at the time shown on your hearing notice. Any queries over the listing of the case, orders from the hearing or applications to adjourn should be made to this Court. In addition to this any applications that are received later than 5 working days before the hearing will be extremely difficult to refer to a Judge for approval due to the busy nature of the hearing lists. On these occasions the application will be put on the file to be dealt with at the hearing. If you do not receive a response to your application before the hearing it will denote that the case remains in the list. Court staff are not legally trained and cannot give advice as to whether you should attend your hearing or not
If you have deadline of 4pm tomorrow, I'd leave it to the last minute. If you can, email it at 3:30pm.
If it's not too late... here is a link to an editable Word format version of the document:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ikzbcl4eslmnxmukoyi9g/WS.docx?rlkey=17jlcl6zy2dhrbplwy12pko0c&st=8b6wccb1&dl=0
And if you're an Apple Mac user, here is a link to an editable Pages version:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7s40br3o1lfwksf66dz70/WS.pages?rlkey=79lp1h6rap9jq816zjf68a5w9&st=0su552md&dl=0
It is relevant. If the contract is with one registered company but that company is not the landowner because a different registered company is the landowner, is important.
Looking at the Companies House records, Vapesdirect-UK Ltd is in the process of being liquidated. They owe HMRC over £2.3 million and only have assets of around £15,000 of which are likely to realise £0.
Anicres UK Ltd with net assets of £96,000 is unlikely to be the landowner. So, there is no evidence that the contract shown is either valid or flows from the landowner.
I will make an amendment to the WS to cover this fact. Once that has been done, please review it, change any necessary details such as the claim number and your name and address where applicable plus any reference to dates and then type your name for the signature, date it and then save it in PDF format.
In which county court is the hearing supposed to be?
As you have redacted the name of the client, are you positive that the client is the landowner or an agent of the landowner? If they are an agent, such as a management company, there does not appear to be any evidence in that contract that they have any authority flowing from the landowner to operate.
Please confirm the name of the client or at least confirm whether the client is the landowner or an agent of the landowner.
IN THE UXBRIDGE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]Between
Hounslow Enforcement Limited
(Claimant)
- and -
[Your Full Name]
(Defendant)
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. My name is [Your Full Name], and I reside at [Address]. I am the Defendant in these proceedings and this Witness Statement is made from my own knowledge and research, and I confirm that the facts stated within it are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out
2. I respectfully submit that before proceeding with the hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter: striking out the claim due to the Claimant's and/or their solicitor’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts. It is embarrassing that the Claimant’s solicitor, a firm widely recognised for its bulk litigation process of issuing thousands of poorly pleaded claims each month, has once again provided inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC). In this case, the PoC are so deficient that I, as the Defendant, was expected to prepare a defence without a proper understanding of the facts and allegations against me.
3. Dismissing the claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms like the notorious Gladstones with their well-documented connections to the IPC Trade Body) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, they should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:
4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."
The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-01 CPMS v Akande judgment)
5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held that"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract."
The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-02 CEL v Chan judgment)
6. There are many other examples of similarly poorly pleaded claims that have been struck out, both at allocation stage and at hearings. (See exhibit XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments)
The basis of the defence
7. These are the woefully inadequate PoC as provided to me by the Claimant through their solicitor utilising MCOL:"THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION ENTER THE VEHICLE REG PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT) AT NORTH HYDE HOUSE HAYES, ON 19/04/2023, 18/04/2023, THUS INCURRING THE PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £15.14 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT £0.07 PER DAY."
8. As evidenced, there is a lack of precise detail in the PoC in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is no precise or even concise factual allegation made against me. There is no factual or legal basis for the claim. It is not shown how the claim has been calculated.
9. Should the court not agree that the claim should be struck out, I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to provide further particulars that, for the avoidance of doubt, must:(a) refer to and have attached to them a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on.
(b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on.
(c) have attached to them a copy of each of the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) which forms the basis of this claim.
(d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first brought to the attention of the defendant. For example, attaching it to the defendant's vehicle or sending by post.
(e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
(f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i) the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii) the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii) exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was incurred.
(g) state, in respect of each PCN sued on, whether the claim is (or is not) brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
(h) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or the keeper of the vehicle.
(i) not state that the defendant is sued in the alternative as the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
(j) state what amount of the claim is the claim for non-payment of the PCNs and what amount of the claim is not for non-payment of the PCNs.
