Court Case for unloading bulky furniture outside own (rented) residence

UnloadTheShelves

I soooo appreciate your help and comments! thank you!
However now I am in even more of a panic as I am finalising my WS today and I feel like I haven't touched on the terms and conditions of the sign AT ALL!

I am attaching the sign here from their own WS bundle... It is just across the road where the car was stationed for unloading - i based my own WS on the fact that it was unloading and therefore not parking... I didn't address their PCM sign in one single para as I didn't think it was relevant??!!

Plus no matter what they say about only parking in designated bays, even that would not be possible as they are all disability parking bays for blu ebadhe holders which my husband is not. So even if he did park there to unload, THAT would indeed be a breach of a term, whereas I argue that unloading outside the building wasn't. 

I am sooooo confused now... 

UnloadTheShelves

This is the signage from their WS which I did not make a part of my WS at all.... Because my husband was unloading, not parking... 

Half_way

4 hour max X 4 =16 hours?
12 hour maxX12=144 hours?

h2g2

UnloadTheShelves said:

And one more (sorry!) 

Just like I'm quoting appeal cases that I also append as exhibits, should the Claimant not do the same? Shall I question this in my own WS? 

In his para 40, he writes:

"The Defendant entered a contract with the Claimant when parking on the Site. The terms of this contract being displayed within signs on the Site. As the Defendant parked the Vehicle in breach of the terms of this contract, a charge was incurred which the Claimant is entitled to recover. Therefore, the cause of action in this matter is breach of contract. A decision of the Supreme Court made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss".

What is this Supreme Court decision?? Should he not quote it with the case law number and append it too? Is this something I can use to my advantage? 

Thank you! 

He is almost certainly referring to ParkingEye vs Beavis. Is that referred to anywhere else in their WS or otherwise attached? If it is not maybe something like:

The Claimant refers in para.40 to "decision of the Supreme Court", without specifying what case they are referring to, prejudicing my ability to respond.

Relying on a previous case without specifying what case or law is a clear attempt to prejudice the Defendant's ability to respond to the claim and an abuse of process, tainting the entire claim.

It may be a tactical mistep to bring up the Beavis case yourself, but if someone suggests that you do, perhaps something like this would be effective:

The only Supreme Court case the Defendant found any reference to was Beavis vs ParkingEye. However, Beavis vs ParkingEye applied to manifestly different facts and is not applicable to this case, as found by HHJ Harris ruling Jopson vs Homeguard on an unloading case almost identical to this (refer to para. 28). As such the Claimant must be referring to a different Supreme Court case and one entirely unknown to the Defendant.

If pushed on it, or they clarify your counter-questions are:
1. Jopson vs Homeguard distinguishes this situation from Beavis. How do they distinguish stopping to unload from that case?
2. Else, in Beavis vs ParkingEye the presiding judges found the charge to be a reasonable deterrent due to the clear commercial interest the landowner had in preventing motorists overstaying, for the good of the attached retail park. Which retail park does this area serve?
3. Or else, what interest can the landowner possibly have in deterring their own tenants from their demised property?

It's very answerable. I imagine others here will be able to better advise tactically.

As ever, I've not taken these to court (yet). Please wait for someone more experienced to second this course of action.

Trainerman

UnloadTheShelves said:

I soooo appreciate your help and comments! thank you!
However now I am in even more of a panic as I am finalising my WS today and I feel like I haven't touched on the terms and conditions of the sign AT ALL!

I am attaching the sign here from their own WS bundle... It is just across the road where the car was stationed for unloading - i based my own WS on the fact that it was unloading and therefore not parking... I didn't address their PCM sign in one single para as I didn't think it was relevant??!!

Plus no matter what they say about only parking in designated bays, even that would not be possible as they are all disability parking bays for blu ebadhe holders which my husband is not. So even if he did park there to unload, THAT would indeed be a breach of a term, whereas I argue that unloading outside the building wasn't. 

I am sooooo confused now... 

Take a breath and relax. You were not parked, you were unloading. You have got Jopson v Homeguard in your WS, have you not?

