Witness Statement received from claimant PPS (Gladstones)

Harry77

Dear All.  

With the help of this Forum I have navigated a parking issue to the witness statement stage. Upon receiving Claimants Statement they have basically said I have used a generic “internet” defence and could not understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules. Is this just a Generic response they use to undermine the template defence on this forum? I have yet to serve my WS which is due next week. 

Car1980

Yes, entirely typical template of theirs criticising a template (without hint of irony).

if you search there is a recent and decent savaging of their patronising nonsense which you can insert into your own witness statement. 

Harry77

Car1980 said:

Yes, entirely typical template of theirs criticising a template (without hint of irony).

if you search there is a recent and decent savaging of their patronising nonsense which you can insert into your own witness statement. 

Thought as much. Thank you.

LDast

Here are some WS points (not all) from another claim issued by Gladstones and responds to some of the same template allegations in their WS. You may find some (especially paragraphs 31 - 42), if not all of it, relevant and some of the pointers to their WS may even be the same reference paragraphs:

Hearsay evidence

10. The Claimants 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.

11. While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, it is required to be given less weight, especially when it comes from someone with no firsthand knowledge. Furthermore, under CPR 32.2, the court has the discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it is of limited probative value. In this case, the witness provides only second-hand information from the claimant and cannot be considered reliable or probative.

12. The claimant's Witness Statement (WS) fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with no direct involvement in the events, relies on information provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which weakens its credibility. Further, the claimant's witness has failed to indicate the source of any information and belief, as required under PD 32.18.2.

13. The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimants company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies, or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case. This distance from the Claimants company further undermines their ability to give a credible account of the facts.

14. The claimant's WS is written in the third person, which is inappropriate for a witness statement. A WS should represent the personal account of the witness and should be written in the first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in their own words.

Unenforceable Additional Costs

9. In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid." However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.

20. In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.'

Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

21. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained.

22. The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.

23. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the claim as unenforceable.

Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues

31. In paragraph 23 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim — makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.

32. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.

33. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

34. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behavior violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

35. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

36. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant asserts that I have been able to produce a "substantive defence" and implies that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result of the claimant's failure to provide detailed and compliant Particulars of Claim (PoC). I respectfully submit that this assertion is inaccurate and fails to appreciate the nature of my defence.

37. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific allegations.

38. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state:

"I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at the location as this claim is the first communication I have ever received on this matter."

39. This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation of the circumstances of the alleged incident.

40. It is important to highlight that my defence is not "substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies, but is rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and their failure to provide me with any prior information about the alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.

41. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.

42. I respectfully request that the court takes this into account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact it has had on my ability to defend this claim.

Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4

43. In paragraph 26 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar failures led to claims being struck out.

44. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

45. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence.

Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof

54. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim. Specifically:

55. Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.

56. Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention, preventing me from fully understanding the case against me. Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking out of the claim.

57. Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their own knowledge and which are based on information provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their evidence.

60. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient evidence and comply with legal procedures, as well as their lack of contractual authority to operate at the location. Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case, despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with clear and adequate information from the outset.

61. I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these proceedings when making any assessment of costs.

62. In the matter of costs, I ask:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5

63. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Harry77

Thank you LDast. I’m going through everything over the weekend and drawing up my witnesses statement. So your post is very helpful. 

Harry77

I have now make a draft witness statement and was hoping someone would be kind enough to have a look over please and point out if anything needs taking out or adding. Thanks in advance.

Harry77

                                                                                                                                                                                  Name of Witness:***

                                                                                                                                                                                  Witness Statement No.: One

                                                                                         

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CHELMSFORD

                                                                                                                                                                                     Claim No.: *****

                                                                                                             Between

                                                                              PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LIMITED

                                                                                                            (Claimant)

                                                                                                                    V

                                                                                                          MR ******

                                                                                                            (Defendant)

                                                                                                             ________

                                                            WITNESS STATEMENT OF ************

                                  

 

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 Chelmsford County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

BACKGROUND.