(k) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the claim for any amount claimed which is not for non-payment of the PCNs.
(l) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest started running.
Should the Claimant fully comply with the order and the claim is not struck out, I should be allowed to provide an amended defence based on all the facts provided by the order.
Hearsay evidence
10. The Claimants 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.
11. While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, it is required to be given less weight, especially when it comes from someone with no firsthand knowledge. Furthermore, under CPR 32.2, the court has the discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it is of limited probative value. In this case, the witness provides only second-hand information from the claimant and cannot be considered reliable or probative.
12. The claimant's Witness Statement (WS) fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with no direct involvement in the events, relies on information provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which weakens its credibility. Further, the claimant's witness has failed to indicate the source of any information and belief, as required under PD 32.18.2.
13. The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimants company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies, or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case. This distance from the Claimants company further undermines their ability to give a credible account of the facts.
14. The claimant's WS is written in the third person, which is inappropriate for a witness statement. A WS should represent the personal account of the witness and should be written in the first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in their own words.
No Offer of Parking and No Contract Formed
15. In paragraph 11 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant lists the "terms and conditions" displayed at the site, which are all prohibitory terms such as "No Stopping," "No Waiting," and "No Pick Up/No Drop Off." I submit that these prohibitions cannot possibly form a contractual offer because they do not offer any service or benefit to the motorist but rather prohibit actions altogether.
16. For a contract to exist, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance. The claimant’s signs, by their own wording, prohibit any action (such as stopping or waiting) rather than offering parking or any other service. This means there is no contractual offer made to motorists, as no positive action is proposed in exchange for any consideration (payment).
17. In legal terms, a prohibitory notice merely tells the motorist what they cannot do, and therefore, it does not give rise to any enforceable agreement or parking contract. It is impossible for a motorist to "accept" a contract that does not exist, as they are not given the option to do anything other than leave. If the terms are simply prohibitions, there can be no offer capable of acceptance, and thus no contract has been formed.
18. As there is no valid offer or contract, no liability can arise from any alleged breach of such "terms and conditions" and the Claimant’s parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.
Unenforceable Additional Costs
19. In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid." However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.
20. In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.'
Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
21. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained.
22. The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.
23. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the claim as unenforceable.
No Evidence of Service of PCNs and Reminder Notices
24. In paragraphs 20 and 23 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant asserts that the details of the alleged contraventions were sent to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and that I failed to make any payment or response. However, the claimant has provided no evidence that these notices were actually sent or that they were properly served.
25. I submit that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they not only prepared these notices but also sent them in accordance with the relevant rules of service, as per Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 6.26. Merely producing copies of the notices does not prove they were properly delivered or received.
26. The claimant has not provided any evidence, such as proof of postage or a certificate of service, to confirm that the notices were actually posted. Simply producing copies of the notices does not prove they were ever sent. Without evidence of proper posting, the claimant cannot rely on CPR 6.26 to claim that these notices were deemed served.
27. Furthermore, I had not received any correspondence whatsoever from the claimant until the County Court claim form, despite my address being unchanged for the last 10 years. I have always received other PCNs and promptly dealt with them, which demonstrates that there is no issue with my address being on record with the DVLA.
28. The claimant’s assertion that, because the claim form was received, the PCNs and reminders must also have been received is speculative and not supported by any evidence. It is entirely possible that these documents were not sent, were misaddressed, or were otherwise not delivered. The claimant must provide proof of proper service, such as proof of postage or delivery, for these notices. Without this, their claim cannot stand as the basic pre-requisites for holding the registered keeper liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) have not been satisfied.
29. Additionally, the claimant seeks to recover legal fees and other charges beyond the PCNs, yet there is no evidence that any pre-action protocol (PAP), including a formal Letter of Claim, was ever served. This lack of compliance with pre-action procedures further undermines the claimant’s claim and the additional costs they seek to recover.
30. I invite the court to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimant has failed to prove proper service of the PCNs, the reminders, and any pre-action correspondence. Simply showing copies of these documents is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.
Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues
31. In paragraph 23 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim — makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.
32. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.
33. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.
34. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behavior violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.
35. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.
Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence
36. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant asserts that I have been able to produce a "substantive defence" and implies that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result of the claimant's failure to provide detailed and compliant Particulars of Claim (PoC). I respectfully submit that this assertion is inaccurate and fails to appreciate the nature of my defence.
37. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific allegations.
38. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state:"I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location as this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter."
39. This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation of the circumstances of the alleged incident.
40. It is important to highlight that my defence is not "substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies, but is rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and their failure to provide me with any prior information about the alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.
41. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.
42. I respectfully request that the court takes this into account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact it has had on my ability to defend this claim.
Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4
43. In paragraph 26 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar failures led to claims being struck out.
44. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.
45. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence.
Redacted Contract, Missing Signatories, Lack of Proof of Authority, and No Evidence of Landowner Permission
46. In their evidence, the claimant has provided a redacted copy of the alleged contract between themselves and VapesDirect-UK Ltd, signed on 1st November 2020 for a term of 5 years. I wish to draw the court’s attention to the fact that key details have been obscured, including the names, positions, and signatures of the signatories to the agreement. This omission raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the contract and the authority of the individuals who purportedly entered into it.
47. Further investigation has revealed that the business operating at the location at the time of the alleged parking contravention in April 2023 was not VapesDirect-UK Ltd, but Anicres-UK Ltd, a separate registered company. The director of both companies is the same individual; however, this does not alter the fact that they are legally distinct entities with different company registrations.
48. The contract provided by the claimant is solely with VapesDirect-UK Ltd, which ceased operating at the location sometime between 2021 and 2022, long before the alleged contravention occurred. Anicres-UK Ltd, the company operating at the location in April 2023, is not a party to this contract, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the contract was novated or assigned to Anicres-UK Ltd. As such, the claimant has no valid contractual authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at the location in question.
49. It is also important to note that neither VapesDirect-UK Ltd nor Anicres-UK Ltd own the land in question. Both companies are tenants at the location. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence showing that either company had the necessary authority from the landowner to enter into a contract with the claimant for parking management. Without such authority flowing from the landowner, the companies, as tenants, may not have had the legal right to authorise the claimant to operate on the land in the first place.
50. Although VapesDirect-UK Ltd was not placed into voluntary liquidation until October 2023, this fact does not alter the situation, as the business operating at the location had already changed to Anicres-UK Ltd by 2022. The claimant’s reliance on a contract with a company (VapesDirect-UK Ltd) that no longer operated at the site in 2023 renders their authority to issue PCNs invalid. The contract with VapesDirect-UK Ltd does not confer any rights upon the claimant to issue PCNs on behalf of Anicres-UK Ltd, and the claimant has provided no evidence of any subsequent agreement with the latter company.
51. The redaction of the signatories and the absence of any evidence showing that the contract was novated or assigned to Anicres-UK Ltd prevents me, as the defendant, from verifying whether the agreement was duly authorised by the current business operating at the location. Moreover, there is no evidence that either VapesDirect-UK Ltd or Anicres-UK Ltd had the landowner’s permission to contract with the claimant. In the absence of clear evidence of Anicres-UK Ltd authorising the claimant, and no evidence that either tenant had the necessary authority from the landowner, the claimant has not proven that they have the authority to operate at the location and issue PCNs.
52. Should the court hold an unredacted version of the contract, I submit that this does not cure the claimant’s failure to demonstrate their authority to operate at the location, as no evidence has been provided to the defendant showing that the claimant is authorised by Anicres-UK Ltd or the landowner. The court is invited to strike out the claim on this basis, as the claimant has failed to meet their burden of proving they have the requisite authority to issue PCNs at the location.
53. I submit that providing an unredacted version of the contract to the court without providing the same to the defendant would be insufficient to satisfy the requirement for transparency and fairness in these proceedings. However, the issue at hand is not simply the redactions but the complete lack of evidence showing that the authority to operate flows from the current business (Anicres-UK Ltd) or the landowner. In the absence of such evidence, I respectfully request that the claim be struck out for lack of standing.
Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof
54. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim. Specifically:
55. Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.
56. Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention, preventing me from fully understanding the case against me. Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking out of the claim.
57. Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their own knowledge and which are based on information provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their evidence.
58. Invalid Contract and Lack of Authority: The claimant has provided a heavily redacted version of the alleged contract between themselves and VapesDirect-UK Ltd. However, this contract is invalid for several reasons:The business operating at the location at the time of the alleged contravention in April 2023 was Anicres-UK Ltd, not VapesDirect-UK Ltd. These two companies are distinct legal entities, and the claimant has failed to provide any evidence of a novation or assignment of the contract from VapesDirect-UK Ltd to Anicres-UK Ltd. Therefore, the claimant had no authority to issue PCNs based on the original contract with VapesDirect-UK Ltd.
