Fined for parking in my allocated residential parking space.

saajan_12

Coupon-mad said:

There were signs in the car park but whether the D's tenancy agreement they relied upon trumps those signs (and whether those signs & terms were clear and fair and applicable to authorised residents) will be up to a Judge.

Were there? 
Genuine question as I didn't see that in the OP, and not sure if that's just coming through in the defence / ws templates OP is using. 

I thought it was just paperwork that someone says gets handed to tenants upon move in - in which case it would be for them to prove this was handed to OP. 

Coupon-mad

saajan_12 said:

Coupon-mad said:

There were signs in the car park but whether the D's tenancy agreement they relied upon trumps those signs (and whether those signs & terms were clear and fair and applicable to authorised residents) will be up to a Judge.

Were there? 
Genuine question as I didn't see that in the OP, and not sure if that's just coming through in the defence / ws templates OP is using. 

I thought it was just paperwork that someone says gets handed to tenants upon move in - in which case it would be for them to prove this was handed to OP. 

There are ALWAYS signs. They form the contract in private parking.

I've been doing this for over 15 years and except pre-2012 (cowboy clamping days) I've never seen a case with no signs, and that would never be the case in a residential car park where a scum PPC infests it.

It doesn't need to be in the OP.  Parking scammers always have a sign or two - whether they are enforceable or not is another matter. 

Le_Kirk

TitaniumManta said:

I'm trying to find a WS as similar to my case as possible, I see on the Newbies thread that the posts by _blueberry_ and vincentvega27 are mentioned a few times. I've found the one by blueberry but can't seem to find the one by vincentvega27.

As @Coupon-mad writes, use the one by @__blueberry_ as the other one was for a set-aside. To find anything written by a poster, click on the name/tag and it takes you to their profile where you can select "Threads".

Fruitcake

TitaniumManta said:

KeithP said:

TitaniumManta said:

Im pretty sure its the WS I need to produce, and as my deadline is Wednesday the 5th of December so I'm trying to get everything together this weekend for it.

Yes it is your Witness Statement that is needed.

But keep an eye on your deadline. 5th December isn't Wednesday.  

Thanks you're quite right there! That would of been an silly mistake to make. I've probably not got time to send out my Witness Statement by post in time for the deadline, so I hope by email will have to do.

I believe the advice is to send the WS to the court and claimant by email, plus to yourself. If it arrives in your inbox, then on the balance of probabilities, the other two parties will have received it. If you send it by post, it may not arrive at all.

TitaniumManta

Right, after taking many hours I've put together my WS. Please let me know what you think, as I wasn't 100% sure what to put in and what to take out from some of the other Witness Statements I found on the forum. Some of the formatting might need tweaking, but I'm not sure how vital that is.
Do you know if I need to send it by post to both the court and Gladstones or will an email be ok?
Do I need to include my previously written Defence in full at any point in the WS?

Table of Contents

Witness Statement of Defendant

Exhibit XX-01 - Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgement

Exhibit SL-02 - Parallel Parking v Anon

Exhibit SL-03 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1

Exhibit SL-04 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 2

Exhibit XX-05 - Email from Area Lettings Manager (09/07/2021 12:31)

Exhibit XX-06 - Email from Property Manager (10/07/2021 09:49)

Exhibit XX-07 - Parking Area Key Fob issued to XXX House Residents

Exhibit XX-08 - Entrance to XXX House Residents Parking Area

Exhibit XX-09 - Tenancy Agreement for XXX

Exhibit XX-10 - Vehicle in Parking Bay AC9 with no Parking Permit displayed

Exhibit XX-11 - Vehicles without Parking Permits at XXX House

Exhibit XX-12 - Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript

Exhibit XX-13 - The Beavis Case sign for comparison

Exhibit XX-14 - ParkingEye Limited v Beavis

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRENTFORD

Claim No.: XXX

Between

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd.

