Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small Claims Track" questionnaire to fill out.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

The OP should carry on as normal despite the weak defence. At least it wasn't one word!

Surely can't get two of those in one week!

jsn_love

Thank you for all your responses! This has been helpful

jsn_love

Hello,

I have my hearing coming up and was wondering if my witness statement is ok? don't want to make the same mistakes I did when writing my defence:

I, MY NAME, of MY ADDRESS, being the Defendant in this case, state as follows:

1. Introduction and Background 1.1 I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number CAR REG. I do not recall receiving any Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Premier Park Limited before receiving a letter from Debt Recovery Plus (DRP). I also do not recall seeing any PCN affixed to my windscreen at the time of the alleged contravention.

1.2 The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. My defence is repeated and expanded upon as follows.

2. Chronology of Events 2.1 The first I heard of the alleged contravention was via a DRP letter, which I initially assumed to be a scam. I called DRP immediately, who insisted Premier Park had sent prior notices. I had not received any such communication.

2.2 I submitted a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) to Premier Park to confirm whether an original PCN had been issued, and to obtain any other relevant documentation.

2.3 I also contacted my mobile provider EE to obtain call logs that would support my efforts to resolve this matter. EE confirmed that they do not retain call data beyond 12 months, and I was therefore unable to retrieve historical call records.

2.4 My DVLA address was, and remains, correct. There is no explanation as to why any PCNs or reminders were not received.

3. Legal Arguments and Procedural Irregularities 3.1 The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to disclose a proper cause of action. They do not identify the precise conduct alleged to be a breach. This is contrary to CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3–7.5.

3.2 The cases of Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) have established that vague PoC are grounds for striking out claims under CPR 3.4.

3.3 The Claimant has failed to provide a breakdown of the charges and interest calculation, nor substantiated the additional £70 "debt recovery" fee. This is contrary to CPR 16.4(2).

4. Lack of Adequate Notice and Unfair Terms 4.1 The car park at Lakeside Shopping Centre is free of charge to park. There are no payment machines present, and I was not aware of any requirement to pay to park at the time.

4.2 Signage was not visible, prominent, or readable at a distance. POFA 2012 Schedule 4 requires that drivers are given adequate notice. The signage does not meet this standard.

4.3 As per Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, a driver is not bound by terms not seen. Furthermore, Spurling v Bradshaw and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking establish that hidden terms cannot be enforced.

4.4 The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) requires all contract terms and consumer notices to be fair, transparent, and prominently displayed. The signage breaches sections 62–64 and Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, 18).

5. Exaggerated and Unconscionable Charges 5.1 The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 allowed £85 as a justified charge due to the specific commercial context. That justification does not apply here, where Premier Park operates a paid parking site for profit.

5.2 ParkingEye v Somerfield [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) found that inflated admin costs were penal. This principle applies to the unexplained £70 charge added in this case.

5.3 The DLUHC draft Impact Assessment (July 2023) confirms that the average cost of debt recovery is just £8.42. This claim's inflated costs represent a form of double recovery.

6. Public Policy and Market Failure 6.1 The Government has recognised market failure in the private parking sector. The forthcoming statutory Code of Practice was introduced to address misleading signs, aggressive debt collection, and inflated charges.

6.2 Despite its temporary withdrawal for legal reasons, the Code and IA remain highly persuasive and should be considered by the Court in assessing fairness and proportionality.

7. Conclusion and Costs Request 7.1 The Claimant has failed to prove:

• That a valid contract existed;

• That adequate notice was given;

• That the charges claimed are justified or lawful.

7.2 I respectfully ask the Court to dismiss the claim. Given the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour and the time I have spent preparing my case, I request costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) as follows:

• Preparation and research (5 hours at £21.03/hr): £105.15

• Loss of earnings for attending court (7.5 hours at £21.03/hr): £157.73

• Travel expenses: £50.00

• Childcare for 3 children (1 full day): £75.00 Total: £387.88

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: ____________________________

Castle

Have they paid the Hearing fee?

jsn_love

I believe they have paid as I have received an email on 8th July from Gladstone explaining that they have informed and asked the Court to decide the claim in their Client's absence based on the evidence submitted. They have also attached their witness statement to this email. I also have a letter confirming the time, date and location of my hearing on 8t August.

1505grandad

Can you post a copy of the PoC from the claim form  -  redact the VRM

jsn_love

This is my PoC from my claim form:

Gr1pr

Poor POC,  the alleged breach is not mentioned,  so nobody knows what the actual breach was

Seems to me that you should use the Chan and Akande defence option,  in the WS

jsn_love

Thank you, Should I add this to my current witness statement and then I'm good to go?

Two persuasive appeal judgments, Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30), show that vague and generic Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. In Chan (August 2023), HHJ Murch ruled 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." In Akande (May 2024), HHJ Evans held that "Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim." The PoC in this case are similarly deficient and do not state the alleged breach, the terms relied upon, or how it occurred. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

Le_Kirk

You also need to add the judgments to your evidence.  See Judgments <<<LINK