Additionally, both VapesDirect-UK Ltd and Anicres-UK Ltd are tenants at the location, not the landowners. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence that either company had the necessary authority from the landowner to contract the claimant for parking management. Without such authority flowing from the landowner, the claimant’s contract lacks the legal basis required to issue PCNs.
59. Redacted Contract and Missing Signatories: The redacted version of the contract provided by the claimant further undermines their position. Critical details, such as the names, titles, and signatures of the signatories, have been obscured, making it impossible for me, as the defendant, to verify the legitimacy of the contract. This raises serious doubts about whether the claimant had proper authorisation to act on behalf of either the tenant companies or the landowner.
60. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient evidence and comply with legal procedures, as well as their lack of contractual authority to operate at the location. Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case, despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with clear and adequate information from the outset.
61. I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these proceedings when making any assessment of costs.
62. In the matter of costs, I ask:(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5
63. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
Statement of truthI believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Can you post the copy of the landowner agreement they refer to in their WS on page 3, paragraph 9 which they reference as exhibit GS1?
We need to see the validity of it and how much has been redacted. This is important.
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No.: xxxxxxBetween
Hounslow Enforcement Limited
(Claimant)
- and -
Defendant’s name from N1 claim
(Defendant)
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. My name is [Your Full Name], and I reside at [Address]. I am the Defendant in these proceedings and this Witness Statement is made from my own knowledge and research, and I confirm that the facts stated within it are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out
2. I respectfully submit that before proceeding with the hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter: striking out the claim due to the Claimant's and/or their solicitor’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts. It is embarrassing that the Claimant’s solicitor, a firm widely recognised for its bulk litigation process of issuing thousands of poorly pleaded claims each month, has once again provided inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC). In this case, the PoC are so deficient that I, as the Defendant, was expected to prepare a defence without a proper understanding of the facts and allegations against me.
3. Dismissing the claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms like the notorious Gladstones with their well-documented connections to the IPC Trade Body) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, they should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:
4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."
The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-01 CPMS v Akande judgment)
5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held that"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract".
The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-02 CEL v Chan judgment)
6. There are many other examples of similarly poorly pleaded claims that have been struck out, both at allocation stage and at hearings. (See exhibit XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments)
The basis of the defence
7. These are the woefully inadequate PoC as provided to me by the Claimant through their solicitor utilising MCOL:"THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION [ENTER THE VEHICLE REG](THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT) AT NORTH HYDE HOUSE HAYES, ON 19/04/2023, 18/04/2023, THUS INCURRING THE PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £15.14 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT £0.07 PER DAY."
8. As evidenced, there is a lack of precise detail in the PoC in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is no precise or even concise factual allegation made against me. There is no factual or legal basis for the claim. It is not shown how the claim has been calculated.
9. Should the court not agree that the claim should be struck out, I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to provide further particulars that, for the avoidance of doubt, must:(a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked "A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on.
(b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on.
(c) have attached to them a copy of each of the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) which forms the basis of this claim.
(d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first brought to the attention of the defendant. For example, attaching it to the defendant's vehicle or sending by post.
(e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
(f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i) the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii) the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii) exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was incurred.
(g) state, in respect of each PCN sued on, whether the claim is (or is not) brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
(h) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or the keeper of the vehicle.
(i) not state that the defendant is sued in the alternative as the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
(j) state what amount of the claim is the claim for non-payment of the PCNs and what amount of the claim is not for non-payment of the PCNs.
(k) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the claim for any amount claimed which is not for non-payment of the PCNs.
(l) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest started running.
Should the Claimant fully comply with the order and the claim is not struck out, I should be allowed to provide an amended defence based on all the facts provided by the order.
Hearsay evidence
10. The Claimants 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.
11. The claimant's Witness Statement (WS) fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with no direct involvement in the events, relies on information provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which weakens its credibility. Further, the claimant's witness has failed to indicate the source of any information and belief, as required under PD 32.18.2.
12. The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimants company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies, or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case. This distance from the Claimants company further undermines their ability to give a credible account of the facts.
