Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ignore them. It's the precursor to their discontinuation.

I am not the named person on the claim number

Who is??

Who is the person named in the N1SDT Claim Form? That will be addressed to the defendant.

The email was sent to enquiries.barnsley.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and I was copied

A clarification on my previous message

Thanks

Honestly I don't know how I omitted the previous question.

I am the 1st defendant and a proof is also on the witness statement

Sorry for the late reply

I will redact the witness statement and send a link to access it

Thank you

I am reviewing the WS by Jake Burgess, a well known incompetent and has a reputation amongst those of us who know of him or have to deal with his mendacious statements, as someone who has been ridiculed in court so many times, we all await his next spanking.

To start with, after a cursory review of the WS, there is a glaring error in their supposed evidence. The Claimant’s own “Payment Log” is incomplete and omits the very window they rely upon. The alleged contravention is 30/10/2024 from 13:30 to 14:11.

Paragraph 2(i) of the WS section on "the defence" (page 5) asserts that “...as evidenced by the Payment Log at ‘EXHIBIT 6’ a parking tariff was not purchased for the Vehicle on site, YK14 OEL”.

EXHIBIT 6 (pages 38-41) is headed “Allow List Export (generated on 08/08/2025)... All inactive from 30/10/2024 to 31/10/2024”, but the sequential entries jump from #93 (31/10/2024 09:30) straight to #238 (30/10/2024 13:11), leaving a void for #94–#237—i.e., the entire period between 30/10/2024 13:11 and 31/10/2024 09:30. That gap necessarily includes 30/10/2024 13:30–14:11, so the log does not evidence anything about the Defendant’s VRM in the material time.

That alone backs up my view of Jake Burgess's competence as a 'witness'.

I will get back once I've had a chance to digest more of the incompetent rubbish from this mendacious witness.

However, I need to see the PoC. The original image has been removed so please host the claim form with the PoC again. Also, please confirm that Excel are represented by DCB Legal.

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:

I don't understand you. You received the N1SDT Claim form, defended and then received the N180 DQ and mediation call. At some point after that, you should have received a directions order telling you that the claim has been transferred to your local county court. Then you should have received an allocation notice from your local court that it has been allocated to the small claims track and it would have had the date of the hearing, the deadline for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee and the deadline for both parties to submit their evidence/WS/bundle etc.

You say you called the court (CNBC or your local county court?) and were told that your name is not on the claim with that number. This is very serious if you have not received the appropriate orders from the court since allocation. You MUST clarify with the court (Barnsley County Court) why they say your name is not on the claim. You have the N1SDT form and that has your name on it, doesn't it? It is addressed to you is it not?

If you have not had any communication from Barnsley County Court directly addressed to you, there is a SNAFU somewhere and it needs to be rectified ASAP before it becomes a FUBAR.

Make sure you send your WS as a PDF attachment in an email to enquiries.barnsley.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC yourself. Just get it emailed asap.

Please answer the questions I have raised above in order to clarify why you appear to be in the dark about the deadlines.