73 year old pensioner - QDR Solicitors taking me to court

MLalami50

Below is my Witness Statement that I plan on submitting today. Does this seem appropriate?

"IN THE COUNTY COURT AT .....

CLAIM NO: ........

B E T W E E N:
EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
MARIA ...... (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARIA ......

I, Maria .... , of ...... , am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number ...... . I make this statement in defense of the claim brought against me by Euro Car Parks Limited. I refute the charges on the grounds of inadequate signage, lack of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and the imposition of excessive and punitive fees. This witness statement will outline my defense in detail, addressing each area of non-compliance, legal deficiencies, and supporting evidence.

---

1. Introduction and Context

1.1 I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, which was allegedly parked at ..... in ...... on 30 November 2021 and 28 October 2022, in breach of the Claimant's terms and conditions. I am defending this claim as the registered keeper, not the driver.

1.2 The Claimant has failed to establish a legally enforceable contract with me or the driver of the vehicle due to insufficient signage, lack of transparency regarding parking terms, and non-compliance with POFA 2012. This witness statement will outline my defense in detail, addressing each area of non-compliance, legal deficiencies, and supporting evidence.

---

2. Inadequate and Illegible Signage at .....

2.1 Comparison with Beavis Case Signage: The signage provided by the Claimant is not comparable to the signage approved in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the terms were displayed in large, clear text with high visibility. The Beavis sign was specifically designed to capture attention, with prominent colors and easy-to-read text from a distance (see Exhibit A for a copy of the Beavis signage). In contrast, the Claimant’s signage at ..... is far smaller and positioned in locations that do not ensure visibility to drivers.

2.2 Close-Up Photos are Misleading: The Claimant has included close-up photos of their signage in their witness statement, suggesting that the terms are visible and legible. However, these photos do not accurately reflect the experience of a driver entering or parking in the car park. As shown in Exhibit B and the additional Google Street View images attached as Exhibit C, the signs are small and only readable when standing directly in front of them. Drivers would need to leave their vehicle and approach each sign closely to read and understand the terms, which is unreasonable and does not meet the standards for visible contract terms set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

2.3 Small and Non-Prominent Signs: The images in Exhibit C demonstrate that the signs are small, placed high on walls, and not easily noticeable from a distance. These signs do not provide sufficient prominence, nor are they positioned in areas that would naturally capture the attention of a driver. This design flaw further undermines the Claimant’s assertion that a binding contract was formed.

2.4 Time of Year and Lighting Conditions: Both PCNs were issued on 30 November 2021 and 28 October 2022, times of the year when it is dark during evening hours. The vehicle entered the car park in low-light conditions, and the Claimant’s signs are neither reflective nor illuminated, making them effectively invisible in the dark. The limited lighting in the car park does not adequately compensate for this lack of visibility. According to the BPA Code of Practice, signage must be clearly visible at all times, particularly when parking charges are enforced after dark.

2.5 Lack of Entrance Signage and Clear Notice: The BPA Code of Practice mandates that entrance signs should clearly display the parking terms to inform drivers of the rules before they enter the car park. The .....  lacks a prominent entrance sign, and the Claimant’s close-up images fail to show any entrance signage visible to incoming vehicles. The absence of clear entrance signs further contributes to the failure to inform drivers of any contractual terms.

2.6 Supporting Case Law on Inadequate Signage: The requirement for visible and adequate signage was emphasized in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, where the Court of Appeal ruled that clear, adequate notice of terms is essential for forming a contract. In the present case, the non-reflective, poorly illuminated signs mean that no reasonable driver could be expected to see or understand the terms in low-light conditions. The Claimant’s failure to provide readable signage at night, coupled with the small size of the signs, prevents any reasonable inference that a binding contract was created.

2.7 Conclusion on Signage Inadequacy: The Claimant’s evidence of close-up signage does not accurately represent the conditions under which drivers would view the signs, especially given the small size, poor placement, and lack of illumination. As both PCNs were issued at times when visibility was reduced, the Claimant’s signage fails to meet the legal and practical requirements for forming an enforceable contract. Consequently, I contend that no valid contract was formed, and any alleged breaches are unenforceable.

---

3. Failure to Specify Terms Allegedly Breached

3.1 The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to specify the precise terms or conditions that were allegedly breached. This lack of specificity violates CPR Part 16, which requires clear particulars in order for the defendant to understand the case against them.

3.2 Supporting Case Law: In the case of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Claim No: F0DP201T, heard in St Albans on 13 May 2019), the judge struck out the claim due to a lack of specific detail on the alleged breach of terms, ruling it was insufficiently pleaded (see Exhibit D). This precedent supports my defense that vague and incomplete particulars undermine the validity of this claim.

3.3 Without precise terms stated, this claim lacks legal foundation, and the Claimant’s failure to specify the breach of terms warrants dismissal of the claim.

---

4. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

4.1 As I am defending this claim as the registered keeper, the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to hold me liable. POFA outlines strict conditions under which a parking company can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, including mandatory timeframes and specific information required in the Notice to Keeper (NTK).

4.2 Failure to Comply with POFA Timeframes and Content Requirements: The NTK must be issued within 14 days if no windscreen ticket was given, or between days 29 and 56 if there was a windscreen ticket. The NTK from the Claimant did not adhere to these timeframes and failed to include all information required by POFA.

