Civil Enforcement Limited - Notice of Discontinuance N279

Gr1pr

My immediate thoughts are that the statement of truth is years out of date, not current, the current one is much longer 

Plus

Your witness statement bundle should include Exhibits, numbered, referred to in the WS

Coupon-mad

That's based on a really old one. Bin it.

The Newbies thread gives you what you should be using as exhibits and tells you about the newer statement of truth and how to search for good WS examples from 2024 to plagiarise.

That example you found somewhere is ancient (years old) and this is totally wrong:

"Cause of Action Estoppel

6.1 The Claimant was in possession of all material facts required to resolve this matter without the need for legal proceedings. In my initial defence statement, I provided evidence that the parking fee was paid in full. During mediation, the Claimant further confirmed that the alleged breach was due to a minor typographical error. Despite having this knowledge, the Claimant has chosen to pursue this claim in disregard of its obligations under the BPA Code of Practice and established legal principles of fairness and proportionality.6.2 By failing to resolve this matter upon being presented with conclusive evidence of payment, the Claimant has acted unreasonably. Their continued pursuit of this claim is not only a misuse of court time but also constitutes an abuse of process under the doctrine of Cause of Action Estoppel."

Coupon-mad

Also please edit your thread title which makes no sense.  Should be:

Civil Enforcement Witness Statement stage

Castle

MrTheMask said:

There's no signature, only a rubber stamp seal from the court.

Thanks, but I was asking about the original claim form from CNBC.

MrTheMask

Castle said:

MrTheMask said:

There's no signature, only a rubber stamp seal from the court.

Thanks, but I was asking about the original claim form from CNBC.

The original was signed by: S Wilson, Head of Legal (Claimant's Legal Representative)

Coupon-mad

Perfect.  So he didn't give his first name. Breach of the Civil Procedure Rules.

MrTheMask

I have reread the newbies thread on the section of witness statement, I have now rewritten it and included the breach of Civil Procedures. Is this better:

IN THE [COURT NAME]
Claim Number: [Insert Claim Number]

Between:
[Claimant's Name] (Claimant)
and
[Your Full Name] (Defendant)

---

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR FULL NAME]

---

1. Introduction
1.1 I, [Your Full Name], of [Your Address], am the Defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, based on my personal experience and supporting evidence.

1.2 This claim arises from an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at [Location] on [Date]. I wholly dispute this claim for the following reasons:

• I paid the full parking fee, and evidence of this payment is provided.
• The alleged breach concerns a minor typographical error in entering my vehicle registration.
• The Claimant has suffered no financial loss.
• The Claimant has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) 2020, which requires cancellation of charges for minor keying errors.
• There is a procedural irregularity in the Claim Form that undermines its validity.

---

2. The Facts of the Case
2.1 On [Date], I parked my vehicle, registration number [Correct Registration Number], at [Location]. I used the payment machine and paid the required fee for the period of parking.

2.2 Due to a genuine typographical error, I mistakenly entered "W" instead of "V" when inputting my vehicle registration. This was an unintentional and minor error that had no bearing on the payment or compliance with parking terms.

2.3 Evidence of this payment is provided (Exhibit A), confirming that the correct fee was paid for the duration of my stay.

2.4 During mediation, the Claimant disclosed that the alleged breach was due to this minor keying error. Despite this acknowledgment, they have continued to pursue the claim.

---

3. No Financial Loss to the Claimant
3.1 The Claimant has suffered no financial loss as the parking fee was paid in full.

3.2 The purpose of a parking charge is either to recover losses or serve as a deterrent. Since no financial loss occurred, pursuing this claim is disproportionate, punitive, and unjust.

---

4. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice 2020
4.1 The Claimant is a member of the BPA and is bound by its Code of Practice 2020. Paragraph 17.4 states:
"If a motorist makes a major keying error (e.g., wrong registration number), the operator should reduce the charge. For a minor keying error, operators should cancel the charge."

4.2 The keying error in this case was minor and falls within the scope of Paragraph 17.4. The Claimant’s failure to cancel the charge is a clear breach of the BPA CoP 2020.

---

5. Unreasonable Conduct by the Claimant
5.1 In my initial defence, I provided evidence proving that I had paid the parking fee. Despite this, the Claimant has continued to pursue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

5.2 The Claimant’s actions demonstrate a lack of good faith and disregard for fairness and proportionality. Their continued pursuit of this claim is an abuse of process and misuse of court resources.

---

6. Procedural Irregularity in the Claim Form
6.1 The Claimant’s Claim Form was signed by "S. Wilson, Head of Legal," without specifying their full name. This is a breach of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically Practice Direction 22.

6.2 Paragraph 3.10 of Practice Direction 22 requires a legal representative signing a statement of truth to clearly state their full name and capacity. The use of initials fails to comply with this requirement and undermines the accountability and authenticity of the statement.

6.3 The court should take into account this procedural breach when assessing the validity of the claim.

---

7. Legal Precedents Supporting My Defence
7.1 In Civil Enforcement Limited v Ming Tak Chan (2023), the court dismissed a similar claim, concluding that a minor typographical error does not justify a parking charge, particularly where no financial loss is demonstrated.

7.2 In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of parking charges in certain circumstances but emphasized the importance of legitimate interest and proportionality. Unlike that case:

• There is no legitimate interest here, as the parking fee was paid.
• The Claimant's actions lack fairness and proportionality.

---

8. Exhibits
I rely on the following evidence:

• Exhibit A: Proof of payment for parking on [Date].
• Exhibit B: Photos of the signage at the parking location, demonstrating unclear wording and lack of emphasis on penalties for typographical errors.
• Exhibit C: A copy of Paragraph 17.4 of the BPA Code of Practice 2020, highlighting the requirement to cancel charges for minor keying errors.
• Exhibit Relevant case law, including CEL v Ming Tak Chan (2023) and extracts from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

---

9. Conclusion
9.1 The Claimant’s actions lack any legitimate basis, as the parking fee was paid in full, and the typographical error caused no loss or harm.

9.2 Their failure to cancel the charge, as required by the BPA CoP 2020, demonstrates a lack of fairness and proportionality.

9.3 The procedural irregularity in the Claim Form further undermines the credibility of the Claimant’s case.

9.4 I respectfully request that the court dismiss this claim and award costs to the Defendant.

---

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

Signed: __________________________
[Your Full Name]
Date: [Insert Date]

 

Gr1pr

That statement of truth was retired several years ago, as I have previously mentioned 

MrTheMask

Gr1pr said:

That statement of truth was retired several years ago, as I have previously mentioned 

I shall cahnge it to this:

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.

Le_Kirk

If you are using CEL v Chan you can also use Akande, see the Judgments Link thread on my profile @Le_Kirk