No blue badge at Primark Lakeside

bobbstar21

We have a hearing set for July 2025.

Would it be unwise to contact the solicitors for a copy of the original PCN and the image evidence? Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the original PCN and stupidly did not take a picture of it, and the images were closed off to me when they progressed it so early on.

Gr1pr

You could email a DSAR to the DPO at the parking company and request your data, including documents and pictures etc, so I would do that if you want copies 

Coupon-mad

bobbstar21 said:

claimant is premier park ltd 

We have a hearing set for July 2025.

Would it be unwise to contact the solicitors for a copy of the original PCN and the image evidence? Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the original PCN and stupidly did not take a picture of it, and the images were closed off to me when they progressed it so early on.

Why? You will get all that anyway in their WS ...

EDIT
errr... but...

... you seem to have completely forgotten that your first argument in your defence (the Preliminary Matter) was that the claim should be struck out for failing to plead any details!

Why on earth would you bin that (perfectly strong) argument just before the hearing, by handing them a chance to supply the info now and paper over the cracks of that claim?

Both parties must do a WS and evidence bundle and your Hearing Order gives the deadline. You know what happens when from the second post of the NEWBIES thread. Re-read the WS and evidence section if it's a bit rusty in your mind after all these months.

Which solicitors?

bobbstar21

Coupon-mad said:

bobbstar21 said:

claimant is premier park ltd 

We have a hearing set for July 2025.

Would it be unwise to contact the solicitors for a copy of the original PCN and the image evidence? Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the original PCN and stupidly did not take a picture of it, and the images were closed off to me when they progressed it so early on.

Why? You will get all that anyway in their WS ...

EDIT
errr... but...

... you seem to have completely forgotten that your first argument in your defence (the Preliminary Matter) was that the claim should be struck out for failing to plead any details!

Why on earth would you bin that (perfectly strong) argument just before the hearing, by handing them a chance to supply the info now and paper over the cracks of that claim?

Both parties must do a WS and evidence bundle and your Hearing Order gives the deadline. You know what happens when from the second post of the NEWBIES thread. Re-read the WS and evidence section if it's a bit rusty in your mind after all these months.

Which solicitors?

Solicitors are Gladstone Solicitors.

Because I wanted to prepare my witness statement and evidence. I don't want to wait for them to give it to me in their evidence pack - they could leave it till the deadline. Additionally, I want to check the original PCN and the image evidence so I can do checks. I have a wife with cancer and 2 young kids, I really don't want to be rushing around close to the deadline.

I did end up making a SAR request to premier park instead who gave it. I am not sure if that bins the strong argument.

Coupon-mad

I'm so sorry to hear what you and your wife are coping with. Very best wishes.

I think you can still use the argument because it's specifically about the POC.

bobbstar21

I have received the witness statement from the claimant. 

Here is mine - any comments/suggestions are much appreciated.

----

1. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
   
   As a preliminary matter, I wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Joshua Reid of Gladstones Solicitors, 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 Joshua Reid does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, I respectfully request 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.
   
   

2. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that
   
   "It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."
   
   The same is true in this case. (See exhibit 1 CPMS v Akande judgment)
   
   

3. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, 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. (See exhibit 2 CEL v Chan judgment)

Facts and Sequence of events

1. It is admitted that on the material date 27th November 2023, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. The defendant and his family were shopping at Lakeside shopping centre where parking is free.
   
   

2. The defendant and his family were away from 2nd November 2023 to 25th November 2023. The defendant contacted the landowner on 25th November 2023 in response to the parking charge - he explained that his wife is a blue badge holder with stage 4 lung cancer and provided a copy of her valid blue badge however there was no response.
    

3. When the defendant tried to appeal the claim on 3rd December 2023, the online portal showed the message “This PCN has been transferred to our debt recovery agent". The claimant has been quick to move this to debt recovery and did not provide sufficient time to appeal this.

Inadequate Signage and Markings

1. The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled parking in a free to park carpark at the Lakeside Shopping Centre without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.
   
