Napier/BW Legal ticket paid for but incorrect car reg entered

Ibulis

@Coupon-mad - thanks for continuing to give advice. I just have a follow-up Q: please could you confirm that I've put the references to it in the correct place in my WS?

Coupon-mad

It's a bit muddled.

15 makes no sense because Chan and Akande are not about costs.

I see you also refer to Chan & Akande in other places but can't see that these are exhibits?

Add here:

12. In their letter dated 10 June 2020 (Exhibit 06) Napier Parking used the phrase ‘Payment was not made for this location’ without clarifying that I had used the incorrect location code.  However, none of the above (differing allegations) were pleaded in the incoherent Particulars Of Claim.  I am at a loss as to what I am supposed to have done wrong (not displaying? Not paying? Typo with the location code? something else entirely?). How have we got this far without the court or me knowing what the basis of this Claimant's case actually is? A defendant should not have to 'guess the breach' and somehow respond to a generic POC; this is not just. I ask the court to consider how this Claimant has got away with not specifying the term or breach without asking for relief from sanctions. This claim is not compliant with Part 16.

Ibulis

Thanks @Coupon-mad for the extra additions to para 12. Much appreciated. And I'll take on board your comment about it being a bit muddled (which is an accurate reflection of the contents of my head after 2 days wrestling this into shape).

Ibulis

Here's what I  hope is the final version of my WS - hopefully a little less muddled and with the correct cases cited in the correct places. I would be very grateful for advice on whether or not all sections are relevant and I've cited the relevant cases. Thanks in advance!

 

Between

Napier Parking Limited

(Claimant)

V

XXX

(Defendant)

 

 

Table of contents:

• Witness statement
• Exhibit ASF1: Copy of payment transaction to RingGo
• Exhibit ASF2: Copy of bank statement showing payment
• Exhibit ASF3: Copy of letter from BW Legal dated 29/12/2023
• Exhibit ASF4: Copy of Notice to Keeper from Claimant dated 04/03/2020
• Exhibit ASF5: Copy of FCN details
• Exhibit ASF6: Photographic evidence of old ticket displayed in car windscreen
• Exhibit ASF7: Photographic evidence of ticket machine displaying locator id 2195
• Exhibit ASF8: Map showing location of RingGo location code 2195
• Exhibit ASF9: Map showing location of RingGo location code 8672
• Exhibit ASF10: Photographic evidence of ticket machine Terms & Conditions
• Exhibit ASF11: Final reminder letter from Claimant dated 08/04/2020
• Exhibit ASF12: Copy of letter from BW Legal dated 08/08/23
• Exhibit ASF13: Copy of Claim Form dated 17/11/23
• Exhibit ASF14: Copy of relevant paragraphs from Beavis case
• Exhibit ASF15: Copy of Judgements Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan & Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande
• Exhibit ASF16: Photographic evidence of view from my car towards the Pay & Display machine (location code 2195)

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

I, XXX, of XXX, will say as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

1.     I make this Witness Statement (hereinafter referred to as WS) in readiness for the hearing listed on 1 November 2024 in Milton Keynes County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

 

2.     In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-16) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

3. I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities (I append transcripts of both - plus multiple area court 'strike outs' of parking claims that reflect these authorities - in Exhibit ASF15)

 

4. The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. (See Exhibit ASF15)

 

5. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit 01)

 

Facts and sequence of events

1. This matter relates to the Napier Parking pay & display car park at Milton Keynes train station where, on 29th February 2020, having arrived and parked I used the ‘Search nearby’ option available on the RingGo mobile phone ‘app’ to pay. The ‘app’ showed the nearest location as 8672.