4.3 Supporting Case Law on POFA Compliance: In Excel v Smith (Manchester, Claim No: C0DP9C4E), the court ruled against the claimant due to non-compliance with POFA requirements for holding the keeper liable. Similar rulings in VCS v Edward have confirmed that a failure to meet POFA standards means that a parking company cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper (see Exhibit E).

4.4 As the Claimant has not established compliance with POFA, I, as the registered keeper, cannot be held liable for this charge.

---

5. Unlawful and Excessive Additional Charges

5.1 The Claimant is demanding an additional £70 per PCN as "debt recovery fees," which are not justified or substantiated by any genuine incurred costs. Such fees are punitive and are applied as a deterrent rather than as compensation for actual losses.

5.2 Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) Violation: The CRA 2015 prohibits disproportionate or unfair contract terms. These additional charges do not reflect genuine costs and are imposed without transparency. The Court of Appeal in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) stated that penalty charges need to reflect a “legitimate interest” and should not exceed what is necessary to protect that interest.

5.3 Relevant Case Law on Unlawful Charges: Recent cases such as One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Percy have ruled against the application of inflated administrative fees, deeming them unenforceable unless they reflect actual incurred costs (see Exhibit F for copies of these judgments). In this case, the Claimant’s fees are disproportionate and fail to comply with CRA principles.

---

6. Absence of a Reasonable Grace Period

6.1 The BPA Code of Practice (Section 13) requires operators to allow drivers a grace period to decide whether to park and enter a contract. The ANPR records provided by the Claimant only capture entry and exit times, with no evidence of the vehicle remaining parked for any significant duration that would constitute a breach of terms.

6.2 Consideration Period: The brief times recorded in the Claimant’s ANPR data suggest that I may have been assessing the terms before deciding not to park. The lack of a reasonable consideration period contravenes the BPA Code of Practice, making it unclear whether any alleged contravention occurred.

---

7. Conclusion and Request for Dismissal

7.1 In summary, the Claimant has failed to meet the necessary legal requirements to establish a valid claim. The following points support my defense:

• The Claimant’s signage is inadequate and does not meet the BPA Code of Practice or the clarity seen in ParkingEye v Beavis.
• The Particulars of Claim lack specificity, which undermines the legal basis of the claim.
• Non-compliance with POFA 2012 means the Claimant cannot transfer liability to me as the keeper.
• The additional fees claimed are excessive, unlawful, and not reflective of actual costs.
• The Claimant has not provided evidence of a grace period, which is required under the BPA Code of Practice.

7.2 I respectfully request that the Court dismiss this claim in its entirety. Additionally, I ask the Court to consider awarding costs for the time and resources spent in preparing this defense.

---

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

Dated: 28 October 2024
Signed: ________________________"

Nellymoser

Opening para, para 1 and 3.2  wee typo....defense.....change s to c for correct spelling of defence.
Good luck

1505grandad

This post on first page seems to include the PoC details so I don't think para 3 (Chan case) is relevant:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80675109/#Comment_80675109

You need to state the latest SoT wording at the end of WS.

Coupon-mad

Yep this is several years out of date:

"Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true."


That draft WS looks nothing like any recent ones on this forum. You have also used almost none if the a-f list of recommended exhibits which is in the NEWBIES thread to help people. Why didn't you do the forum search that the NEWBIES thread tells you to do and find some recent good WS examples to copy from?  I post about them almost every day.

MLalami50

Coupon-mad said:

Yep this is several years out of date:

"Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true."


That draft WS looks nothing like any recent ones on this forum. You have also used almost none if the a-f list of recommended exhibits which is in the NEWBIES thread to help people. Why didn't you do the forum search that the NEWBIES thread tells you to do and find some recent good WS examples to copy from?  I post about them almost every day.

I apologise 😔 I'm really not tech savvy. I'm trying my very best

Gr1pr

Only look at any recent witness statement dated 2024, the newer the better, perhaps start with looking at the discontinuations thread by Umkomaas, starting at the end, around case 425 ish, working backwards from there, studying those winning cases

The statement of truth is a much longer one introduced a few years ago, so will end any WS dated this year 

The Idea is to look for recent cases where you can adapt them to fit your own case, what you have done is progress, but used an old out of date WS, past its best , you want a fresh one 

Coupon-mad

We want to help you.  Do read the NEWBIES thread section on WS stage because I've put together an a-f list of exhibits.

Then just read recent WS, e.g. in threads by:

@Defendant911

@Harry77

MLalami50

While I'm putting together my WS, the link below is a copy of the WS I was sent from a paralegal at QDR.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AyqYerbA-3zi9xvWhHCN8R7rizQVlNAh/view?usp=share_link

MLalami50

UPDATE: I have found the VCS V Edward transcript if anyone needs it: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&st=shnxqsyn&dl=0

Also, I'm struggling to find a copy of the VCS V Edward HOKF6C9C transcript on the forum and on Google. I really hate being a pain. Is there a PDF available? Thank you

MLalami50

Is there anything further I should add?

My current WS link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sfEVhBQd1Jpp5Zlwfs5qqUyDdBaJcpuI/view?usp=share_link