Free Traffic Legal Advice

So, I have just recieved the documents from SIP carpark now- about 10 minutes ago! It's 36 pages long- and double sided! What is the best way to upload to the forum?

Thanks.
Deadline to submit is tomorrow 3pm and I don't know where to start!

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cy1564o9oeneqkyd90i6b/SIPDocWS-P1to48-redacted.pdf?rlkey=lc8dbgjn45ycm1lwid6ctue3f&st=vd25s0bg&dl=0

This is the first 49 pages.

Page 1 to 8 are their witness statement.

This is part 2-
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b2ip9gz057rhsxvhglenw/SIPDocWS-P50to70redacted.pdf?rlkey=wc4byy7tohlfj3s64liuhuwjp&st=4jdzg8jo&dl=0

It has pages 50 to 70.
VCS VS Adam Percy

Here is a WS you can use or adapt. You will need to study it and understand what is in it as it will be signed by you under a statement of truth. You may be questioned on it, study it and learn it.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

SIP Parking Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the Defendant in this claim and the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the Particulars of Claim. I was not the driver. I make this witness statement in support of my defence. The facts stated herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. As a preliminary matter, I submit that the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4. The Particulars of Claim are vague, incoherent, and lack the necessary detail to disclose a valid cause of action.

3. The Claimant has not set out the specific contractual terms allegedly breached, nor have they identified the legal basis for the added costs. The PoC do not specify whether I am pursued as the driver or the keeper, nor do they provide a breakdown of the sum claimed.

4. The Claimant cannot rely on documents served after the claim was issued to cure defects in the PoC. The PoC must stand on their own. A Defendant is entitled to understand the case against them from the claim form alone in order to plead a proper defence.

5. The PoC fail to comply with CPR PD 16 paragraph 7.5, which requires that any written contract relied upon be attached or its terms set out. No such contract is provided or quoted.

6. The PoC also fail to comply with CPR PD 7C paragraph 5.2(2), which allows for separate detailed particulars to be served—yet none were. The claim is therefore defective and should be struck out.

7. The delay between the Letter Before Claim dated 09/11/2023 and the issue of proceedings on 30/01/2025—almost 14 months—is excessive and unreasonable. The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims requires that proceedings be issued within a reasonable time after the letter is sent. This delay has caused prejudice and uncertainty.

8. The amounts claimed by the Claimant have varied arbitrarily throughout the correspondence, without any coherent explanation or lawful basis.

9. • On 06/09/2022, the Notice to Keeper stated a charge of £100 with no overdue fees.
• On 13/10/2022, the Payment Overdue letter demanded £115 but did not mention overdue fees.
• On 28/10/2022, the Final Reminder stated £100 plus £25 overdue fees.
• On 14/11/2022, the Legal Action Letter stated £100 plus £60 overdue fees.
• On 09/11/2023, the Letter Before Claim reverted to £100.
• On 30/01/2025, the Claim Form demanded £160.

10. These figures fluctuate without justification, and the Claimant has failed to provide any contractual or statutory basis for the added sums.

11. The Letter Before Claim dated 09/11/2023, which should represent the final pre-litigation demand, contradicts earlier demands of £160. This undermines the credibility of the claim and suggests that the Claimant has not followed the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

12. The Claim Form seeks £160, comprising £100 for the alleged charge and £60 for “debt damage costs.” No breakdown or justification is provided for these costs, and they appear to be arbitrary additions contrary to CPR 27.14(2).

13. I first became aware of this matter upon receiving a Payment Overdue Notice dated 13/10/2022, demanding £115 for an alleged parking contravention on 31/08/2022. I did not receive any prior Notice to Keeper dated 06/09/2022, nor was any notice affixed to the vehicle.

14. The first letter lacked sufficient detail and appeared generic, leading me to reasonably believe it was a scam. I subsequently received two further letters with escalating charges (£125 and £160), which I also disregarded due to their vague and aggressive nature.

15. On 09/11/2023, I received a Letter Before Claim demanding £100. I then contacted SIP Parking via email to request further information and dispute the charge.

