No problem. What to expect and how to handle the day:
• It’s routine. The claimant’s solicitors (DCB Legal) usually brief a local advocate who will have skimmed the bundle shortly before the hearing—about as long as the judge has had.
• Arrive 30–45 minutes early to clear security and tell the Usher you’re present.
• If the claimant’s advocate tries to chat, just say: “Thank you, I’ll address everything to the Judge.” You don’t need to discuss or agree anything in the corridor.
Bring:
• Two spare printed copies of your witness statement (one for the Judge, one for the advocate) plus your exhibits index.
• Your short bullet list of points (see below).
• Photo ID and your hearing notice.
How to address the Judge
• Address them as “Judge”.
• Keep answers short; if you need a moment to find a page, say so.
When it is your turn to speak, use this as your 60-second opening (read from this if you like)
“Judge, I’m a litigant in person. My case is simple. First, the Particulars of Claim didn’t comply with CPR 16.4, so I couldn’t know the case to meet until the claimant’s witness statement.
Second, even now, their own Exhibit 6 skips the material window (13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024), so it proves nothing about my vehicle.
Third, there’s no ANPR audit at all to support the asserted entry/exit times.
Fourth, the signs contain no term allowing an extra £70. I was the driver; I tried repeatedly to pay but their system failed—so any contract was frustrated.
On that basis I ask for strike-out; alternatively, dismissal.”
Bullet list (your prompt card)
• CPR 16.4 failure: PoC lacked contractual clause(s), specific breach, driver/keeper basis, and calculation. Ambush via WS.
• Exhibit 6: sequence jumps (#93 → #238); missing entries cover 13:30–14:11; incomplete = no proof.
• No ANPR audit: no event log/metadata/calibration to prove 13:30/14:11.
• System failure: multiple attempts to pay; no gateway/error/uptime logs disclosed to rebut that.
• No £70 term on signs; not recoverable.
• Relief: strike out; or dismiss; and disallow £70.
• If/when successful, request your costs for travel to/from court and up to £95 for loss of earnings due to court attendance. (take a payslip if necessary)
Practical tips:
• Speak slowly; pause after each point so the Judge can note it.
• If you’re asked a question you can’t answer from memory, say: “May I check the bundle?” and take your time.
• If the advocate claims they didn’t receive your WS, hand over one of your spare copies and offer the other to the Judge.
Finally, watch this short video which explains what happens when your hearing takes place:
https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
Treat it as a valuable learning experience and please let us know how you get on. A short report that can include the name of the judge and how it all went, would be very much appreciated.
Without receiving an answer to my questions, this is what I propose you submit as your WS. I am assuming the decline for submission is 14 days before the trial date. If so, do not submit this any earlier.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BARNSLEY
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Excel Parking Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the Defendant in this case. This is my witness statement. The facts and matters set out are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Preliminary matter
2. I invite the Court to strike out the claim. The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4: they omit the contractual clause(s) relied upon, the precise breach, the driver/keeper basis, and any clear calculation of the sum claimed. Nothing prevented this legally represented, serial litigant from serving full, separate Particulars after issue (or seeking permission to amend). Their witness—who styles himself “Head of Legal”—plainly knows this. The decision not to plead a proper case was a tactic, not a MCOL inevitability. The Claimant has tried to “cure” the defects by unveiling new particulars for the first time in a witness statement.
Procedural unfairness and late disclosure of the “theory of breach”
3. For clarity, all ‘Exhibit [n]’ citations below are to the Claimant’s WS exhibits (e.g. Exhibit 6).
4. At the time I filed my Defence, I could not tell what was actually alleged. The Particulars of Claim did not say whether the accusation was non-payment, late payment, a keying error, or something else. I only understood the case the Claimant now wishes to run when I received their witness statement and exhibits.
5. I did not receive any Notice to Keeper. My first knowledge of this matter was a Letter of Claim from the Claimant’s solicitors, after which I immediately provided my correct service address and requested rectification of any outdated address. I note that the Claimant now exhibits a Notice to Keeper at Exhibit 5; I simply did not receive it. I raise this solely to explain why no appeal was lodged and to rebut any insinuation that not using their in-house appeal implies liability.
Events on 30/10/2024
5. I was the driver on 30/10/2024. I made repeated attempts to pay, but the payment system would not complete a transaction. After many attempts over a period of time, I had no option but to leave.