1. I paid for two days parking using the RingGo phone app. I have an account with RingGo and make my bookings and payments online. This leaves a record of the booking within my account on RingGo with a booking reference number and card payment receipt. 
2. I will now make reference to Exhibit ASF1 which is a VAT receipt from RingGo for £20.18 which shows that I did make payment to RingGo for the facility of parking at MK station car park for the full duration of my stay. Payment was made on 29 February 2020 at 8:51am to park my vehicle at said location on 29 February 2020 from 8:51am until 2 March 2020 8:51am.
3. However there is an error in the vehicle registration number shown in the aforementioned document (EOO5OPV not EO55OPV) which I took to be the reason for the Claimant’s argument. It wasn’t until December 2023 that the Claimant, via their legal representative, made it clear that it was the location code used that they are using as the basis of their claim against me. Neither the claimant nor their legal representative made any attempt to clarify this despite my numerous emails and phonecalls in which I mentioned the incorrect registration details as the cause of their claim.
4. I also have the bank statement showing the amount debited from my account (Exhibit 05).
5. When BW Legal first informed me of these Fixed Charge Notices (hereinafter referred to as FCNs) I contacted Napier parking directly to appeal the claim but was informed by them that I’d missed the deadline to do so.
6. The reason I’d missed the deadline is that the FCN from Napier Parking was sent to an old address (see Exhibit 04).
7. There was no parking contravention notice placed on the windscreen of my car when I returned to collect it therefore I was unaware that any contravention had taken place.
8. I now make reference to the Claimant’s statement as provided by BW Legal (Exhibit 03) that “you failed to make a valid payment for the Car Park where you parked” which contradicts the wording of the FCNs which detail the contravention as “Failure to clearly display a valid ticket/permit” (see Exhibit 02). However, the signage in the photo (in Exhibit 10) states “vehicles that possess a valid virtual permit are not required to display a ticket/permit.”
9. Exhibit 06 shows a photo of the front of my car with an out-of-date parking ticket inside the windscreen. It’s my belief that this piece of evidence is not applicable as when a driver pays using an app on their phone they do not receive a printed ticket and the ticket in the photo is not for MK Station carpark nor was it issued by Napier parking.
10. As noted in Exhibit 01 my RingGo payment was for location code 8672. I was informed by BW Legal that this location code does not relate to MK Station carpark but as you can see in Exhibit 09 this location is at MK station. Furthermore, on a subsequent visit to the same parking location, I ascertained that parking location 2195, although displayed on a nearby pay & display machine, does not come up in RingGo’s app when asked to find the nearest location. The default location code for anywhere around the Milton Keynes train station comes up as 8672, a fact I confirmed by standing in the space where my car was parked on 29 February 2020.
11. The Claimant provided a photo (Exhibit 07) of a ticket machine showing the location 2195. As you can see if you compare Exhibits 08 & 09 this is in an almost identical location to location 8672. I could not in fact see the ticket machine with the location code 2195 from where I’d parked my car and just used the RingGo app’s ‘Search nearby’ facility after parking my car. Exhibit ASF10 shows that here is no signage pointing a motorist to this particular machine.
12. There is no indication in the terms and conditions for using this carpark that a particular pay and display machine or location code must be used (see Exhibit ASF 10).
13. However, none of the above (differing allegations) were pleaded in the incoherent Particulars Of Claim. I am at a loss as to what I am supposed to have done wrong (Not displaying a ticket? Not paying for my parking? A typo with the location code? Something else entirely?). How have we got this far without the court or me knowing what the basis of this Claimant's case actually is? A defendant should not have to 'guess the breach' and somehow respond to a generic POC; this is not just. I ask the court to consider how this Claimant has got away with not specifying the term or breach without asking for relief from sanctions. This claim is not compliant with Part 16.

Exaggerated Claim and 'Market Failure' Currently Examined By the Government

19.  The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added ‘debt collection’ costs are genuine. The £60 additional ‘debt collection’ costs per FCN appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £60 per FCN is neither justified nor explained.

20.  The Claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise defendants like myself, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.

21.  I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of :

1.     the alleged breach, and

2.     a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

22.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per FCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

23.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (now known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice-explanatory-document-how-was-it-developed-and-what-will-it-change

“Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

24.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government’s analysis, found here:

Private Parking Code of Practice: draft impact assessment (publishing.service.gov.uk)

25.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

26.  With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery’ and I take that position.

27.  The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

28.  In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal’.

29.  This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In the Beavis case, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

30.  Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

31.  In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’) the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

 

 

Ibulis

Part 2

CRA Breaches

 

1. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

20.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

21.  The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

 

The Beavis case is against this claim

 

1. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit ASF 14) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).
2. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There is one main issue that renders this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Hidden Terms:

The additional charge of £60 is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence. Their

(unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a

vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade

body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor

even how much they might layer on top. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a

case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i)               Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

 

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading authorities confirming

that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

 

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because

it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due

to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space".

