That's pretty good. The statement is mostly written in a personal and sincere tone, which is good. However, several paragraphs are too informal, rambling, or emotional, which may detract from the credibility. Phrases like “this is unlawfully wrong and dishonest” or “makes a mockery” should be replaced with more neutral and professional language. Some sections lack clarity or combine too many points in one paragraph.
Here are some observations:
Paragraphs 1–2These are fine structurally but could benefit from tighter language. “Based on my own knowledge and belief” is standard.
Paragraphs 3–6 (Preliminary Issues)Strong start, but:
• “the CNBC” should be “the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC)” unless you're specifically referring to the online portal.
• “denied by the Claimant” in para 4 seems incorrect—it likely means “as a result of the Claimant’s lack of detail.”
Paragraphs 7–9 (Appeal Judgments)These are well-presented. You may also consider referencing the White Book commentary on CPR 16.4 if you're challenging strike-out attempts.
Make sure the exhibits are numbered consistently, not “-01” and “-02.” They should be your initial and the number. E.g. XX-01, XX-02 etc.
Paragraphs 10–14 (Facts of the Incident)This is a reasonable narrative but must be tightened:
Clarify the bank statement entry in para 13 with a label: “See Exhibit XX-03: Bank Statement showing £2.00 paid on [Date].”
Paragraphs 15–17 (Mediation Issues)• Strong point about inconsistency between mediation and the WS, but “unlawfully wrong and dishonest” should be softened to “inconsistent and misleading.”
• Clearly state the importance of this inconsistency: undermines the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence and contradicts their earlier representations.
Paragraphs 18–24 (Signage and Breach)These points are valid but need rewording for clarity and grammar:
• Describe why the signage is inadequate—tie this to the requirements for forming a contract (ParkingEye v Beavis still applies, but the signs there were very prominent).
• Expand the point about “three different signs” with an example or photo reference.
• Clearly set out the argument about consideration and grace periods, referencing Section 5 of the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) or the BPA/IPC CoPs if older. If the driver agreed to the terms and parked, the consideration period is not added to the Grace period. It is disregarded.
Paragraphs 25–26 (Comparison of Witness Statements)Good section overall. Your earlier request has already been addressed in your most recent paragraphs here. However, para 26 starts with a sentence fragment and needs rewording:
“This witness statement is based on my own knowledge and honest belief. In contrast, the Claimant’s statement is sparse, generic, and appears to be a cut-and-paste job.”
Also consider reordering this so the CPR/PD challenge comes before your factual response to the content of the Claimant’s WS.
Paragraphs 27–29 (CPR Challenge to Claimant’s WS)This has been addressed separately below.
Paragraphs 30–33 (Conclusion)These are powerful but border on polemic:
Reframe para 32’s language. While it’s true that the July 2023 DLUHC impact assessment shows enforcement cost inflation, avoid language like “to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers...” It can come across as a rant.
Suggested revision:
“It is now publicly acknowledged by the DLUHC’s July 2023 impact assessment that so-called ‘debt recovery’ costs are routinely inflated and rarely reflect actual costs. The Government has stated that the average cost to operators is around £8.42, yet claims such as this seek £70 or more under that heading. This practice is unfair and misleading.”
Here is a revised and slightly longer section for
Paragraphs 27–29 (CPR Challenge to Claimant’s WS) which explains the points being made and references them as necessary. I include it all so that you fully understand why it is raised...
In your reference to the fact that the WS is in the third person and made by a paralegal who cannot be cross-examined should also reference the appropriate CPRs. The claimant's witness statement is not a proper witness statement under CPR 32.4(1), which says a witness statement must be a written statement signed by a person that contains the evidence that person would be allowed to give orally.
Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, says a witness statement should, if possible, be in the witness’s own words. Paragraph 18.2 says a witness statement must show which parts are made from the witness’s own knowledge and which are based on information or belief, and must give the source for any information or belief. Paragraph 19.1 says the statement should be in the first person.
The claimant's statement does not follow any of these rules. It is written in the third person, it does not say what is known personally and what is based on second-hand information, and it does not come across as the genuine words of the witness. The person who signed it does not seem to have direct knowledge of the events described.
Under CPR 32.8 and Practice Direction 32 paragraph 25.1, there must also be a proper statement of truth. If a paralegal has drafted the statement and is making factual claims without personal knowledge, then this also raises questions about whether the statement of truth is valid.
Because the claimant’s witness statement fails to follow these clear rules, it should be given little or no weight by the court.
I would amend your points from para #26 and renumber as follows:
26. This witness statement is based on my own knowledge and honest belief. In contrast, the Claimant relies on a sparse, cut-and-paste witness statement. The Particulars of Claim are devoid of key facts and fail to specify any actual breach, making it difficult to respond meaningfully.
27. The Claimant’s so-called 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by their solicitor. This person has no first-hand knowledge of the events in question and is simply relaying second-hand information. Any evidence presented by this individual is not based on direct experience and cannot carry the same evidential weight as a statement from someone actually involved in the incident.
28. The Claimant’s witness statement is not a proper witness statement under CPR 32.4(1), which defines a witness statement as a written statement signed by a person that contains the evidence that person would be allowed to give orally. The statement in question is not written in the first person, and it is clear that it has been drafted by a paralegal or other representative who does not have direct knowledge of the facts. This is not permitted.
29. Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, says that a witness statement should, if practicable, be in the intended witness’s own words. Paragraph 18.2 requires the witness to identify which parts of their evidence are based on personal knowledge and which are based on information or belief, including the source of any such information. Paragraph 19.1 confirms that a statement should be written in the first person.
30. The Claimant’s statement does not follow any of these rules. It is written in the third person, it does not distinguish between what is personally known and what is second-hand, and it does not come across as the genuine words of the witness. The person who signed the statement appears to have no direct knowledge of the material facts.
31. Under CPR 32.8 and Practice Direction 32, paragraph 25.1, any statement of truth must properly reflect the personal knowledge of the signatory. Where a paralegal is making factual assertions without first-hand knowledge, this raises concerns about the validity of the statement of truth itself.
32. Although hearsay evidence is permitted under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, the court is required to give it reduced weight where the witness has no personal knowledge. Further, under CPR 32.2, the court has discretion to exclude evidence where it is of limited probative value. That is clearly the case here.
33. No personal statement has been provided by the car parking company or the landowner. The Claimant’s reliance on a generic, third-party-drafted document, with no direct input from a person with knowledge of the alleged event, means their statement cannot be relied on and should be given little or no weight by the court.