Also, it is one thing to show a file copy of a sign, but a) Is that the sign that is in place and b) could you read it (or even see it) from where you were unloading?

Fruitcake

The payment line is a prohibited premium rate number. The 0845 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from the former Government Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS), [now the department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy], not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014. 
It's a breach of the BPA CoP, but I'm not sure if it is included in the IPC CoP.
This can be reported to Trading Standards (via the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506).

The omission of call costs from the sign breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015. This can be reported to the Advertising Standards Agency on their webform.

UnloadTheShelves

Oh Wow!!! Tha last three comments on this thread are SO VALUABLE!!! Thank you!!! If I will at all be able to add them to my WS I will.

While you so very kindly sent those messages, I was writing the final version of my WS to post here for a - hopefully - final approval so that I can just add para Nos and exhibit numbers and have it sent off. I am not seriously short of time before leaving for the summer. 

But your points are MAJOR! I will really try to add them to my WS. But for now can I please ask if this corrected and adjusted WS is doable and would stand a chance and I can send it to C and the Court?

I omitted Bull for now as I didnt have the time, but added Parkinson but have doubts about Wilkinson - I am unsure so its the bit that has crossed out letters as I would first really appreciated input from here as those Gladstones seem to have uppded their game and now only claim 100 GBP and 70 GBP only if the Judge approves!! So i am arguing why the judge should not approve, ahahah. 

so sorry it's all so rushed, I have soooo little time and getting to my laptop between so many caring duties and million of other things that are on my plate right now. THANK YOU!!

my WS in two parts to follow below:

UnloadTheShelves

PS: I will TOTALLY try to add the bits you suggested at some point tonight, they are crucial I realise that!

UnloadTheShelves

Name of Witness: Mr ****

Witness Statement No.: One

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY

Claim No.: ****

Between

PARKING CONROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED

(Claimant)

V

MR *****

(Defendant)

________

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I, Mr ****, of ****, London ***, will say as follows :

 

INTRODUCTION

·         I make this Witness Statement (hereinafter referred to as WS) in readiness for the hearing listed on **** 2024 at the Royal Courts of Justice and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

 

·         In September 2020, I received a postal Parking Charge Notice (hereinafter referred to as PCN)  which was issued to me on **** 2020 claiming an alleged breach of a parking term outside my rented residence on **** 2020 – on which date a PCN was not attached to my vehicle. This caused a great confusion as I knew I have never breached any parking terms, nor any terms of my Tenancy Agreement, outside of my rented residence.

 

·         I checked the day of the alleged parking event in my diary and found out that it was the day that my family was gifted numerous heavy pieces of IKEA “IVAR series” shelves and dismantled cupboards. On the day of the alleged parking event, I collected those bulky furniture pieces in Central London. Upon returning from Central London, I had temporarily and briefly stationed my vehicle outside my rented residence for the purpose of unloading those said pieces of dismantled furniture. My residence is a flat on the third floor of a block of flats in *****.

 

 

·         I took those furniture pieces into the building in three quick go’s in order to unload the vehicle. This Witness Statement will build on my previous Defence and again argue that I have not breached any contract or an agreement, as my vehicle was stationed for the sole purpose of unloading bulky furniture pieces, and not “parked” there as the Claimant alleges, therefore the Claimant’s claim against me is without merit.

 

·         Stationing the vehicle outside my residence for the purpose of unloading was the only option as on the day of the alleged parking event: 

 

o   there were no unloading bays available anywhere on the whole estate, whether within close or further-way proximity; and

 

o   In 2020, I had not had an access to allocated underground parking bays which are fob-protected, so could not use such bay for the purpose of unloading on the day.

 

o   In 2020 (and in fact, still to this day) the nearest free or paid parking to our building’s front door is over 500 meters away, which is not feasible when unloading of such heavy pieces is needed. In addition to that, I already provided an argument in my Defence that it is my right as a resident under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to station my vehicle to the close proximity of my residence for the sake of legal unloading of extremely heavy and bulky objects, pieces of dismantled furniture in this case.