(Claimant)

V 

XXX

(Defendant)

 

 1.       I am XXX, (XAddressX) and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.       In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-14) 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.       The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) 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 based on the following persuasive authority.

 

4.       A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  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'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (Exhibit SL-01).

 

5.       Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit SL-02)

 

6.       Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit SL-03)

 

7.       Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit SL-04)

 

8.       The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

 

9.       The Defendant would like to highlight the Claimant’s insulting allegation that the Defendant has no ability to understand the complexities of his defence. This is insulting, unacceptable, amounts to abuse and should be sanctioned by the court.

 

Facts and Sequence of events

10. The Particulars refer to the material location as GWQ. I have, since 10/07/2021, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to XXX at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

11.   Sequence of events leading up to the alleged incident: I moved into my rental accommodation (XXX) on 10/07/2021, using a rented moving van and collected my vehicle XXX from the van hire company on 11/07/2021. My partner was admitted to Frimley Park Hospital on the 12/07/2021, and I stayed with her overnight in A&E, obviously getting very little sleep. After she was discharged from the hospital, we tried getting some much needed rest at a friend’s house before travelling back to our new property later the same day. I used the key fob I was allocated to access the residents only underground parking area for the first time,and parked in my designated parking space AC7, as per the information I was given by the Area Lettings Manager. Being very sleep deprived after the stress of the previous night  I do not recall encountering any prominent signs with regards to parking at the site. And as I was on holiday for the next 14 days I did not need to enter the underground parking area until my next work shift, which was on 27/07/2021.

12.    Date and Time of the Incident: On Thursday, 29th July 2021, at approximately 17:45, I left my flat and headed downstairs to the underground residential parking area to leave for work in vehicle registration XXX. This was when I noticed there was a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to my windscreen.

 

13.     Nowhere in the documentation I had been given by the Area Lettings Manager had informed me that I was required to display a parking permit in my vehicle, hence my shock at receiving a Parking Charge Notice. (See Exhibit SL-05)

14. The only information from the Property Management company prior to moving in to the property was regarding which parking space was designated for my personal use. This parking space is AC7. There is no mention of the requirement to display a parking permit in order to use this parking space in any of the documentation I was provided with when moving into the property. (See Exhibit SL-06)

 

15.    The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents only. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. (See Exhibit SL-07)

16. The only entrance to the underground parking area for residents of XXX House is secured by two large remote controlled automatic gates. At this entrance there is no signage to warn residents before entering the car park that parking restrictions are in place. The only sign at the entrance is ‘No unauthorised access’, which obviously was not applicable to myself as I am a resident and without the key fob I had been issued, would not be able to access the car park in the first place. (See Exhibit (SL-08)

 

17.    Under the terms of my tenancy agreement, no references of any kind are made regarding the parking of a motor vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit in order to park in my dedicated parking bay. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of the same. (See Exhibit SL-09)

18. Exhibit GS - 7 supplied by the Claimant is the Flat Underlease between XXX Homes Limited (Landlord) and James XXX (Leaseholder). This Underlease is from 13/09/2010, which is 11 years before my tenancy agreement was signed with my Landlord Christopher XXX. Furthermore I have never seen this document before, nor have I signed it. I therefore cannot be legally held to the conditions contained within it.

19. I (the Defendant), at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

20. PCM Ltd (the Claimant) is not a party to the Tenancy Agreement/Lease between myself and my landlord. As a result, PCM Ltd cannot impose any restrictions or limitations on the Defendant's rights under their Tenancy Agreement/Lease. “This Agreement shall not operate to confer any rights on any third party. A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall not have any rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Agreement.” The Tenancy Agreement/Lease does not obligate the Defendant to display any permits, nor does it grant any third party the right to issue parking charges for using their own designated space.

