-
I received everything you mentioned
I just read the notice of trial date again and it says we should both submit our WS 14 days before the trial.
I will send the WS immediately and call the Barnsley court tomorrow also thank you -
-
Good morning
I have sent the witness statement now.
Can I go to the court to confirm if the payment was made before the deadline with the necessary documents to show I am the defendant rather than calling the court?
Thank you for your guidance. -
-
You can, but they may refer you to a call centre though.
-
-
Ok I will try both and keep you posted
Thank you -
-
Good afternoon
I was able to speak with the court today and the person on the call confirmed that the hearing is on 01/01/2025 at 11 am
It means the payment was made.
Any advise on the next step will be appreciated
Thank you -
-
I think you have missed that court date by over 9 months. Even if you meant 2026, that is an impossibility because 1st January is a bank holiday.
So, please verify the information you received as those dates are WRONG!!! -
-
So sorry for the error
01/10/2025 at 11 am -
-
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. -
-
This is indeed a learning curve
I have never stepped into a court room before or had to defend a case
I will feedback to the house
Hoping for the best -
-
Frankly it's rare that anyone defending a case with DCB Legal involved has to step into a courtroom, as they nearly always discontinue. But there's a reason we always say we cannot provide any guarantee that they will.
-
-
This is the civil court. It is not a criminal court like magistrates or crown court. No 'Rumpole of the Bailey' with wigs and robes etc. Far too many people simply imagine a court with a judge in robes and a wig and lots of barristers and clerks in robes. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply a court where civil disputes are adjudicated on by a district judge and, more often than not, is held in judges chambers, not an actual courtroom.
It is the ultimate arbitration service that is, unfortunately, abused by these serial litigators.
Remember, even in the very worst case scenario and you were not successful, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 30 days, there is no record of it on your credit file. It is completely expunged from the record. All costs are fixed and unless you acted unreasonably, such as not turning up for the hearing, then they cannot escalate. Also, the extra £70 added on by the claimant to the £100 charge are usually disallowed as double recovery. -
-
Thank you all for the encouragement
I do appreciate all you do and will stay in touch -
-
Good morning all.
I just received a supplementary WS email from DCB legal
Below is the link to access it
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GexyXqd7KowmH0cYFaMxVOdhbt5YHovw/view?usp=drivesdk
Your advise will be appreciated
Thank you -
-
Just an addition, I called the number seen at the space to make payment on the same day several times and it was the same, the computer speaking to me was giving a wrong information and couldn't provide any useful information to assist with payment.
The issue with the phone call and trying to make the payment on the machine even made me spent more time at the parking spot.
I don't know if this can help a bit
Thank you -
-
Typical ambush by the failed legal wannabe that is Jake Burgess. He is well know amongst those of us who have had to deal with him in the past.
Whilst it can easily anger the judge when a "ping pong" of supplementary statements start flowing, and it is not advisable to engage, in this case, I suggest you send a one/two page response objecting to this late ambush by the claimant as follows:QuoteIN THE COUNTY COURT AT BARNSLEY - Claim No.: [claim number]
Between Excel Parking Services Ltd (claimant) and [your full name] (defendant)
Defendant’s Objection and Case Management Request (served 5 days pre-hearing)
1. This represented, serial litigant is attempting to cure defective Particulars of Claim by late evidence in a Supplementary Witness Statement (SWS) issued five days before the hearing. As a litigant-in-person I cannot fairly analyse rolling last-minute material. If the Court considers the lateness has caused irredeemable prejudice, I ask for a short adjournment with costs payable by the Claimant.
2. I object to the Claimant’s SWS and new Exhibit 7 served five days before the 01/10/2025 hearing. I ask the Court to exclude them. If admitted, I ask the Court to (a) direct that no further written evidence be served by the Claimant without the Court’s permission, with any attempted “supplementary” statement refused absent a compelling reason and full prejudice mitigation; and (b) require the Claimant, if relying on the SWS/Exhibit 7, to identify page/line entries covering 13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024 and to produce the contemporaneous machine/phone/PSP error, reconciliation, and uptime/incident logs. Failing that, I ask that no adverse inference be drawn against me.
