Witness Statement received from claimant PPS (Gladstones)

Harry77

1505grandad said:

"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?

Yes Thank you, you’re correct good spot. Shall I just take out the referenced to earlier in WS part? It’s definitely mentioned in my Defence statement. 

Coupon-mad

No.  If it's relevant, add it in.

Your WS has confused me because I can't see that you've used the a-f recommended exhibits (see the NEWBIES thread) and nothing in it reads like a recent WS - e.g. see the recent one by @Defendant911 or any others from this Summer.

Nobody usually writes a whole WS from scratch.  I quite like what I read but I worry that the usual words and exhibits aren't there as far as I could see. 

Change all mentions of 'Just park' or 'Just parking app' (there's no such thing!) to the proper name JustPark.

Harry77

@Coupon-mad Thank you for your observations and advice. I shall add the relevant exhibits from the a-f recommendations and change the format. My main point though is I paid, I have proof I paid and they have no evidence that I didn’t pay. WS is due today so time is almost up. 

Coupon-mad

I liked your honest WS anyway and a Judge will too.  But the exhibits and standard start and end to the WS will help.

Harry77

@Coupon-mad Thank you for your kind words and help. Very much appreciated. I’m now working on the finished article and hopefully meet the COB deadline today. 

Harry77

@Coupon-mad. Have amended WS.

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)

                                                                                                             ________

Table of Contents:

Witness Statement

Exhibit 01. Copy of payment transaction to JustPark.

Exhibit 02. Copy of Credit card statement showing payment.

Exhibit 03. Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment

Exhibit 04. Parallel Parking v Anon

Exhibit 05. Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 2

Exhibit 06. Parking Eye Limited V Beavis- Paragraphs 98, 193 and 198 Exhibit 15 The Beavis Sign for Comparison

Exhibit  07. JustPark transactions for year 2023, 1

Exhibit 08 JustPark transactions for year 2023,  2

                                                                          WITNESS STATEMENT OF ******

                                  

 

I, Mr , of ***, ***, will say as follows :

 

INTRODUCTION

·         I make this Witness Statement (hereinafter referred to as WS) in readiness for the hearing listed on **.**.2024 at Chelmsford County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

In my statement I shall refer to (See Exhibits 1 - 8 ) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is as follows:

Facts and Sequence of events.

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 JustPark. 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 JustPark 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 JustPark, that show not only did I make payment to JustPark for the facility of parking at the venue and date in question but I also have the transaction receipt from both JustPark and my Card payment Statement. 
4. I have also added all other parking transactions at said venue made via JustPark for the year 2023. Exhibit 7-8.
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.

9. The facts in this WS come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.

Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.

The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very

difficult to respond.

10. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.

E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the

Practice direction to Part 16. On the 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'. The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement

by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract

terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC. (See Exhibit 09)

11. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson

considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the

Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 10)

12. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also

struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail,

and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they

would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on

robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 12)

13. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should

not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly

breaching basic CPRs.

Hearsay evidence

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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.

Harry77

Continued.

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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 behaviour 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.

28. 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

29. 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.

30.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.

31. 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:

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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.

37.  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.

38. 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

39. 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. 

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

1. With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale

1. 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

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.

Signed: 

Name: Mr *******

01.10.2024

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:. 

Change all mentions of 'Just park' or 'Just parking app' (there's no such thing!) to the proper name JustPark.

As above, repeated. If it jars with me to read 'Just parking platform' and all the other instances with no capital initials of a company, it might irk the equally pedantic Judge too!

Secondly search the forum for:

now two persuasive Chan Akande true

Copy one that removes the pointless extra exhibits. You should only be mentioning Chan and Akande ... and ONLY IF YOUR POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH. Do they?

1505grandad

The para after 45  -  there is no ban yet:-

"1.  With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view......

Harry77

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:. 

Change all mentions of 'Just park' or 'Just parking app' (there's no such thing!) to the proper name JustPark.

As above, repeated. If it jars with me to read 'Just parking platform' and all the other instances with no capital initials of a company, it might irk the equally pedantic Judge too!

Secondly search the forum for:

now two persuasive Chan Akande true

Copy one that removes the pointless extra exhibits. You should only be mentioning Chan and Akande ... and ONLY IF YOUR POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH. Do they?

Thank you. Yes POC states “Parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage” It wasn’t until I received their WS last week that I knew they were alleging non payment.