Free Traffic Legal Advice

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

You can, but they may refer you to a call centre though.

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

So sorry for the error

01/10/2025 at 11 am

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

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.

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

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:

IN 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).