21. The vehicle parked directly next to my allocated parking bay,in parking space AC9, has no parking permit displayed, so when I first moved into the property and started using my allocated parking bay it wasn’t immediately obvious that parking permits were in use for residents of XXX House (See Exhibit SL-10)

22. The are a number of vehicles parked within the residents underground parking area which are not displaying the supposedly required parking permits (See Exhibit SL-11)

 

23.    Regarding Vehicle Registration XXX: VCS vs Ian Edward (appeal) established that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver even if they are silent. The claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle XXX at the time of the alleged contravention.

24. Therefore, I maintain that no contractual agreement existed between myself and Parking Control Management (UK) Limited, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen. The charge imposed, in all circumstances, is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished). In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported ‘contract’ is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated as interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £170 was ‘overdue’ on the day of parking.

25. Gladstones undisputedly issues tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims. Given that the MoJ’s quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant’s alleged £100 PCN. I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgement, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.

TitaniumManta

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

 

26.    The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

 

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

(i) the alleged breach, and

(ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum 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.

28.    This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum(inexplicably added per PCN) 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.

29.    The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

"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."

30.    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: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

 

31.    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.

 

32.    With that sum in mind, it is clear that 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 judgement by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

 

33.    The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually 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.

 

34.    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.’

 

35.    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 Beavis, 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 the pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

 

36.    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.

 

37.    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).

CRA Breaches

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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).

41. Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that the template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. (See Exhibit  SL-12)

The Beavis case is against this claim 

42. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit SL-13) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

43. 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 SL-14) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

44. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There are two main issues that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. The use of clamping as a penalty for parking violations was made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The inclusion of such outdated language on a parking sign raises questions about the relevance and validity of the signage in the parking area.  This sign, which suggested that 'Others will be clamped,' directly contradicts current parking regulations and creates further confusion regarding the penalties associated with parking violations. It is reasonable to assume that the parking operators responsible for the signage failed to update their notices to reflect the changes in the law.  Given this discrepancy and the fact that clamping is no longer a legally permissible penalty, it further underscores the uncertainty surrounding the parking terms at the location in question. I believe this is another critical factor that should be considered by the court when evaluating the legitimacy of this case.

(ii). Hidden Terms:

The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence.  The purported added (false) 'costs' are even more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum.  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.  None of this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I attempted to gain entry to the store. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

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

1. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2 both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

1. 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".

Conclusion

45. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

46. The Defendant asks the judge to read the persuasive Judgement from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC.  It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation.  In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

47. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

48. With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

49. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

(a) The previously reserved costs of £315, and

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

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

50. 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))."

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: 03/12/2023

Le_Kirk

It is fine to send by e-mail, provided you adhere to any local restrictions placed by the court (number of pages, size of file for example).  Send it to court and claimant in the same e-mail and send yourself a copy.
Witness statements are written in the first person, therefore not "the defendant" but "I".

TitaniumManta

Le_Kirk said:

It is fine to send by e-mail, provided you adhere to any local restrictions placed by the court (number of pages, size of file for example).  Send it to court and claimant in the same e-mail and send yourself a copy.
Witness statements are written in the first person, therefore not "the defendant" but "I".

Ok thanks, I'll take out the references to 'the Defendant' and change them to the first person.
Just got a few more questions before I email it across:

Do I need to add my entire Defence, that I previously submitted, into my Witness Statement at any point?

I'm not sure how to present the cost section (Item 49 in my WS), I've just copied it from another WS with the total being £315. Seems unlikely the Judge will award me this much to be honest!

Also with the two emails I've used as evidence, I've just copied the text into the document. Is that going to be acceptable as evidence or shall I put them as screenshots instead? Not sure if the having just the plain text looks legitimate enough.

Thanks for all the help so far.

Fruitcake

You don't need to include your defence, but instead just say that your defence is repeated.

I would suggest supplying a separate costs schedule, either at the same time or just before the hearing. If at the same time, put witness statement and costs schedule for case number NNN for hearing on X date in the subject line. Include the case number in both documents.

Include the the whole of the emails/screenshots as exhibits.

Coupon-mad

Screenshots are best for email evidence.