OVERSTAY IN ASDA CAR PARK PARKING EYE

Metaphysicist

Hello,

I have received the notice of allocation. Therefore, I am required to submit the final defense by 4:00 PM on November 4, 2024. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

Metaphysicist said:

Hello,

I have received the notice of allocation. Therefore, I am required to submit the final defense by 4:00 PM on November 4, 2024. Thank you.

You've already defended ages ago, after getting the claim form.  You are not at defence (no 's') stage.

You are at WS and evidence stage which is covered in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Metaphysicist

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between Claimant: Parking Eye LTD
- and -
Defendant: 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF 

1. I, -------------, am the Defendant in this matter and I make this statement in support of my defense against the claim brought by Parking Eye LTD. This statement is made from my own knowledge and honest belief.

2. I firmly deny that the Claimant is entitled to any relief in the sum claimed or at all. It is my position that there has been no breach of any terms by the driver of my vehicle. Furthermore, I contest that the Claimant has standing to bring this claim, as they appear to act merely as agents with no authority to enforce contracts in their own name.

3. I acknowledge that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question; however, it is crucial to note that the vehicle is shared among multiple users. At the time of the alleged incidents, I was not the driver, and I am unable to confirm who was driving. This lack of clarity is significant, as it directly impacts liability.

4. The Particulars of Claim (POC) provided by the Claimant are vague, incoherent, and lack the necessary details to form a complete cause of action. The POC fails to comply with CPR 16.4, which requires all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action to be clearly stated. Consequently, I find myself unable to understand the precise nature of the allegations against me, which hinders my ability to provide a proper response.

5. The Claimant alleges breaches of unspecified terms occurring on a singular occasion in 2022. However, I was not made aware of these allegations at the time, nor was I given the opportunity to appeal any purported charge. This lack of communication is deeply concerning and undermines the Claimant's position.

6. Additionally, I do not recall receiving a compliant Notice to Keeper that meets the criteria set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Without such a notice, the Claimant cannot legally invoke keeper liability against me. This principle has been reinforced by multiple legal precedents. For example, in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith, His Honour Judge Smith highlighted that a registered keeper cannot be held liable unless it is established that they were the driver. Similarly, in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward, it was affirmed that a keeper's inability to identify the driver should not lead to any adverse inference against them.

7. I have conducted research that suggests Parking Eye LTD has a troubling history of employing misleading signage and issuing spurious Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). Their business model appears predicated on instilling fear in members of the public, pressuring them into paying unjustified charges without adequate opportunity for appeal or clarification. This raises serious ethical concerns regarding their practices.

8. Moreover, I assert that the Claimant has failed to clearly specify how my conduct allegedly breached contract terms as claimed in the POC. This lack of clarity is not only problematic but also indicative of a broader trend in private parking claims where claims are presented without sufficient detail, undermining the principles of fairness and transparency.

9. I urge the Court to consider the recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan. In that case, HHJ Murch determined that the particulars of claim did not adequately outline the conduct amounting to a breach of contract. The same issues are present in this case, as the Claimant's POC fails to satisfy the requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

10. In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Court strike out this claim due to its lack of merit, clarity, and compliance with relevant legal standards. Allowing this claim to proceed would not only be unjust but would also undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

11. I am committed to defending myself against this claim and would appreciate the Court's consideration of the arguments presented in this statement.

Signed:

Metaphysicist

Hi everyone. What do you guys thinks of my WS?

Thanks!

Gr1pr

Seems a lot shorter than other recent approved witness statement drafts 

No exhibits listed 

No S in the word DEFENCE 

No up to date statement of truth 

Metaphysicist

Gr1pr said:

Seems a lot shorter than other recent approved witness statement drafts 

No exhibits listed 

No S in the word DEFENCE 

No up to date statement of truth 

Thanks will modify now. 

Metaphysicist

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between Claimant: Parking Eye LTD
- and -
Defendant: 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF 

1. I, ------------, am the Defendant in this matter and make this statement in support of my defence against the claim brought by Parking Eye LTD. This statement is made based on my own knowledge and honest belief, and any matters outside my personal knowledge are true to the best of my understanding and belief.

2. I categorically deny that the Claimant is entitled to any relief in the sum claimed or at all. My position is that there has been no breach of any terms by the driver of my vehicle, and, furthermore, I challenge the Claimant’s standing to bring this claim. I assert that the Claimant operates merely as an agent without the necessary legal authority to enforce contracts or penalties in its own name, rendering this claim fundamentally flawed.