 

BACKGROUND OF EVENTS / PROOF OF UNLOADING

This part of WS will counter the Claimant’s allegation in their WS that “no unloading was observed” and that “it is doubted that the size of the vehicle could have accommodated such load” (look up exact wording from their WS)

 

·         On *** and **** 2020, my wife **** has exchanged several messages on Facebook with a Facebook member who was offering several shelves and dismantled cupboards of the IKEA IVAR series – both of 30cm and 50cm depths (Please note that my wife does not use her surname in her Facebook account and I prefer to be called **** amongst friends and family as opposed to my legal name, which is how she refers to me in her Facebook exchange). EXHIBIT XXX showing IKEA website page with shelves dimensions etc to prove that, when dismantled, they would have comfortably fitted into the back of the vehicle through the boot when back seating was lowered down.

 

·         Collection was agreed for the afternoon of **** 2020 from the Facebook member’s residence in Central London, the day of alleged parking event.

 

·         Reading thoroughly through the Facebook messenger exchange and noticing the dates and time-stamps (Exhibit xyz), it is clear that my wife was offered – and agreed that I would collect – over twenty large furniture pieces constituting of large shelves and dismantled cupboards. It is also clear that she later – on the same day of **** 2020- thanked this Facebook member for the very kind gift, confirming that it was indeed collected on the day of the alleged parking event which in itself counters the wrongful allegations in the Claimant’s WS.

 

·         EXHIBIT XXX shows that I had paid the London Congestion Charge for the day of the collection and alleged parking event, again providing a proof to my WS that the furniture pieces were collected on that day, and needed to be brought home. Once again, the sole reason from temporarily stationing my vehicle outside my rented residence was solely for the reason of unloading these bulky pieces of dismantled furniture, which in legal terms does not constitute of parking (precedent-setting case of Jopson v. Homeguard Service Ltd, 9GF0A9E will be elaborated on later in this WS in paragraphs x-y-z).

 

PRELIMINARY MATTERS: REASONS TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM

The Claimant’s Witness Statement is not written by the witness themselves:

As the first of several preliminary matters why the Claim should be struck out, I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Mr **** of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As Mr ***** does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Claimant’s Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

 

Derogatory comments in Claimant’s Witness Statement:

·         The Claimant’s Witness Statement is derogatory on several accounts:

 

·         In paragraph 26, the Claimant alleges that “It is highly doubtful that the Defendant would understand the complexities of all the references to the Civil Procedure Rules, the requirements in the Act and the established case law, which is often the case when a Defendant is questioned about such references at Court. Therefore, everything that the Defendant has outlined is not accepted and denied by the Claimant.”

 

·         I hereby respectfully request that the claim is struck out as this statement in the Claimant’s WS paragraph 26 is unfounded, speculative, derogatory, as well as lacking factual basis and is irrelevant to the matters at hand.

 

·         The statement is also prejudicial and does not adhere to the requirements for witness statement under CPR 32.1(1), CPR 32.1(2), CPR 32.4, CPR 32.8 and Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2.

 

·         The overriding objective of CPR 1.1 is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This includes ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing. The defendant can argue that allowing speculative, unfounded and derogatory comments puts them at an unfair disadvantage and is contrary to the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.

 

·         CPR 3.4(2) gives the court the power to strike out a claim if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim, or if it is an abuse of the court’s process. The defendant can request the court to strike out the claim on the basis that it has no reasonable grounds and is an abuse of the court's process by introducing irrelevant and prejudicial information.

 

Unjustified doubt of Defendant’s statement that unloading took place; and Claimant’s photographic “evidence of alleged parking event against the Defendant” spanning only 13 seconds

 

·         In paragraph 27, the Claimant’s WS states that: “The Claimant highlights that no unloading activity was observed by the warden. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that it is unlikely that the Defendant was unloading over 20 large pieces of furniture due to the size of the vehicle. The Claimant therefore denies the Defendant’s assertions in regards to the alleged unloading of the vehicle”.