1. I have in the past frequently used the parking facility at Block 2 Fountayne Business Centre (ADA College) London, N15 4AG. To attend a local Sports venue. The parking facility as mentioned in the Claimant WS is only available to customers who pre book via the JustPark app or Online. I have an account with JustPark and make my bookings and payments online. 
2. As mentioned prior to the date I would like to park my vehicle at said venue or any other, I make a booking within a specific timeframe and pay the required fee via Online card payment. This leaves a record of the booking within my account on Just park with a booking reference number and card payment receipt. 
3. I will now make reference to Exhibit 1, & 2. Which is archived records within my account at Just park, that show not only did I make payment to Just park for the facility of parking at the venue and date in question but I also have the transaction receipt from both Just park and my Card payment Statement. Exhibit 3.
4. I have also added all other parking transactions at said venue made via Just park for the year 2023. Exhibit 4.
5. I would also like to mention said venue is no longer available on the Just parking platform due to other customers experiencing the same issue as myself with unfounded parking charges being received. 
6. As you can see by my evidence provided I made a booking via My JustPark account on 12th March 2023 to park my vehicle at said location on 8th April 2023 between 1345pm and 1745pm, Which the photos provided by the claimant clearly show I parked within my allocated time slot.
7. I make reference to section 11 of the claimants WS statement * “it is the drivers responsibility to make sure payment for parking is confirmed with JustPark This can be made on the JustPark app or at JustPark.com”. * “It is the driver’s responsibility to make sure the vehicle registration is correctly added at the time of booking”. It is clear by the evidence provided I did just that some 4 weeks prior to parking my Vehicle at said venue. 
8. Regarding the claimants Exhibit GS 2. Again with the evidence I have supplied it is clear, in no way shape or form have I breached any of those conditions. Further more with evidence I provide showing various other times I have parked at said venue it brings The Claimants Exhibit GS5 into serious question as the dates shown are between 19.12.2023-19.01.2024 Some 8 months after the alleged breach. Therefore the Claim before the Court today is 100% unfounded.

Hearsay evidence

9. The Claimants 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.

10. While the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, it is required to be given less weight, especially when it comes from someone with no firsthand knowledge. Furthermore, under CPR 32.2, the court has the discretion to exclude hearsay evidence when it is of limited probative value. In this case, the witness provides only second-hand information from the claimant and cannot be considered reliable or probative.

11. The claimant's Witness Statement (WS) fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with no direct involvement in the events, relies on information provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which weakens its credibility. Further, the claimant's witness has failed to indicate the source of any information and belief, as required under PD 32.18.2.

12. The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimants company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies, or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case. This distance from the Claimants company further undermines their ability to give a credible account of the facts.

13. The claimant's WS is written in the third person, which is inappropriate for a witness statement. A WS should represent the personal account of the witness and should be written in the first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1, which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in their own words.

Unenforceable Additional Costs

14. In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid." However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.

15. In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.'

Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

16. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained.

17. The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.

18. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the claim as unenforceable.

Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues

19. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim — makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.

20. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.

Harry77

                                                                                                                                                                                  Name of Witness:***

                                                                                                                                                                                  Witness Statement No.: One

                                                                                        

21. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

22. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behavior violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

23. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

24. In paragraph 26 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant asserts that I have been able to produce a "substantive defence" and implies that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result of the claimant's failure to provide detailed and compliant Particulars of Claim (PoC). I respectfully submit that this assertion is inaccurate and fails to appreciate the nature of my defence.

25.My defence primarily relies on the fact that the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific allegations.

26. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state:

27. This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation of the circumstances of the alleged incident.

28. It is important to highlight that my defence is not "substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies, but is rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and their failure to provide me with any prior information about the alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.

29. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.

30. I respectfully request that the court takes this into account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact it has had on my ability to defend this claim.

Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4

31. In paragraph 26 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar failures led to claims being struck out.

32. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

33. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence.

Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof

34. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim. Specifically:

1. The Claimants Exhibit GS5 has omitted to include any transaction history around the relevant time period, despite numerous bookings made by myself through JustPark in the year 2023 to park at said venue. The time period covered by Exhibit GS5 is 8 months later between 19.12.2023-19.01.2024 showing no bookings, however I parked there twice during that time period on 23.12.2023 and 31.12.2023 but the actual booking and payments were made prior to that timeframe on 02.12.2023 as shown in Exhibit 4. 

36. Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.

37. Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention, preventing me from fully understanding the case against me. Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking out of the claim.

38. Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their own knowledge and which are based on information provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their evidence.

39. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient evidence and comply with legal procedures, as well as their lack of contractual authority to operate at the location. Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case, despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with clear and adequate information from the outset.

40. I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these proceedings when making any assessment of costs.

41. In the matter of costs, I ask:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5

Nellymoser

Para 22 typo behavior....you've missed the u in behaviour

Good luck

Harry77

Nellymoser said:

Para 22 typo behavior....you've missed the u in behaviour

Good luck

Thank you 

1505grandad

"32. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs....."

Unless I missed it there is no ref. to those cases?