Total Carpark PCN

toddler9

This is what I have written but not yet submitted: 

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and relate to the Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by the Claimant.
2. I acknowledge that my vehicle was parked at. X, Manchester on 25/09/2024between 11:51am and 12:07pm, as recorded by the Claimant.

Attempts to Pay for Parking

1. During the entire period I was parked, I was actively attempting to pay for parking using the Claimant’s designated payment app. I attempted payment using three different cards, all of which failed despite multiple attempts.
2. When the payment attempts repeatedly failed, I used the help/support function within the app to notify the Claimant of the issue and to request an alternative method of payment. No immediate response was received.
3. As I was unable to make payment through the app and had received no guidance from the help function, I briefly left the car park on foot to look for an alternative payment method, such as a nearby pay machine that accepted cash, Apple Pay, or another card method. No such facility existed in the vicinity.
4. After returning to the car park and still having received no response from the Claimant’s help system, and with no available means to pay, I moved my vehicle out of the car park.

Confirmation of Payment System Failure

1. On the following day, I received a response to my help ticket submitted through the app.
2. I exhibit as Exhibit LM1 a copy of the email received from ticket@parkonomy.com on 26/09/2024 at 14:47, which states: “We are aware some customers were having an issue with Mastercard payments on 24th and 25th September…”. This confirms that the Claimant’s payment system was experiencing faults at the exact time I attempted to pay using three different Mastercard‑linked payment methods.
3. This confirmation directly supports my account that I made genuine and reasonable attempts to pay, and that the failure to pay was due to the Claimant’s own payment system issues, not any refusal or neglect on my part.

Claimant’s Assertions Regarding Alternative Payment Methods

1. The Claimant asserts that I should have called the telephone number displayed on the signage to make payment. However:

• The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the telephone payment system used a different payment processor unaffected by the Mastercard issue.
• The Claimant has not demonstrated that the customers they refer to as having successfully paid during the same period were using Mastercard or that their payments were processed through the same system.
• The Claimant has not provided any technical evidence confirming that the telephone payment line was operationally independent from the app payment system.

1. Without such evidence, the Claimant’s assertion that I “could have paid by phone” is speculative. It is equally possible that the same Mastercard processing issue would have prevented payment via telephone.
2. The Claimant’s own evidence (Exhibit 7) acknowledges that some customers were experiencing Mastercard payment issues, which is consistent with my experience and supports my position that I made reasonable efforts to comply with the terms.

Reasonableness of My Conduct

1. I made multiple attempts to pay using the method prescribed by the Claimant.
2. I sought assistance through the Claimant’s own help function.
3. I attempted to locate an alternative payment method off‑site.
4. I left the car park once it became clear that payment could not be made.
5. At no point did I ignore the requirement to pay; rather, I was prevented from doing so by the Claimant’s own system failure.
6. It is unreasonable for the Claimant to penalise a motorist for circumstances entirely outside their control, particularly when the Claimant later confirmed the payment system fault.

Conclusion

1. I respectfully submit that I acted at all times in good faith and made every reasonable effort to comply with the parking terms.
2. The inability to pay was caused solely by the Claimant’s payment system malfunction, as later confirmed by them.
3. The Claimant has not provided evidence that any alternative payment method would have succeeded, nor that other customers paid using Mastercard during the relevant period.
4. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Claimant’s claim.

toddler9

In a twist of events when reading through the witness statement exhibits it appears the landowner of the carpark is my employer (a very large organisation) I will speak to the legal team tomorrow and ask them to ask TCP to discontinue the claim and also continue with the proceedings in the meantime time!

Coupon-mad

A good start ... but you have added nothing from the long list of suggested exhibits (that nobody ever seems to read!) in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread. You haven't even touched upon the fact that adding a fake 'debt recovery fee' is double recovery of minor letter chain costs that are already well covered by the full inflated PCN (as was held by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis).

Also if they recorded you arriving and leaving by ANPR cameras at the exit, then you were certainly NOT 'parked' for this period, so don't say you were:

I acknowledge that my vehicle was parked at. X, Manchester on 25/09/2024between 11:51am and 12:07pm, as recorded by the Claimant.

toddler9

Thanks I did read the post 2 but I couldn’t see anything which was relevant to this case particularly to include but that’s because it’s all bit confusing. I will check the Parking Eye V Beavis details to add.
Just a question do the exhibits need to be a separate attachment(s) all as one PDF at the bottom of the witness statement ? 