16. SIP Parking responded by providing a copy of the alleged Notice to Keeper and photographs of signage. They confirmed that a 2-hour parking session was paid, and the vehicle overstayed by 26 minutes, including a 10-minute grace period.

17. I was informed that no further direct communication would be made, effectively shutting down any meaningful dialogue or resolution.

18. I was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I deny any contractual liability.

19. The claimant has failed to identify the driver and instead seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to me as the keeper.

20. However, the Notice to Keeper was not received, and therefore the conditions under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 were not met. The notice was not properly served, and no evidence has been provided to confirm proof of posting or service.

21. The signage relied upon is cluttered and ambiguous, with multiple payment methods and exemptions such as 1-hour free parking via supermarket tills.

22. The alleged overstay of 16 minutes beyond the grace period is disproportionate and does not justify a £160 claim.

23. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, contrary to the principles in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which do not apply where the charge is not transparent or proportionate.

24. The addition of £60 “debt recovery” costs is not recoverable under the small claims track, as confirmed in CPR 27.14(2).

25. The claim inflates the debt without justification and seeks to circumvent cost restrictions, amounting to an abuse of process.

26. The Claimant refers to VCS v Percy in support of their claim for £60 “debt recovery” costs. I submit that this reliance is misplaced and should be disregarded.

27. VCS v Percy is a County Court decision and therefore not binding. It is, at best, persuasive authority and has been criticised for its reasoning. The judgment did not consider the broader context of abuse of process or the limitations imposed by CPR 27.14(2) on costs recovery in small claims.

28. The £60 add-on is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a cost actually incurred. It is a fixed, arbitrary sum added post hoc, and its inclusion has been widely condemned as double recovery. The Government’s proposed Code of Practice under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 explicitly bans such charges, recognising them as unfair and disproportionate.

29. Furthermore, the signage relied upon by the Claimant does not clearly state that £60 will be added for enforcement. Even if it did, contractual terms cannot override the statutory cost limits imposed by the small claims regime.

30. The Claimant has failed to show that the £60 represents a real loss or cost incurred. It is not supported by any invoice, breakdown, or evidence of actual expenditure. It is simply a mechanism to inflate the claim and pressure settlement.

31. I therefore submit that the £60 should be disallowed in full, and the court should treat its inclusion as an abuse of process.

32. The Claimant refers to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in support of their claim. I submit that this reliance is misplaced and irrelevant to the facts of this case.

33. Beavis concerned a free car park at a retail site with a two-hour maximum stay. No payment or registration was required. The charge was upheld because it served a legitimate interest in ensuring turnover of parking spaces for retail customers and was not deemed unconscionable or extravagant.

34. The present case involves a paid car park with multiple payment methods and complex signage. The alleged breach relates to a paid session, not the misuse of a free facility. The Beavis judgment does not apply to paid parking scenarios where the operator suffers no financial loss and where the motorist may have attempted to comply.

35. The Supreme Court in Beavis did not endorse the blanket enforceability of all private parking charges. It was a fact-specific decision and does not override the requirement for fairness, transparency, and proportionality in consumer contracts.

36. The signage relied upon in this case is cluttered and ambiguous, and the sum claimed—£160—is excessive and disproportionate. It does not reflect any legitimate interest or commercial justification and instead appears to be a punitive demand.

37. I therefore submit that Beavis is not applicable and should be disregarded in assessing the fairness or enforceability of the charge in this case.

38. I respectfully request that the court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or dismiss it in full.

39. Alternatively, I request that the claim be dismissed on the basis that I am not liable as the driver, and the claimant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements to pursue me as keeper.

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:

No you don't. The claimant has already attached Percy and you are silly rebutting their claim that it has relevance. Also, Beavis is now Trite law. As a Supreme Court decision that redefined the penalty doctrine, Beavis is now well-established and routinely cited. Courts are expected to be familiar with it.

Statutory law and procedural rules like PoFA 2012 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are publicly accessible and judicially noticed. That means the court is presumed to know them and can refer to them without needing them exhibited as evidence.