Unenforceable Additional Costs

 

13.  Exhibit ASF 10 shows that the signage provides for a "£100 fixed charge for breach of any Term or Condition”, plus “additional charges of up to £60 for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis.” However, I submit that these "additional charges" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.

14.  In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £60 per FCN, claiming this as "recovery costs." The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms “that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules 16.4

 

1. As seen in Exhibit ASF13 , the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are insufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. In CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention or the terms supposedly breached.

Claimant: Napier Parking exxagerated claim

 

1. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Claimant nor their legal representative followed this matter up with RingGo to help resolve the dispute nor was any evidence provided that the parking attendant had checked my licence plate with RingGo.

 

25.  The Claimant used increasingly threatening language in their follow-up letter dated 8 April 2020 (Exhibit ASF 11) as follows ‘should you force us to go to Court, we give notice of our intention to seek our full costs against you under Civil Procedure Rules 27.14 (2) (g) on the basis that you have wasted our time and that you do not have, and never advanced, any legitimate defence.’

 

Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof

 

1. The claimant, in their correspondence (Exhibits ASF3 and ASF4), has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim. Specifically:

1. Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) and reminder notices, were properly served as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Having their legal representative simply produce copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.
2. Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention, preventing me from fully understanding the case against me. Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking out of the claim.

Conclusion

1. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. . The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents.

28.  There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. As the Defendant I am of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

29.  The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

30.   I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these proceedings when making any assessment of costs.

In the matter of costs, I ask:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

31.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Costs Assessment

Given the significant time and effort required to defend this unjust claim, I respectfully request that the court consider awarding costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I have spent considerable time researching, preparing this statement, and attending the hearing. My estimated costs for this are as follows:

• Research and preparation of witness statement (5 Hours @ £11.44 per hour): £57.20
• Travel expenses (Parking and petrol): £14

Total: £71.20

I request that the court considers these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.

 

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.

 

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

 

Observations re the Claimant's Witness Statement

 

The claimants 'witness' is a paralegal employed by the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence provided by this individual is second-hand and, at times inaccurate, supposedly relying entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.

 

While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, it is required to be given less weight, especially when it comes from someone with no firsthand knowledge. Furthermore, under CPR 32.2, the court has the discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it is of limited probative value. In this case, the witness provides only second-hand information from the claimant and cannot be considered reliable or probative. In support of this, I would ask the Judge to look at paragraph 8 of the claimant’s Witness Statement where the incorrect vehicle registration plate is given suggesting that a template paragraph has been (mis)used.

 

Paragraph 8 of the claimant’s WS also states that “no virtual permit was obtained through the RingGo mobile payment ‘app’” which is clearly not the case.

 

Paragraph 10 of the claimant’s WS refers to a copy of the Transaction Reports (p.80) for both dates. This report makes no mention of which location code it refers to.

 

Paragraph 36 of the claimant’s WS refers to my car being clearly parked next to the Claimant’s signage. There is no photographic evidence of this and I can truthfully state that I was parked some distance away from any signage and did not see the Pay and Display machine with location code 2195 at the time of paying for my parking which I did while sitting in my car.

 

Paragraph 39 of the claimant’s WS refers to my having ‘clearly received the FCNs at the DVLA address as she responded to both’. This is untrue - I only followed this up with the Claimant after being contacted by BW Legal and received neither the original FCNs nor the Claimant’s Final reminder.

 

 

KeithP

In most cases your exhibits use the naming convention 'ASFnn'.
In some cases the characters 'ASF' are missing.
In your first paragraph numbered 5 there is mention of 'exhibit 01', but that is something completely different to Exhibit ASF01.

In the block of text under the heading 'Facts and Sequence of Events' there are numerous exhibits cited - some using 'ASF' as part of their identity but by far the majority do not follow that convention.

Ibulis

Thanks Keith, I'm tidying that all up at the mo ...

1505grandad

Typo  -  "Claimant: Napier Parking exxagerated claim"

Ibulis

Hi Guys, BW Legal have filed a 2nd witness statement with the Court in response to my filing basically trying to trash the arguments and documents I supplied saying (amongst other things) that I have used this forum to cut and paste my witness statement and accusing me of wasting the court's time. Could I have some advice on how to respond to this please? Happy to screenshot the 7 points they've raised for context but will have to do that a bit later.

Coupon-mad

Is this past the WS filing deadline?  How soon is the hearing?