Coupon-mad

toddler9 said:

Thanks I did read the post 2 but I couldn’t see anything which was relevant to this case particularly to include but that’s because it’s all bit confusing. I will check the Parking Eye V Beavis details to add.

Just a question do the exhibits need to be a separate attachment(s) all as one PDF at the bottom of the witness statement ? 

Yes, each page must be numbered and each exhibit numbered as well.

What about Excel v Wilkinson on my exhibits list? It obviously applies to every case (as do the Beavis quotes) but you haven't tackled the fakery of the double recovery yet.

Here are some more forum searches for you that will find better WS as long as you only read 2025 search results:

Mazur v Speechlys Sarah Ensall

and

Reasonable endeavours witness true

and

Jolley v Carmel Ltd (2000) 2-EGLR-154

toddler9

So this was my final witness statement. In the end I got so worn down with it and lost in what was an wasn’t applicable from past cases. I’ve three young children and stressful job. Good news is that my employer (the landowner) is going to see how they can help. I work asked out legal team to have a quick look at it and they said they believe the case should be dismissed 🙏

1. I am the Defendant in these proceedings. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. This statement relates to a Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") issued by the Claimant in respect of Xxxx, Manchester, on 25 September 2024. I do not accept liability for the PCN for the reasons set out below.

3. I acknowledge that my vehicle was present at the location on 25 September 2024 between approximately 11:51 and 12:07, as recorded by the Claimant. During that short period I was continuously attempting to pay for parking using the Claimant’s prescribed payment method.

B. ATTEMPTS TO PAY & WHAT I DID

4. Throughout the entire time the vehicle was on site, I was actively attempting to pay for parking via the Claimant’s designated payment application, Parkonomy.

5. I made multiple payment attempts using three different cards (a combination of credit and debit cards). Each attempt failed, despite repeated retries.

6. When those attempts failed, I used the help/support function within the Parkonomy app to notify the operator of the problem and to seek assistance or an alternative means of payment. No immediate response was received.

7. I then briefly left the car park on foot to look for an alternative payment method, such as a nearby pay machine or another facility (e.g., cash, Apple Pay, or a different card terminal). I could not locate any such alternative.

8. After returning to the car park and still having received no response or assistance, and with no viable means to pay available, I left the car park and moved my vehicle off site.

C. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT SYSTEM FAULT

9. On the following day, I received a response to my help ticket submitted through the Parkonomy app.

10. I exhibit as Exhibit LM1 a copy of the email received from ticket@parkonomy.com on 26 September 2024 at 14:47, stating: "We are aware some customers were having an issue with Mastercard payments on 24th and 25th September…".

11. This is a contemporaneous, written admission confirming that Mastercard payments were failing on the day I attempted to pay using Mastercard‑linked methods. It directly corroborates my account that I made genuine, reasonable attempts to pay, and that the failure to pay was caused by the Claimant’s payment system issues, not by any refusal or neglect on my part.

D. SIGNAGE & ALLEGED “ALTERNATIVE” PAYMENT METHODS

12. The Claimant now asserts that I could have paid by "various other payment methods including via telephone". However, the signage exhibited by the Claimant displays only two card symbols—Visa and Mastercard—and does not identify American Express, cash, Apple Pay, or any other method. Nor does it explain that telephone payments (if available) used a different processor or would be unaffected by the Mastercard failure.

13. I exhibit as Exhibit LM2 a photograph of the signage at the material location, showing only Visa and Mastercard logos and no guidance about alternative methods if the app fails, nor any warning of known issues affecting Mastercard payments.

14. The Claimant has provided no technical evidence that a telephone payment line (if in operation) used a different payment processor unaffected by the same Mastercard issue. The statement that the problem was not related to Parkonomy is speculative and unsupported by evidence. In contrast, Exhibit LM1 is a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of Mastercard failures on the relevant dates.

15. The Claimant’s suggestion effectively requires motorists to: (i) carry multiple different card types, (ii) understand the internal workings of the operator’s payment systems, and (iii) predict which methods might work during a system fault. That is not a reasonable expectation in consumer contracting. The signage did not warn of any known issues, did not indicate that Mastercard might not be accepted, and did not instruct motorists that they must call a number if the app fails.

E. LEGAL PRINCIPLES SUPPORTING MY POSITION

16. Reasonable endeavours prevented by system failure: Where a party makes reasonable endeavours to comply but is prevented by circumstances outside their control, liability should not arise. See Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154. I made multiple good‑faith attempts to pay using the prescribed method; it was the operator’s own payment failure that prevented performance.