 

·         As was already demonstrated in a previous paragraph XXX, the sizes of the dismantled cupboards ad shelves would fit into the boot comfortably once the back seating was lowered down (EXHIBIT XXX). In addition to that, some wooden planks of the dismantled furniture can be seen on the Claimant’s own photographic “evidence” on page 19 of their WS.

 

·         In addition to my previous paragraphs X-Y-Z which already provided enough proof that unloading indeed took place, I would like to state and request the following:

 

·         I would like to respectfully request that the claim is struck out unless the Claimant ensures that the only other true witness to the claim attends the Court Hearing: This would need to be the warden employed by the Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. / The Claimant, who, on the day of the alleged parking event took photographs of my vehicles and issued the postal PCN, and who apparently alleged that he observed no unloading taking place.

 

·         If the claim is not struck out, I politely request that this witness provides real evidence to their allegation that no unloading took place. With the warden’s “photographic evidence of alleged breach of a parking term” spanning mere 13 seconds, I submit that this evidence is not sufficient for any claim of a breach of a parking term and the claim against me should be struck out.

 

·         The Claimant’s WS has been submitted by Mr ****, who is a Legal Assistant for Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who – with all due respect – cannot testify at all as to what events took place on **** 2020. I, as the Defendant, would like to state that my WS is truthful, whilst the Claimant’s WS is entirely without merit as it is not written by the witness themselves, and the claim should be struck out as a result of this (as already requested in my paragraph ****)

 

·         As has already been demonstrated in paragraphs XYZ, I submitted enough proof that bulky furniture pieces have indeed been collected on the date of the alleged parking event and brought home to be unloaded at my residence. Common sense is enough to know that such amount of dismantled furniture could not be unloaded in one go while keeping the driver’s or passenger doors open. As my wife was not at home at that time, I could not ask her to stay by the vehicle to testify that unloading was taking place should the warden be on his patrol. Similarly, as we live on a social housing estate with unfortunate frequent thefts taking place, I could not leave my vehicle’s door or boot open while I was unloading the furniture pieces by the building’s lift and taking it to my third floor flat. As already stated in my Defence, I drove away as soon as the unloading had finished.

 

 

 

·         On the note of paragraphs x –y , I would also like (fill in numbers later) to state what we had often observed from our windows, or while walking around the estate: The PCM wardens are usually seen hiding in entrance doors, or behind cars parked in the disability bays, waiting for a person unloading their shopping or dropping children off, et cetera – waiting for the brief opportunity when the driver walks into the building to unload/drop off, subsequently taking quick series of photos as a “proof of alleged breach of a parking term” whilst not even displaying a yellow PCN sticker as they have been known and witnessed to “get into an argument and even a fight with the returning driver who got angry at not being given sufficient time to unload/drop off”.

 

·         This tactic seems to have taken place on the day of my alleged parking event, which I claim to be a “predatory and money making business for the Claimant”: The warden submitted a photographic “evidence” of alleged “breach of a parking term” spanning mere 13 (thirteen) seconds. I assert that this does not consist of “true evidence of a breach of any parking term” in the slightest and renders the Claimant’s case to be entirely without merit, and therefore I respectfully ask that the Claim is struck out.

TO CONTINUE:

UnloadTheShelves

CONTINUED:

No breach of tenancy agreement by the Defendant

·         In their WS paragraph 28, the Claimant states that “The Claimant submits that tenants are not exempt from complying with the terms and conditions applicable at the site. The Claimant highlights that the Defendant has failed to provide a copy of their tenancy agreement in support of their defence. The Claimant reserves the right to file a supplementary witness statement should a copy of the Defendant’s tenancy agreement be received”.

 

·         Attached to my WS is my Tenancy Agreement EXHIBIT XXX. In the Tenancy Agreement, there is indeed no mention of parking and/or unloading not being allowed anywhere on the estate or outside the building of one’s residence.

 

·         Under the Section 3 “Tenant’s Obligations” is a paragraph “3.13 Roadways: Not to block local roadways and other vehicular access , and to keep them, and car parking spaces, clear of unroadworthy vehicles and other obstructions.”

