Free Traffic Legal Advice

There is absolutely no point in preparing a WS before you have seen the claimants WS. Your defence is solely based on their technical failures. Once you have sight of their WS, you can then rebut their points. Your defence is going to depend on the preliminary matter that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

You can prepare whatever you like but it will not matter until you see their WS first. It really won't matter if your WS is a day or so late. All the judge will care that there is a WS when the hearing takes place.

Gladstones WS will be a rubbish template made by a paralegal with no direct knowledge and is simply hearsay. That will be pointed out in your WS. I really won't have time to look at anything until you have shown us their WS.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL

Claim No: M4GF9310

BETWEEN:

HX Car Park Management Ltd
Claimant

- and -

George Linnane

Defendant

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I, George Linnane, am the Defendant. I make this witness statement to supplement my Defence and it is from my own knowledge unless otherwise stated. The Particulars of Claim plead no cause of action: they identify no legal basis (contract, trespass or otherwise), no contractual term alleged to be incorporated, and no facts said to amount to breach. That is non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD16. On the pleaded case there is nothing to answer. The proper order is strike-out or dismissal under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

2. The claimant seeks to advance a cause of action for the first time in its witness statement (WS), including the narrative of a “loading bay for 17 minutes” breach and reliance on “acceptance by conduct” and PoFA keeper liability (Claimant’s WS pp.5–6, e.g. “Exhibit GS4”; PoFA discussion at p.6). A witness statement is not a pleading and cannot amend or cure defective PoC without permission. I ask the Court to disregard all new allegations and legal routes not pleaded in the PoC.

3. I rely on the persuasive County Court appeal authorities of Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS v Akande (filed with my Defence). Both confirm that bare, template particulars which fail to plead a cause of action do not satisfy CPR 16.4 and are liable to strike-out; a defendant is not required to guess at an unparticularised case.

4. Those authorities also confirm that a claimant cannot cure defective particulars by introducing factual and legal detail for the first time in a witness statement. The Court should confine itself to the pleaded case and disregard any new allegations advanced at WS stage.

5. My Defence explained that it was impossible to respond to an unparticularised and embarrassing claim and invited strike-out for non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) confirmed my Defence was received and served on the claimant’s representative. Any suggestion in the WS that the claimant lacked sight of my Defence is denied. If service were genuinely in doubt, it should have been raised promptly with the Court and remedied well before WS stage; it is not an excuse to proceed on defective PoC or to try to cure them by statement.

6. The WS is authored by a paralegal employed by the claimant’s solicitors who says she acts under supervision (Claimant’s WS p.2, “Introduction”). She is not a witness of fact to the alleged event, the signage at the material time, or any landowner authority. The statement is lawyer-compiled hearsay and is not consistently in the first person or source-referenced. It attracts limited weight (PD32; Civil Evidence Act 1995, s.4). The claimant has also indicated it will not attend, so the evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination, which further reduces weight.

7. Standing is not proven. Although the WS asserts authority in “The Claimant’s Authority To Issue Parking Charges” (Claimant’s WS p.3), the exhibited landholder agreement is materially redacted such that parties, signatories, dates, scope (including any right to litigate) and site extent cannot be verified. The burden to prove locus remains unmet.

8. Contract by notice is not established. The signage relied upon in the bundle is small, dense and the charge is buried in fine print; it was not fairly or prominently brought to a driver’s attention. ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguishable on its facts; onerous terms require special notice (Spurling v Bradshaw “red-hand rule”; Interfoto v Stiletto). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires transparency and prominence; any non-transparent financial sanction is unfair and to be read against the trader.

9. Keeper liability is not made out. The WS now relies on PoFA Schedule 4 (Claimant’s WS p.6), but strict statutory compliance (including a specified period of parking and prescribed wording/timings and creditor identification) is required and is not proven. Absent compliance, the claimant must prove the driver; it has not done so.

10. I ask the Court to refuse any attempt to amend the PoC at the hearing or to rely on the WS to cure them. If, contrary to that submission, amendment were to be allowed, I ask that the hearing be vacated, that compliant Particulars be ordered by a set date, and that I be paid my costs of the wasted hearing.

11. Disposal: strike out or dismiss the claim for failure to plead a cause of action. In the alternative, exclude all material outside the PoC, give little or no weight to lawyer-compiled hearsay, and dismiss on the remaining evidence. I seek my fixed costs and, given the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour (defective PoC, ambush by WS, and the incorrect “no sight of Defence” point), a further order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

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:

Costs sought under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct: defective PoC (CPR 16.4), ambush via WS, non-attendance, and the incorrect “no sight of Defence” assertion.

Pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek my costs due to the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour—no pleaded cause of action, attempt to cure at WS stage, lawyer-authored hearsay, and non-attendance.

CPR 27.14(2)(g) costs: failure to plead a cause of action; new case introduced only in WS; hearsay from a non-attending paralegal; and the erroneous claim of not having my Defence.

Under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek £[insert total] for unreasonable conduct (defective PoC, WS ambush, non-attendance, and incorrect “no Defence served” point).

Claim No: [ ]
Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
Hearing: [date], [court]
Defendant’s Schedule of Costs (Small Claims Track)

Basis:

Fixed small-claims costs (CPR 27.14(2)(c)–(f)) and, given the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct (CPR 27.14(2)(g): no pleaded cause of action; attempt to cure at WS stage; non-attendance), additional disbursements and LiP time.

Items:

1) Loss of earnings/leave for attending hearing (capped) .......... £[up to 95.00]
   Basis: [half day/full day off work]. Evidence: [wage slip/letter].

2) Travel to/from court ............................................ £[ ]
   Basis: [train/bus fares attached] OR [x miles @ 45p/mile = £ ].

3) Parking at court (receipt attached / shown) ..................... £[ ]

4) Court fees paid (if any) ........................................ £[ ]

(Only if 27.14(2)(g) found:)

5) Postage/printing ................................................ £[ ]

6) Litigant-in-person time (CPR 46.5/PD 46 §3.4) ................... £[ ]
   Basis: [e.g., 3.0 hours @ £19/hr = £57]; brief log: [date – task – time].

TOTAL ................................................................ £[ ]

Signed: _____________________   Date: ________________