17. Beavis distinguished: The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld a charge in circumstances where clear signage, a functioning payment regime, and a legitimate interest were present. Here, the operator’s own system failure prevented payment. Issuing a punitive charge in those circumstances is not commercially justified and offends the fairness rationale in Beavis.

18. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA): Any term relied upon to impose additional “debt recovery” sums is subject to the requirement of fairness (CRA 2015, s.62). Terms permitting a trader to recover disproportionate or duplicative sums (particularly where the core parking charge already purports to cover the operator’s costs) are liable to be unfair. The CRA’s indicative list (Sch. 2) includes terms requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

F. COSTS & CONDUCT

19. The Claimant’s witness statement (para 22(iv)) suggests costs are “not ordinarily applicable” on the Small Claims Track. That is misleading. CPR 27.14(2)(a) expressly permits fixed costs for witness attendance at a hearing, and CPR 27.14(2)(g) permits the Court to award additional costs where a party has behaved unreasonably.

20. I respectfully request that the Court considers an order for costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(a) and 27.14(2)(g). I have incurred, and will incur, costs as a direct result of these proceedings, including: (a) Loss of earnings for attending the hearing (capped at £95 per day under CPR 27.14(2)(a)); and (b) Reasonable travel expenses to and from the Court.

21. I will produce evidence of these costs at the hearing (e.g., proof of earnings and travel receipts). Should the claim be dismissed or discontinued at a late stage, I will respectfully seek a costs order, including under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

22. The Claimant denies unreasonable behavior (para 22(v)), yet persisted with litigation despite clear, contemporaneous evidence (Exhibit LM1) that their payment system was failing at the material time, and despite my detailed explanation that I acted in good faith and made prompt attempts to pay and to seek assistance. Continuing the claim in the face of that evidence amounts to unreasonable behavior within CPR 27.14(2)(g), causing unnecessary expense and inconvenience.

G. CHALLENGE TO “CONTRACTUAL COSTS” ADD-ONS

23. The Claimant seeks additional “contractual costs” for debt recovery (see their paras 26–29). These sums should be disallowed: (a) The Supreme Court in Beavis confirmed that the core parking charge itself serves as both a deterrent and to cover the operator’s running costs. Attempts to layer on “debt recovery” sums are double recovery. (b) Any such term is subject to CRA 2015 s.62 and is liable to be unfair when it permits disproportionate or duplicative recovery, particularly where the operator’s own systems precipitated the alleged breach. (c) In any event, the claim is on the Small Claims Track and should be confined to the principal sum only, disallowing any additional, unproven, or unfair add‑ons.

H. REASONABLENESS OF MY CONDUCT

24. I made multiple attempts to pay using the exact method directed by the operator.

25. I promptly used the operator’s own help function to report the fault and request assistance.

26. I attempted to locate an alternative means of payment.

27. When it became clear payment could not be made due to the operator’s system failure, I left the car park.

28. At no point did I ignore the requirement to pay. I was prevented from doing so by the Claimant’s system, later confirmed in writing (Exhibit LM1).

I. CONCLUSION

29. I acted at all times in good faith and made every reasonable effort to comply with the parking terms. The inability to pay was caused solely by the Claimant’s payment system malfunction.

30. The Claimant has not provided evidence that Mastercard transactions (or telephone payments said to be available) were in fact processing successfully at the material time, nor any technical evidence that a different unaffected processor was available to me.

31. In the circumstances, the PCN is unjust and should not be enforced. I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed.

32. In the alternative (and without concession), any award should be strictly limited to the basic parking charge with all additional “debt recovery” or add‑on sums disallowed as unfair and/or unrecoverable on the Small Claims Track.

33. I further respectfully request that the Court considers my application for costs as set out at Section F above.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Gr1pr

That statement of truth at the bottom is 5 years out of date,  so replace it with the current longer WS statement of truth , because your old version is invalid 

toddler9

Gr1pr said:

That statement of truth at the bottom is 5 years out of date,  so replace it with the current longer WS statement of truth , because your old version is invalid 

I’ve already submitted it the deadline was yesterday 😭 Can I send a correction? I used the wording from justice.gov.uk template witness statement but can now see that hasn’t been updated since 2017 . Obviously I am feeling very foolish now 

Gr1pr

The correct one is in all recent cases and probably on the court order you received

Send it again with the correct statement of truth and state that its because yesterdays WS was defective 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part22/pd_part22

https://www.jpclaw.co.uk/latest/new-statement-of-truth-what-you-need-to-know

From Google 

Coupon-mad

It is a very good WS by the way!