   

2. The claimant does not provide any evidence of clear signage in view of the vehicle. Exhibit GS-4 on page 35 provided by the claimant is a photograph of a sign with parking conditions on a wall but this is a close up of the sign and it cannot be determined where this sign actually is. Considering that this is a close up, the photograph is still difficult to read. Exhibit GS-4 on page 23 and 24 provided by the claimant also demonstrates the poor wall lighting.
   
   

3. Joshua Reid of Gladstones Solicitors Limited mentions in paragraph 9 that the claimant manages and enforces private parking at the land located at SITE 1. The original parking charge notice in Exhibit GS-5 provided by the claimant also mentions a breach of terms and conditions of parking at SITE 1. However, in Exhibit GS-3 provided by the claimant, the maps make no reference of SITE 1 or its parking terms and conditions.

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

1. 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.
   
   

2. 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.
   
   

3. 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.
   
   

4. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice
   
   

5. "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."
   
   

6. 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
   
   

7. 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.
   
   

8. 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.
   
   

9. 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.
   
   

10. 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.
    
    

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

12. 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 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.
    
    

13. 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

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.
   
   

2. 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.
   
   

3. 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. 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, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 6) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.
   
   

2. 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 5) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

Conclusion

1. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

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.

----

The numbering has been messed up a bit but it's correct in my document.

Car1980

Needs reworking into first person.

Castle

The "material date" is wrong under the facts section.

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

Needs reworking into first person.

Yep, change 'The defendant' to I.

Then search the forum for Joshua Reid and copy what other posters said about that WS.

bobbstar21

Thank you for all the feedback, I have updated accordingly (I have used Rinches19's WS for reference on Joshua Reid).

---

1. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
   
   I respectfully bring to the courts attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Joshua Reid of Gladstone’s Solicitors, is hearsay from a third party office junior. It fails to comply with the Judge’s order which requires statements from the parties, and 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. Gladstones is not a ‘party’. Joshua Reid is not a witness, will not attend the hearing, and does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the 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.
   
   

2. I also 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.
   
   

3. The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 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 01)
   
   

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th 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)
   
   

5. I believe 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.
   
   

6. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.
   
   

Facts and Sequence of events

1. It is admitted that on the material date 27th November 2023, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle. My family and I were shopping at Lakeside shopping centre where parking is free.
   
   

2. My family and I were away from 2nd November 2023 to 25th November 2023. I contacted the landowner on 25th November 2023 in response to the parking charge - I explained that my wife is a blue badge holder with stage 4 lung cancer and provided a copy of her valid blue badge however there was no response.
    

3. When I tried to appeal the claim on 3rd December 2023, the online portal showed the message “This PCN has been transferred to our debt recovery agent". The claimant has been quick to move this to debt recovery and did not provide sufficient time to appeal this.

Inadequate Signage and Markings

1. The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled parking in a free to park carpark at the Lakeside Shopping Centre without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.
   
   

2. The claimant does not provide any evidence of clear signage in view of the vehicle. Exhibit GS-4 on page 35 provided by the claimant is a photograph of a sign with parking conditions on a wall but this is a close up of the sign and it cannot be determined where this sign actually is. Considering that this is a close up, the photograph is still difficult to read. Exhibit GS-4 on page 23 and 24 provided by the claimant also demonstrates the poor wall lighting.
   
   

3. Joshua Reid of Gladstones Solicitors Limited mentions in paragraph 9 that the claimant manages and enforces private parking at the land located at SITE 1. The original parking charge notice in Exhibit GS-5 provided by the claimant also mentions a breach of terms and conditions of parking at SITE 1. However, in Exhibit GS-3 provided by the claimant, the maps make no reference of SITE 1 or its parking terms and conditions.

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

1. 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.
   
   

2. 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.
   
   

3. 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.
   
   

4. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice
   
   

5. "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."
   
   

6. 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
   
   

7. 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.
   
   

8. 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.
   
   

9. 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.
   
   

10. 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.
    
    

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

12. 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 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.
    
    

13. 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

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.
   
   

2. 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.
   
   

3. 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. 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, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 6) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.
   
   

2. 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 5) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

Conclusion

1. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

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.