Why exclusion is proper
3. The Particulars of Claim were defective under CPR 16.4 and did not disclose a clear cause of action. The Claimant has repeatedly tried to cure by witness evidence. The SWS continues that tactic and introduces a new Exhibit 7 five days before the hearing, which I have had no fair opportunity to analyse. This is prejudicial to a litigant-in-person and contrary to the overriding objective.
4. The SWS also indicates the witness may not attend and seeks a decision in his absence under CPR 27.9. If the SWS is admitted, non-attendance would deny me the chance to test these fresh assertions. Little weight should be attached to untested late assertions.
Factual clarification (payment attempts)
5. On the day, I made repeated attempts to pay at the machine and also by calling the payment number displayed at the bay several times. The automated system [Interactive Voice Response (IVR)] gave incorrect or unhelpful information and did not enable payment to be completed. These attempts extended the time I remained on site. The issue is not mere non-payment but system failure despite multiple reasonable attempts.
Targeted responses if the Court admits the SWS
6. PoC and MCOL/PD7E (SWS paragraphs 4–5): The Claimant repeats that bare PoC are excused by MCOL limits and says I should have applied for further particulars. Nothing prevented this represented party from serving proper separate particulars after issue or seeking permission to amend. The SWS adds nothing substantive on compliance and simply perpetuates the attempt to plead via evidence.
7. Admission equals liability (SWS paragraph 7): I accept no payment was completed, but only because the operator’s systems (machine and phone/IVR) did not process it despite repeated attempts. Non-performance caused by the operator’s system failure frustrates any alleged contract. The late Exhibit 7 does not provide the missing machine or PSP error logs, reconciliation, or uptime/incident records for 13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024 that would rebut system failure.
8. “System working” or “other motorists paid” (SWS paragraph 8): Even if others paid at some point, that does not prove the system worked for my attempts in the material window or via the phone/IVR path. Proper proof would be (a) full, chronological transaction data for that window including failed attempts across all channels (machine, phone, online), and (b) contemporaneous audit and incident logs and clock-synchronisation evidence. None is produced.
9. Phone number “mitigation” (SWS paragraph 9): The SWS suggests I should have phoned the number on the sign; I in fact did so several times. The IVR provided wrong or unhelpful information and payment could not be taken. The signage creates no duty to continue phoning a helpline to avoid breach where the operator’s primary payment methods are not functioning. My reasonable attempts support frustration, not liability.
10. Exhibit 6 versus Exhibit 7 (SWS paragraphs 10–11): The original payment log (Exhibit 6) was incomplete around the material period; the SWS now introduces Exhibit 7 to fill gaps and assert “no payment”. Serving a new dataset five days pre-hearing is precisely the prejudice complained of. If the Court admits this late material, I ask that the Claimant be required to (a) identify, page and line, the entries covering 13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024; (b) produce associated error, reconciliation, and uptime or incident logs for machine and phone/IVR channels; and (c) failing that, that no adverse inference be drawn against me.
11. Added £70 (SWS paragraph 12): The SWS asserts the signage clearly states a contractual £70 add-on. I ask the Claimant to identify the exact wording, font, and location on the sign image and to confirm it was present and prominent at the material time. If they cannot, the add-on is not recoverable.
Proposed order
12. Exclude the SWS and Exhibit 7. If admitted, direct that no further written evidence be served by the Claimant without permission, require pinpoint identification and production of the audits specified at paragraph 2(b), and, if necessary, adjourn with costs payable by the Claimant to mitigate the prejudice to me as a litigant-in-person.
b]Statement of truth[/b]
I believe that the facts stated in this response to the claimants SWS 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:
How to use this (today ASAP)
File it as a short “Objection to SWS” (email the court at enquiries.barnsley.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and copying DCB Legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself), and take 3 printed copies to the hearing.
At the start, say: “Judge, I object to the late SWS and Exhibit 7 served five days before the hearing. This one/two-page note sets out the prejudice and my proposed directions.”
If the Judge admits it, use points 3–11 as your oral reply roadmap (no lengthy debate). -
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List