Hi all,Please see my witness statement below. Any changes needed?
[size=150]Statement of Evidence of xx[/size]
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: xx
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
xx (Defendant)
[size=120]WITNESS STATEMENT OF xx[/size]
I, xx, will say as follows:
I am the Defendant in these proceedings. I make this statement in support of my defence against the claim brought by National Car Parks Ltd ("the Claimant") and in compliance with the court's order dated
[Insert Date of Court Order, e.g., "first available date after 24th July 2025"].
I deny the claim in its entirety and assert that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") served by the Claimant lack precise detail in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me, such that the PoC do not comply with
CPR 16.4(1)(a).
I am unable to properly plead to the PoC because:
- The contract referred to in the PoC is not detailed or attached in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5).
- The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on.
- The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the Claimant asserts I have breached the contract (or contracts).
- The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred, and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred.
- The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges.
- The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages.
- The PoC do not provide clarity on whether I am being sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the Claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
The deficiencies in the Claimant's PoC are not merely technical. As highlighted by Her Honour Judge Evans in
CPMS v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30, a defendant "cannot possibly plead his Defence because he does not know what the contractual term is said to be that he has breached and he does not know how he is said to have breached it". The PoC in this case suffers from these exact fundamental flaws.
I further rely on the persuasive appellate decisions in
CEL v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44 and
CPMS v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30, where claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached as Exhibit N.B.1 (CEL v Chan) and Exhibit N.B.2 (CPMS v Akande).
In
CEL v Chan, Judge Murch held that the particulars of claim must set out the conduct relied upon as amounting to a breach of contract, stating, "The conduct amounting to the breach was not set out". The judge further noted that if the Money Claims Online (MCOL) system's character limit is insufficient, it is open to the claimant to file and serve separate, detailed particulars of claim. The Claimant in my case has similarly failed to set out the specific conduct alleged to be a breach.
Similarly, in
CPMS v Akande, it was explicitly stated that the PoC must contain a concise statement of the facts relied upon, and that the nature of the breach, not just a simple assertion, is fundamental to a claim of this nature. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the PoC were "wholly inadequate" because they did not specify the breach.
I also attach a copy of a draft order previously issued by a District Judge at another court in a similar case where the claim was struck out of the court's own initiative due to the Particulars of Claim failing to comply with
CPR 16.4(1)(a). This draft order is attached as Exhibit N.B.3. The judge in that case noted the claimant's failure to:
- Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
- Explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
- Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2). The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective, leading to the outright striking out of the claim.
I submit that the same reasoning applies in this case. The Claimant's PoC suffers from the identical, fundamental failures identified in the appellate decisions and the attached draft order. To permit further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Therefore, I invite the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant's failure to comply with
CPR 16.4(1)(a).
[size=120]
Statement of Truth[/size]
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: xx
Date:
