I have attempted to draft my witness statement.
My main arguments are:
1. Incomplete PoC
2. No signage on when car was parked, hence no evidence to support claim
3. They are claiming sign was near but not at that spot
4. Incomplete signages as their site plan shows full row of restricted parking but only 4 pillars out of more than 10 pillars show a sign. My car parked spot did not have a sign.
5. Multiple discrepancies in the evidence - parking sign in evidence is different than the actual sign at the site (included in my exhibit)
6. Discrepancies in their appeal time limit advise - NTK said 28 days for appeal but when my appeal rejection email said 21 days (both evidences in as part of claimant witness statement)
7. failure to prove landownership authority, there is a mention of Excel Parking Ltd but no records on this company in companies house
8. I am saying it's false claim because there was no sign, they don't have any evidence of that hence there wasn't any breach.
Can someone please kindly do a sanity check of my witness statement, and advise and feedback if I am missing something. Thanks a lot.
Photo evidence in my exhibit -
Defendant ExhibitAlso, regarding timelines, hearing is scheduled for 30th Jan so I need to submit my witness statement by 16th Jan, right? And what is the best way to submit my statement?
Many thanks for your help.
I, [Defendant’s Full Name], am the Defendant in this claim and make this statement in support of my defence. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Multiple Procedural Defects in the Claimant’s Case
2. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) and Witness Statement (WS) are both procedurally defective and should be given no weight due to their failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the improper execution of their statements of truth.
3. The PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. The Claimant had an obligation to fully particularise the claim at the time of issuing proceedings but failed to:
a) Set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of the terms and conditions relied upon.
(b) Adequately explain how the terms of the alleged contract were incorporated or why I am said to be in breach.
(c) Provide a breakdown of how the total sum claimed has been calculated, including interest and alleged additional charges.
(d) Provide Parking Charge Notice number as claimed by Claimant in Witness Statement paragraph 12.
4. Despite the Claimant’s failure to adequately plead its case, the allocation judge did not order the Claimant to amend or clarify its PoC. The Claimant has since sought to introduce additional details via its Witness Statement, but this does not cure the defective PoC. A Witness Statement cannot remedy an inadequate statement of case, and this attempt to rectify procedural failings at a later stage is an abuse of process.
5. The PoC are signed by Edmund Shoreman-Lawson, described as the "Claimant’s legal representative," but there is no evidence that he is a solicitor or that he has the formal authorisation required under CPR 22.1 and Practice Direction 22 to sign a statement of truth on behalf of the Claimant.
6. CPR 22.1(6) and PD 22, paragraph 3.9, require that:
(a) If signed by a legal representative, they must be a solicitor or a person formally authorised by the Claimant.
(b) The signatory must be responsible for the conduct of the case.
7. Edmund Shoreman-Lawson is not a solicitor, and the Claimant has not provided evidence that he has explicit authorisation to sign statements of truth on behalf of Excel Parking Services Ltd. The Claimant must demonstrate that he has the required formal standing to sign the PoC. If he does not, the statement of truth is defective, and the PoC are procedurally invalid.
8. The Witness Statement attempts to introduce new arguments and details that were absent from the PoC, including references to site plan, signage, and contract terms. However, this does not remedy the defective PoC and is an attempt to circumvent proper procedure.
9. Claimant has included parking signage as part of exhibit JB1 but this signage is different than the one displayed at the site. I include a photo from the site where these contract terms are not mentioned. This is a clear false representation by providing false evidence and attempt to abuse the process.
10. The Witness Statement falsely states that PoC includes Parking Charge Notice number but it doesn’t. Claimant is making a false statement regarding that in Witness Statement.
11. Claimant’s Witness Statement fails to confirm which accredited trade associations (ATAs) they are a member of. Witness Statement just mentions they are Accredited Member of Approved Trade Associations certified by the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) but fails to establish which ATA.
12. The Claimant is a serial litigant represented by bulk litigation solicitors and should be fully aware of its obligations under the CPR. Despite this, it failed to properly plead its case at the outset and now seeks to correct its failings by introducing details at a later stage. This approach is unfair, unreasonable, and an abuse of process.
13. In light of these procedural defects, I submit that:
(a) The PoC are inadequately pleaded, do not comply with CPR 16.4, and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
(b) The statement of truth on the PoC is defective, as the Claimant has not demonstrated that Edmund Shoreman-Lawson was properly authorised to sign on their behalf.
(c) The Witness Statement should be given no weight, as it does not correct the failings in the PoC.
(d) The court should consider whether the Claimant’s conduct in issuing vague claims and relying on late evidence constitutes unreasonable behaviour, warranting a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
The Claimant’s Failure to Display Compliant Signage
14. The Claimant’s Witness Statement at various paragraphs states that claimant was prominently displaying parking restriction signs, however that’s not the case as I have included evidence in Exhibit 1.
15. Defendant’s Witness Statement Exhibit 1 shows photographic evidence of the site, that clearly show signage was displayed randomly and not fully on all the parking spots where restriction was applied
16. On that particular row of parking spots, there are more than 10 pillars but signage is displayed on only 4. That shows Claimant’s complete failure of showing proper signage, and misleading drivers by not showing the signage but then issuing parking charge notices and abusing the procedure.
17. Claimant has failed to display complaint signage for all the parking spots where restriction was applied. This shows a misleading practice and not compliant with consumer practices.
18. The Claimant’s evidential photos of signage at the location, found in Exhibit 2 of their Witness Statement, predominantly depict signs on that adjacent pillar where Defendant car was not parked.
19. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of signage where the defendant car was parked. The Claimant’s own exhibits and witness statement paragraph 19 claims that a sign was displayed “near” the defendant’s parked car, and not at the exact parking spot.
20. The Claimant’s such fundamental failure and further providing false statements and evidence in the Witness Statement shows an abuse of process, and falsely claiming that contract breach has occurred without providing relevant evidence to support their claim.
21. This is further evidence of non-compliance with the industry Code of Practice,
"Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand."
The Claimant’s Unlawful Access to DVLA Data
22. The Claimant’s Witness Statement at paragraph 3 asserts Accredited Member of Approved Trade Associations but fails to confirm which ATA. Since compliance with the Code of Practice is essential for the Claimant to obtain Registered Keeper details from the DVLA under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. Without their confirmation of which ATA they are member of, their access of DVLA data would seem unlawful.
23. As already established in this Witness Statement, the Claimant does not confirm which ATA they are a member of, this strict compliance with the Code of Practice can not be established and is a fundamental condition of the Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract between private parking operators and the DVLA, the Claimant’s access to DVLA data is unlawful.
24. The KADOE contract explicitly states that an operator must adhere to the ATA Code of Practice in its entirety as a condition of being granted access to Registered Keeper data. Any failure to meet the requirements of the Code, including but not limited to inadequate signage, misleading contractual terms, or procedural breaches, invalidates an operator’s lawful basis for requesting and processing keeper details from the DVLA.
25.As such, the Claimant has unlawfully accessed my data in contravention of the KADOE contract, which constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR, as it obtained and processed my personal data without a lawful basis.
The Claimant’s Failure to Prove Landowner Authority
26. The Claimant’s Witness Statement does not confirm whether they have a valid contract with the landowner authorising them to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). However, the contract statement of authority provided in their Exhibit JB2 is so confusing that it is meaningless and constitutes a clear abuse of process.
27. The document shows the site is leased to Excel Parking Ltd but does not confirm what is the role of Excel Parking Ltd. Further, Excel Parking Ltd company doesn’t have any records in Companies House. Without this key information, the Claimant has provided no admissible evidence that they have landowner authority, which is a fundamental requirement for bringing this claim.
28. The document states that Excel Parking Services Ltd are the operator, however if the site is leased to Excel Parking Ltd (as per 2nd point) then document fails to show the relationship between Excel Parking Services Ltd and Excel Parking Ltd. Moreover Excel Parking Ltd doesn’t seem to exist as there are no records of this company ever formed or dissolved in Companies House.
29. This document fails to establish who is the land owner and who is the operator, which is a failure to prove landowner authority.
30. A parking operator must have clear landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges. This was confirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338, where the Court of Appeal emphasised that authority must be demonstrated through an unambiguous contract. The Claimant’s contract is so confusing that it is impossible to verify whether they have such authority.
31. The contract does not allow the Defendant or the court to verify that the Claimant has the right to operate at the site, issue charges, or pursue legal action in its own name. The Claimant’s failure to provide a clear contract means there is no proof that they were authorised to act at the time of the alleged contravention.