13. The claimant's WS is written in the third person, which is inappropriate for a witness statement. A WS should represent the personal account of the witness and should be written in the first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in their own words.
No Offer of Parking and No Contract Formed
14. In paragraph 11 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant lists the "terms and conditions" displayed at the site, which are all prohibitory terms such as "No Stopping," "No Waiting," and "No Pick Up/No Drop Off." I submit that these prohibitions cannot possibly form a contractual offer because they do not offer any service or benefit to the motorist but rather prohibit actions altogether.
15. For a contract to exist, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance. The claimant’s signs, by their own wording, prohibit any action (such as stopping or waiting) rather than offering parking or any other service. This means there is no contractual offer made to motorists, as no positive action is proposed in exchange for any consideration (payment).
16. In legal terms, a prohibitory notice merely tells the motorist what they cannot do, and therefore, it does not give rise to any enforceable agreement or parking contract. It is impossible for a motorist to "accept" a contract that does not exist, as they are not given the option to do anything other than leave. If the terms are simply prohibitions, there can be no offer capable of acceptance, and thus no contract has been formed.
17. As there is no valid offer or contract, no liability can arise from any alleged breach of such "terms and conditions" and the Claimant’s parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.
Unenforceable Additional Costs
18. In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid." However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.
19. In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.'
No Contract Formed Due to Prohibitory Signage
20. Additionally, as already argued, the prohibitory signage at the site (e.g., "No Stopping," "No Waiting") cannot form the basis of a contract. As there is no offer, no consideration, and no acceptance of terms, no valid contract exists between the claimant and the defendant. If no contract exists, the claimant has no lawful basis to impose any parking charge, let alone any additional costs. The purported £70 contractual costs are therefore not only unjustified but also unenforceable.
Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
21. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established contract law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained. The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.
22. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the claim as unenforceable.
No Evidence of Service of PCNs, Reminder Notices or PAP
23. In paragraphs 20 and 23 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant asserts that the details of the alleged contraventions were sent to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, and that I failed to make any payment or response. However, the claimant has provided no evidence that these notices were actually sent or that they were properly served.
24. I submit that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they not only prepared these notices but also sent them in accordance with the relevant rules of service, as per Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 6.26. Merely producing copies of the notices does not prove they were properly delivered or received.
25. The claimant has not provided any evidence, such as proof of postage or a certificate of service, to confirm that the notices were actually posted. Simply producing copies of the notices does not prove they were ever sent. Without evidence of proper posting, the claimant cannot rely on CPR 6.26 to claim that these notices were deemed served.
26. Furthermore, I had not received any correspondence whatsoever from the claimant until the County Court claim form, despite my address being unchanged for the last 10 years. I have always received other PCNs and promptly dealt with them, which demonstrates that there is no issue with my address being on record with the DVLA.
27. The claimant’s assertion that, because the claim form was received, the PCNs and reminders must also have been received is speculative and not supported by any evidence. It is entirely possible that these documents were not sent, were misaddressed, or were otherwise not delivered. The claimant must provide proof of proper service, such as proof of postage or delivery, for these notices. Without this, their claim cannot stand as the basic pre-requisites for holding the registered keeper liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) have not been satisfied.
28. Additionally, the claimant seeks to recover legal fees and other charges beyond the PCNs, yet there is no evidence that any pre-action protocol (PAP), including a formal Letter of Claim, was ever served. This lack of compliance with pre-action procedures further undermines the claimant’s claim and the additional costs they seek to recover.
29. I invite the court to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimant has failed to prove proper service of the PCNs, the reminders, and any pre-action correspondence. Simply showing copies of these documents is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.
Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues
30. In paragraph 23 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim — makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.
31. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document.
32. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.
33. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behavior violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.
34. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings. Under CPR 44.3, the court has the discretion to consider the unreasonable behavior of a party when making a costs assessment. The claimant’s failure to adhere to the Civil Procedure Rules and reliance on unwarranted personal attacks amounts to unreasonable conduct and should be considered when making any decision on costs.
35. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant asserts that I have been able to produce a "substantive defence" and implies that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result of the claimant's failure to provide detailed and compliant Particulars of Claim (PoC). I respectfully submit that this assertion is inaccurate and fails to appreciate the nature of my defence.
36. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific allegations.
37. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state:"I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location as this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter."
38. This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation of the circumstances of the alleged incident.
39. It is important to highlight that my defence is not "substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies, but is rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and their failure to provide me with any prior information about the alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.
40. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.
41. I respectfully request that the court takes this into account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact it has had on my ability to defend this claim.
Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4
42. In paragraph 26 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar failures led to claims being struck out.
43. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence. In my case, the claimant's PoC contains similarly vague and non-specific language, which prevented me from understanding the basis of the claim and defending myself appropriately.
44. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence.
Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof
45. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim. Specifically:Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.
Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention, preventing me from fully understanding the case against me. Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking out of the claim.
Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their own knowledge and which are based on information provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their evidence.
46. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient evidence and comply with legal procedures. Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case, despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with clear and adequate information from the outset.
47. The claimant has failed to meet the basic procedural requirements outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules, including CPR 16.4 for providing adequate particulars and CPR 6.26 regarding service of documents. Their continued reliance on vague, hearsay-based arguments demonstrates a clear lack of credibility and adherence to proper legal standards. In light of these procedural deficiencies and the claimant’s unreasonable conduct, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the claim in its entirety and consider costs under CPR 44.3.
48. In the matter of costs, I ask:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
49. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Can you try hosting the Gladstone's WS somewhere like DropBox. If you don't yet have DropBox account, you can set one up for free. When you host the pdf document of their WS, just make sure you put it in the "Public" folder and that it is accessible. However, go through it and pick out anything that you think is not correct or is misleading.
You need to have your own WS submitted by that deadline and you only have 3 days to go. You MUST get on with it and prepare it NOW.
Your WS is your own version of events in your own voice. It is written in the first person. Obviously, you have no idea about the events or what term in what contract you breached. For guidance on how to format your WS have a read of these documents:
Section 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Practice Direction 32 = EVIDENCE (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32/pd_part32)
I will get back to you with some additional advice on what you must put in your WS.
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No.: xxxxxxBetween
Full name of parking firm Ltd. (not the solicitor!)
(Claimant)
- and -
Defendant’s name from N1 claim (can’t be changed to driver now)
(Defendant)
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. My name is [Your Full Name], and I reside at [Address]. I am the Defendant in these proceedings and this Witness Statement is made from my own knowledge and research, and I confirm that the facts stated within it are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out
2. I respectfully submit that before proceeding with the hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter: striking out the claim due to the Claimant's and/or their solicitor’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts. It is embarrassing that the Claimant’s solicitor, a firm widely recognised for its bulk litigation process of issuing thousands of poorly pleaded claims each month, has once again provided inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC). In this case, the PoC are so deficient that I, as the Defendant, was expected to prepare a defence without a proper understanding of the facts and allegations against me.
3. Dismissing the claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms like the notorious Gladstones with their well-documented connections to the IPC Trade Body) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, they should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:
4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."
The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-01 CPMS v Akande judgment)
5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held that"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract".
The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-02 CEL v Chan judgment)
6. There are many other examples of similarly poorly pleaded claims that have been struck out, both at allocation stage and at hearings. (See exhibit XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments)
The basis of the defence
7. These are the woefully inadequate PoC as provided to me by the Claimant through their solicitor utilising MCOL:"THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION [ENTER THE VEHICLE REG](THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT) AT NORTH HYDE HOUSE HAYES, ON 19/04/2023, 18/04/2023, THUS INCURRING THE PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £15.14 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT £0.07 PER DAY."
8. As evidenced, there is a lack of precise detail in the PoC in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is no precise or even concise factual allegation made against me. There is no factual or legal basis for the claim. It is not shown how the claim has been calculated.
9. Should the court not agree that the claim should be struck out, I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to provide further particulars that, for the avoidance of doubt, must:(a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked "A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on.
(b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on.
(c) have attached to them a copy of each of the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) which forms the basis of this claim.
(d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first brought to the attention of the defendant. For example, attaching it to the defendant's vehicle or sending by post.
(e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
(f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i) the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii) the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii) exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was incurred.
(g) state, in respect of each PCN sued on, whether the claim is (or is not) brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
(h) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or the keeper of the vehicle.
(i) not state that the defendant is sued in the alternative as the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
(j) state what amount of the claim is the claim for non-payment of the PCNs and what amount of the claim is not for non-payment of the PCNs.
(k) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the claim for any amount claimed which is not for non-payment of the PCNs.
(l) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest started running.