 

·         To prevent and pre-empt a potential supplementary witness statement by the Claimant stating that my unloading of bulky furniture pieces on the date of the alleged parking event was in breach of the 3.13 clause of my Tenancy Agreement I am hereby submitting the following evidence and exhibits:

 

o   The Claimant with their own photographs of my vehicle on the date of the alleged parking event clearly show that the road is still passable as it is wide enough to accommodate one vehicle stationed by the kerb, whilst another vehicles can still pass next to it,

 

o   To eliminate any doubt that the road is wide enough for two vehicles to drive/stop next to each other, attached is my EXHIBIT xxx, a photograph taken from our third floor balcony clearly showing that even if a vehicle is stopped next to the small playground which makes the road a little narrower, a vehicle could still stop/pass next to the parked vehicle (it is noteworthy that I had not stationed my vehicle in the place next to the playground on the day of the alleged parking event which makes the road a little narrower).

 

o   EXHIBIT xxx shows a photograph from May 2020, a couple of months before my alleged breach of a parking term. This is our Landlord notice on the building’s main entrance informing residents that PCM patrols will be returning to the estate and parking permits will again need to be displayed for all vehicles. In effect, this shows that parking was allowed by the ***** Landlord during the Covid pandemic alongside the building and the kerbs without blocking roadways, and as a matter of fact, one such car can be seen parked on the photo in the background behind the notice. Even though my alleged breach of a parking term took place after this notice was posted, it proves that unloading in that specific location did not cause a breach of clause 3.13 of my Tenancy Agreement.

 

 

o   EXHIBITS xx and yyy show more recent, time-stamped photographic evidence from 25th June 2024 showing scaffolding built alongside the whole length of the **** building (our residence). This scaffolding is built on the pavement, with workers’ vans having a cordoned-off area on the road itself, alongside the scaffolding. This area is on the exact spot where my vehicle was stationed for the sake of unloading on the date of the alleged parking event– on the EXHIBIT photograph it is the very same place where a workers’ van is seen parked next to the scaffolding. 

 

o   This scaffolding will be in place for several months while new cladding is being installed on the building.  This clearly shows that our landlord/landowner themselves approve of the spaces alongside the kerb being used for parking and/or scaffolding taking this exact space (and all the spaces alongside the entire building), resulting in no obstruction or blockage of roadways. Therefore my stationing my vehicle there for the purpose of unloading on 28th August 2020 was not in breach of clause 3.13 of my Tenancy Agreement either, and the Claimant cannot claim otherwise

 

o   EXHIBIT xxx shows a time-stamped photographic evidence of what does consist of road blocking. At the same time that I took photos of the scaffolding for Exhibit xxx, an Amazon delivery driver was making a delivery to our flat (see EXHIBIT of a proof of delivery in my wife’s name with the same date and time as my photos). Due to scaffolding being built alongside the entire length of **** buildings, there is nowhere else to station vehicles for deliveries, unloading, Royal Mail, maintenance vehicles, taxi pick up/drop off, emergency vehicles, et cetera, then on the second half of the length of the actual road which results into the road getting blocked as the other half is taken by the scaffolding itself. However, no such breach occurred on the date of my alleged breach of a parking term on **** 2020 while I was unloading over twenty bulky pieces of dismantled furniture.

 

·         In addition to all of the above points, and perhaps most noteworthy, is the fact that there is a large body of previously heard parking ticket cases which establishes facts and protects the rights enjoyed by tenants and leaseholder residents:

 

·         In Link Parking Ltd v Parkinson [2016] C7GF50J7, the Judge, referring to a similar case in Pace Recovery v Noor [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] ruled that: “…the Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract.''

 

The Claimant’s Landowner Agreement to operate a PCN enforcement service at our place of residence does not seem to be with our Landlord/Landowner

·         The Claimant’s Exhibit GS-1 shows the Agreement between the Freeholder *** and PCM to “authorise the Claimant to operate a PCN enforcement service” at the place of our residence and the whole housing association estate.