6. I accept that no payment was ultimately completed. That non-payment was caused by the Claimant’s system failure and cannot amount to breach. The Claimant has disclosed no contemporaneous machine audit, no PSP/gateway reconciliation or error logs, no uptime/incident records, and no ANPR/payment clock-synchronisation evidence for the material window (30/10/2024, 13:30–14:11).
Selective “payment” extract and missing entries
7. The Claimant relies on an “Allow List Export” at Exhibit 6 to suggest that no tariff was purchased for my VRM. The document itself states it was generated on 08/08/2025 and purports to cover 30/10/2024–31/10/2024. However, the sequence produced is truncated: it jumps from entry #93 (31/10/2024 09:30) to #238 (30/10/2024 13:11), omitting entries #94–#237. Those missing entries would cover the whole material window (13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024). A selective, incomplete extract cannot demonstrate that the system was operating normally or rebut repeated failed attempts.
8. The pages that are disclosed actually show a contemporaneous transaction overlapping the alleged window (for example, the entry numbered #238 runs 13:11–14:11 for another VRM). That indicates records for that timeframe exist; yet the remainder of the entries for that window have not been provided. In these circumstances, I understand the Court may draw an adverse inference from selective disclosure. (Exhibit 6)
ANPR timestamps without any underlying audit
9. The witness statement quotes “entry” and “exit” times of 13:30 / 14:11 for 30/10/2024, but there is no exhibit containing any ANPR audit (no system event log, no raw image metadata, no calibration/accuracy checks). ANPR records boundary crossings; without the audit trail, those timestamps are unproven. This omission is material given that Exhibit 6 skips the very window relied upon.
No contractual term for the added £70
10. The signage relied upon forms the alleged contract. The Claimant’s own signage photographs at Exhibit 2 (and the site plan at Exhibit 4) contain no term that allows an additional £70—still less a clear and prominent price term to that effect. The attempt to bolt on a fixed £70 therefore has no contractual basis.
Matters not in dispute (to narrow the issues)
11. I do not take issue with the existence/term of the landowner agreement exhibited at Exhibit 1, nor with the PoFA wording of the Notice to Keeper exhibited at Exhibit 5. The issues are: (i) the defective pleading and late attempt to introduce particulars via the witness statement; (ii) the incomplete payment data in Exhibit 6 that omit the material window; (iii) the absence of any ANPR or payment-system audits for that period; and (iv) the lack of any signage term permitting an added £70.
Position
12. On the facts above: (a) the pleadings are non-compliant; (b) the Claimant’s own Exhibit 6 omits the material window; (c) the contemporaneous audits one would expect if the systems were functioning have not been disclosed; (d) Exhibit 2 contains no contractual basis for an added £70; and (e) the Claimant seeks to advance missing particulars at evidence stage.
13. I respectfully ask the Court to strike out the claim. In the alternative, I ask the Court to place little or no weight on new particulars introduced for the first time in the witness statement, to disallow the £70 add-on as unsupported by Exhibit 2, and to dismiss the claim for want of proof.
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:
All as expected. Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
If who calls?
You are now waiting for the claimants acknowledgment of your defence and their intention to proceed. This is usually accompanied with a copy of their N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ).
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Did you ever get a response to your response? You may feel emboldened and some schadenfreude when you read this story:
Parking firm told to pay £10k in five-minute rule row (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2040xy9yn6o)
With an issue date of 2nd April, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st April to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 6th May to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Excel Parking Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Excel Parking Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Never, ever refer to yourself as the driver. Are you listed as the "owner" in the official "Register of vehicle Owners"... No you are not as there is no such thing! You are the Registered Keeper (RK). If you look very carefully at the front of your V5C registration document, you will see printed very boldly in capital letters:
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
Excel have (or had until you posted here) no idea of the identity of the driver. They only know (or knew) the identity of the Keeper. The Keeper and the driver are two separate legal entities and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
The Keeper should only ever refer to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that", not "I did this or that"!
DCBL have absolutely nothing to do with this and you correctly ignored them. However, DCB Legal (a sister company) have now issued a Letter of Claim (LoC). If the amount claimed is not paid within 30 days, they can issue a county court claim for the alleged debt without further notice. You definitely can't ignore an N1 SDT Claim Form from the CNBC when it arrives.
For now, I suggest you edit your post to remove any identification of who was driving. Also, you can respond to the LoC with the following:
DCB Legal
Direct House
Greenwood Drive
Manor Park
Runcorn
WA7 1UG
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 22nd January 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists”. Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Save it as a PDF file and attach it to an email addressed to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself.
Come back when they respond.