Should the Claimant fully comply with the order and the claim is not struck out, I should be allowed to provide an amended defence based on all the facts provided by the order.
10. I respectfully ask the Court to consider whether, had they themselves received such inadequate PoC with no prior knowledge of the underlying facts, they would have been able to prepare a fair and comprehensive defence. As I stated in my defence, there was nothing that I could defend against as I had no knowledge of what terms I was alleged to have breached as I had not received any prior correspondence on the matter.
Conclusion
11. In light of the persuasive authorities and the Claimant's failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), I respectfully submit that the Court should strike out the claim in its entirety. Should the Court not be minded to strike out the claim, I request that the Claimant be ordered to provide fully compliant Particulars of Claim, and I be permitted to file an amended defence in response. I trust the Court will see that the Claimant’s conduct and failure to provide adequate PoC has put me, as the Defendant, at a significant disadvantage in preparing my defence.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Instead of giving us snippets of info, please show us all correspondence you received from the court and Gladstones since submitting your N180 DQ, suitably redacted. Reading back through the thread, you used the long defence with the CEL v Chan transcripts as the PoC completely failed to specify any cause of action.
When you submitted the defence, you never showed us what you put in as your paragraph #4 in your defence. Also, in your para #3 did you leave it as only the keeper or the driver and the keeper?
Edit: Never mind, I found it:Quote3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The PoC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper anddriver of the vehicle.
4. I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location as this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter.
If you cannot recall the event, why on earth did you include "and driver"?
Did you include the images of the CEL v Chan transcript in your defence that you submitted?
What is the date of the hearing and by what date must all parties submit their documents?
Please confirm that you selected the option 'NO' for a hearing on the papers.
3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The PoC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper anddriver of the vehicle.
4. I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location as this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter.
#1. You intend to defend the whole claim.
You can use this online version of the AoS form if you can't scan in the paper copy tha you re completing:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c45e568ed915d38a0611a61/n9-eng.pdf
#1. You intend to defend the whole claim.
You can use this online version of the AoS form if you can't scan in the paper copy tha you re completing:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c45e568ed915d38a0611a61/n9-eng.pdf
3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The PoC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper anddriver of the vehicle.
4. I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location as this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter.
You need the 4th item... acknowledgement of service (AoS). That must be received by the CNBC no later than 7th February. That will then give you until 4pm on Wednesday 21st February to get the defence submitted.
All you are doing at this stage is the AoS. Do not use the defence form.
As they mentioned to you, you can submit the AoS form as a pdf attachment by email to ccbcaq@justice.gov. I would advise CC'ing yourself as that gives you an added bit of proof you sent it should someone claim you didn't send it. However, if it has been received by the CNBC, you should get an immediate auto-acknowledgement email back from them. If you don't, keep trying and if necessary, try again using a different email agent.
1) I Intend to defend all of this claim
2) I Intend to defend part of this claim
3) I intend to contest jurisdiction
When you have edited the defence to your own circumstances, just show us paragraphs 3 & 4 that you have changed for review.
Your defence should include all the paragraphs shown. If you do add more to your paragraph 4, make sure that all subsequent paragraphs are renumbered sequentially. All you need are basic facts such as the reason you were at the location, eg. "I was a patron of the business/restaurant etc." or "I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location and this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter".
Do not try and create "War & Peace". You are responding to deficient PoC. If it should ever get as far as a hearing, you will expand on your defence in your Witness Statement.
The best thing is to fight and win (ie pay nothing) as you could have done with all other private PCNs that you might have paid in the past.
To start with upload a copy of the front page of the claim form (it’s not a “letter”) on an external hosting site like www.imgur.com and post the link here. Make sure to redact your name, address, vehicle number, all references and the MCOL password but leave all dates showing.
In the meantime it’s not a bad thing that you have no idea what this is all about as it will form an important part of the defence.
The most important thing is not to lose by default so even before you post the claim form, tell us the issue date of the claim
I would never just willingly risk bailiffs/CCJs by just ignoring PCNs.There is no way you can get a CCJ or have a bailiff knock at your door without going through a very thorough process. Despite the wording used in communications with these scammers, you would need to have a hearing in front of a judge, lose the claim and then ignore paying it within 30 days to actually get a CCJ on your record. Any CCJ paid within 30 days of judgment is automatically expunged from your record. The same gos for bailiffs. A CCJ for less than £600, unpaid for over 30 days will not qualify for a bailiff.