32. Given that the Claimant has failed to comply with CPR 31.6, Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5, and established case law, I submit that this claim should be dismissed due to the Claimant’s failure to provide fundamental evidence of their authority.
33. In light of the above, I submit that the Claimant has failed to establish that it has landowner authority, has engaged in procedural misconduct, and that this claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
No Contract Was Formed Due to Signage
34. I deny the Claimant’s assertions in paragraphs 5 to 22 of their Witness Statement regarding the alleged contract. They failed to display proper signage and have no evidence of alleged contract breach.
35. The fundamental basis of a contract is mutual agreement, which requires a clear offer and unambiguous acceptance. Given that the signage was not displayed where defendant’s car was parked and claimant failed to properly display signage, no legally binding agreement could have been formed.
36. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the signage was displayed where defendant’s car was parked. Without proof that a valid contract was entered into, the claim cannot succeed.
The Claimant’s Attempt to Justify False Claim via the Witness Statement
37. The Claimant’s Witness Statement in paragraph 12 states that Parking Charge Notice number was included in PoC but it’s not, it’s false claim by Claimant’s witness.
38. Claimant’s Witness Statement paragraphs 13, Claimant has used my appeal contents to identify me as a driver but they failed to understand the reasoning behind my appeal. I appealed in good faith (but late by 3 days of 28days limit) because there was no contract breach as signage was not properly displayed.
39. But Claimant failed to engage with my appeal and provide any reasonable justification and rejected the appeal just on the basis that it missed the deadline of 28 days.
40. Further to note that Claimant’s Notice To Keeper (NTK) mentions that all appeals/challenges must be registered within 28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this Notice. But PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6) then defines when a notice is "given." A notice sent by post is presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after it was posted, unless the contrary is proved. For these purposes, a "working day" excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays in England and Wales. Claimant are using the day after the issue date which is against the PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6). As per the PoFA it should be second working day after it was posted.
41. Further to add, when Claimant rejected defendant’s appeal they mentioned appeals should have been registered within 21 days. This is in clear contradiction of claimant’s own advice in NTK, where appeal time limit is 28 days.
42. This contradiction between 2 documents (submitted by Claimant in exhibit JB1 and JB2) clearly shows Claimant’s misguided advise and misrepresentation of the claim case.
43. Claimant argues in Witness Statement paragraphs 19 , that signage are displayed near the defendant’s vehicle but there was no signage where defendant vehicle was parked and Claimant has not produced any evidence to support their claim.
44. Claimant asserts in Witness Statement paragraphs 20, “there are no other sign visible and therefore no indication that any alternative terms may be applied in this area ”, however there was no sign at all at the defendant’s parking spot. Claimant has failed to display signs prominently and relying on a sign nearby to bring a false case against defendant.
45. Claimant asserts in Witness Statement paragraphs 21, that defendant should have utilised helpline number to clarify but it’s claimant’s duty and responsibility as a parking operator to clearly and prominently display all the signages and not engage in bringing forward false claims when there is no contract breach.
46. Claimant falsely asserts in Witness Statement paragraphs 22 that I claimed I did not see the signage. My argument is there was no signage, this is a failure on claimant’s side where they have failed to properly display the signage. Further claimant has included a site plan with the witness statement, but this site plan is not displayed at the site itself.
47. The Claimant attempts to justify the inadequacy of their PoC by referring to Practice Direction 7C, Section 5.2(1) and 5.2A. However, while these rules permit brief particulars of claim in money claims, they do not absolve the Claimant of the obligation to provide sufficient detail under CPR 16.4. The Claimant had the opportunity to submit Further and Better Particulars but chose not to do so. A defective PoC cannot be retrospectively rectified through a Witness Statement.
Conclusion: The Claim Should Be Dismissed
48. The Claimant has made numerous procedural defects, failed to establish landowner authority, has made false statements, has provided misguided advises, has submitted vague and defective Particulars of Claim, has attempted to circumvent proper procedure by relying on a Witness Statement to introduce new arguments, and has sought to bring a false claim forward without any evidence, which seems to be an abuse of process.
49. Given the serious procedural defects, misrepresentations, and abuse of process in this case, I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed in its entirety.