 

·         However, it is noteworthy that this authorisation is from 2016 and the Freeholder has not been our landowner nor our Landlord since my family moved into this residence in 2018. Our tenancy agreement is with **** Housing Association, so I would like to respectfully request that the Judge decides whether this claim has any merit on the grounds that the Claimant does not seem to have an enforcement authority with the current Landowner.

 

·         If the Judge finds the above paragraph No. xyz accurate, I would like to respectfully ask that the case is struck out as the Claimant had no right to issue a PCN claim against me in the first place.

 

Previous appeal hearing establishing that “unloading is not parking” – Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E

 

·         Since I truthfully stated that I was unloading bulky furniture pieces my vehicle at the time of the alleged  parking event and provided evidence to prove it - unlike the Claimant who did not provide any evidence of my alleged “parking for a significant duration of time” - , my case is on all fours with the persuasive appeal case heard by HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford: Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E. As a result, I respectfully ask that on this point and all of the above paragraphs too, this Claim against me is struck out as being entirely without merit (EXHIBIT XXX, Jopson print out).

 

·         This persuasive appeal hearing constitutes of my strongest argument why the Claim against me should be struck out before yet more Court’s time is wasted:

 

·         In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E, in paragraph 21 His Honour Judge Harris states that a car stopped temporarily or “left for a moment while unloading […] an awkward piece of furniture […] is not parked”.

 

·         In Paragraph 19 of the same appeal case, His Honour Judge Harris states the following statement on a situation that is identical to mine: “The purported prohibition was upon ‘parking’, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable […] heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.”

 

·         Following all of the above, I strongly believe that there is no merit left in the Claimant’s witness statement, Mr ***’s derogatory statements, and in his untruthful statements as to what really happened on the day of the alleged since I seem to be the only true witness to the events of the alleged , and the only true witness who had submitted a witness statement and who will be attending the hearing.

 

Unreasonable charges:

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 additional fees, cots and interest are genuine.

·         The claimant must provide solid evidence of:

o   (i) the alleged breach of a parking event, and

o   (ii) As per the Claimant’s WS, page 9, point 2-4, I request that the Claimant first provides the Court and myself with a breakdown of how this enhanced amount that they are asking the Judge to consider is being calculated, including an explanation how the interest is determined. 

·         The Claimant asserts in his Schedule of Losses on page 9 para (iii) of his WS Schedule of Losses that “the Claimant understands that the additional costs, in term of amount, are completely at the discretion of the court and are subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. It is the Claimant’s  position however, that as the PCN remained unpaid, additional costs were incurred by them that were both reasonable and reasonable and proportioned to in the circumstances of the case”.

·         I would like to highlight this attempt of unreasonable recovery to the Court as it shows a blatant disregard for the process by using the threat of a County Court Judgement to extort sums not entitled. An ‘abuse of the process’ such as this is not tolerated. (Excel vs Wilkinson G4QZ465V EXHIBIT *** ). UNSURE IF THIS IS ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO ME AS THEY REDUCED THE CLAIMED COSTS SO MUCH AND ARE EVEN SAYING THAT THE 70 gbp MUST FIRST BE AGREED BY THE JUDGE? So should I leave Wilkinson out altogether?

 

·         I would like to respectfully request that the Judge questions a breakdown of how the Claimant calculated the enhanced amount being claimed, including an explanation of how interest would be determined. It seems as if they applied interest improperly to the entire inflated sum, which was initially 300.32 GBP in their Letter before Claim dated *** 2023 (Exhibit ***). In neither the WS’s Schedule of Losses, nor the Letter Before Claim has the Claimant provided a breakdown of how such additional costs – 70 GBP specifically – have been calculated, or how the additional costs and interest would be calculated if the Judge deems them as appropriate.

 

 

Supplementary Witness Statement:

The Defendant reserves the right to file a supplementary Witness Statement should he feel he needs to submit more points to this WS should the Claimant file his own Supplementary WS; or should I, the Defendant, feel that I can provide other persuasive arguments for the defence of this unjustified claim, or for it to be struck out.

 

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: ________________________

Name: Mr ***

** July 2024