3. While I acknowledge that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, it is essential to clarify that the vehicle is shared among multiple individuals, who use it frequently and at different times. On the date of the alleged incident, I was not the driver and cannot ascertain who was. This lack of clarity regarding the driver’s identity directly impacts liability, and under current law, a registered keeper cannot be held automatically liable unless it is proven or admitted that they were the driver at the time of the incident.

4. The Particulars of Claim (POC) provided by the Claimant are vague, incoherent, and fundamentally lack the necessary details required to form a complete cause of action. CPR 16.4 mandates that all particulars necessary to establish a cause of action are clearly and precisely stated in the POC. However, the POC fails to provide sufficient information regarding the specific contractual terms purportedly breached, the nature of the alleged breach, or how the claimed amount has been calculated. Consequently, I find myself unable to understand the exact nature of the allegations against me, which severely impedes my ability to mount a proper and fair defence. This lack of specificity in the POC is contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness and justice in litigation.

5. The Claimant alleges breaches of unspecified terms occurring on a singular occasion in 2022. At no point was I informed of these allegations at the time, nor was I afforded any opportunity to appeal or contest any purported charge. This lack of communication undermines the Claimant’s case, as a reasonable person would expect to be notified in a timely and transparent manner of any alleged transgression. The Claimant’s failure to engage in such transparency casts doubt on the validity of the claim and suggests procedural shortcomings.

6. Additionally, I do not recall receiving a compliant Notice to Keeper that satisfies the strict criteria set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), specifically Schedule 4. The POFA stipulates that in order for a parking operator to invoke keeper liability, it must provide a Notice to Keeper that complies with specific procedural requirements. Without a compliant Notice to Keeper, the Claimant cannot legally transfer liability to me as the registered keeper in the absence of clear evidence identifying the driver. This principle has been underscored by multiple legal precedents, including Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward, in which it was established that a registered keeper cannot be held liable unless it is proven that they were the driver. The onus is on the Claimant to establish liability through compliant procedural steps, which I contend have not been followed in this case.

7. I have conducted extensive research into the Claimant’s business practices, which reveal a pattern of behaviour that is troubling. It appears that Parking Eye LTD frequently employs unclear and misleading signage and issues spurious Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) to unsuspecting individuals. I believe their business model is predicated on instilling fear in the public, pressuring individuals to pay charges without adequate information, appeals, or clarification. This approach raises serious ethical concerns regarding the Claimant’s practices and further weakens their credibility in this claim.

8. Furthermore, I assert that the Claimant has failed to clearly specify how my conduct allegedly breached any contract terms as claimed in the POC. This lack of clarity and transparency is problematic and indicates a broader issue within private parking claims, where claims are routinely presented without adequate detail, thus undermining principles of fairness, transparency, and procedural justice. The Claimant’s approach, in my view, exploits individuals who may not be aware of their rights and lacks the integrity expected in lawful business practices.

9. I also urge the Court to consider the recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan. In that case, HHJ Murch determined that the particulars of the claim did not adequately outline the conduct amounting to a breach of contract. This judgement reinforces the necessity for claimants to provide clear and coherent particulars. The Claimant’s POC in this case similarly fails to satisfy the requirements set out under CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. I submit that this precedent supports the argument that vague and unspecific claims should not proceed without proper substantiation, as doing so would contravene the interests of justice.

10. In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Court strike out this claim in its entirety due to its lack of merit, clarity, and compliance with relevant legal standards. Permitting this claim to proceed would not only be unjust to me but would also set a concerning precedent that risks undermining the integrity of the judicial process and encouraging similarly unsubstantiated claims in the future.

11. I am fully committed to defending myself against this claim and sincerely request the Court’s consideration of the legal and ethical arguments presented in this statement. I believe that allowing this claim to proceed would be prejudicial to justice and fairness.

Statement of Truth
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.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed:

Metaphysicist

I will add exhibits after. Points taken into account and WS updated. 

Le_Kirk

Did you put all of your paragraphs #1 to #6 in your defence?  That is where they belong and, if you did, all you say is "my defence is repeated" and then go on to the narrative, the story of what happened on the day.

1505grandad

ParkingEye Ltd  -  hopefully the claim form states the claimant's name as one word?